![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Hello - thanks for closing the discussion, but I think you misread the consensus. I think the consensus was to keep the redirect as it was - to Dire Straits. Most people agreed that that would be acceptable, especially after the dab page was created. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would you mind taking another look? Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
When I repaired the operation defensive shield article in the aftermath, I noticed that anytime you edit that article (and presumably any other israel palestine article) there's a notice that the article has a 1RR restriction, so there's no way he couldn't have known about the 1RR restriction having edited the article twice. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned me somehow to the moderators/administrators board as being a possible alias of EnlightenedOne? I can assure you I am simply a new user, though I realize this may be difficult to prove... but simply let me know if there's anything I can do differently! Thank you! Santacide ( talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
NOTICE : "The topic of Plasma cosmology is covered by an Arbcom case".
REPLY: Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate alternative cosmological model postulated by professional physicists in accordance with accepted interactions of phyics. On these terms - it is neither Pseudoscience, nor fringe science. It is simply an alternative model. 217.208.57.69 ( talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, as agreed. The page need to be semi-protected. Furthermore, this same IP User 217.208.57.69 is again 3RRR Edit warring on Plasma cosmology again after a recent 48 hour sanction. Could you please advise on further action against this disruptive user? Arianewiki1 ( talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the hat-tip regarding the edits at Marco Rubio. Collect may have been in the wrong with how they were editing, but they were making a good point. -- McDoob AU93 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to give up because the article is false and racially offensive. A mater of fact I am going to get more people to edit this article because this is what is necessary to have the truth written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for protecting Ancient Macedonians, however, your protection of Talk:Gaulish language may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Only one IP edit, the latest, was a ban-evading Wikinger sock. All the previous ones are a single, apparently legitimate user. He's been making a bit of a nuisance of himself by refusing to sign his posts, and he has something of a penchant for OR arguments, but other than that I think he should still be regarded as legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that I understand your decision about the 3RR ruling you made about Cwobeel. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But furthermore, I just wanted to point out that there is more information that happened after your decision that I think you need to be made aware of. Cwobeel pasted the immature, "See I told you so comments below on my talk page." I think these comments indicate his attitude clearly. It indicates that he arrogant and unwilling to work with those who disagree with him. He will violate 3RR again, which he has in the past (he didn't get a pass that time) and I will report him again. Hopefully the new admin will be like the last admin and hold him accountable for his arrogant and self-righteous editing. I hope you have a good day!-- NK ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jaqeli nominated Pharnavaz I of Iberia for Good Article status. After I did the review, I realized that they are under a topic ban against editing articles relating to Georgia and Armenia. Does the ban extend to ancient Georgian history? I noted on their talk page and on the nomination list that the user is under a topic ban, and that once the ban is lifted they can address the issues that I brought up with the nomination. Today they edited the article in question in response to my review - is this within the scope of the ban or not? Please let me know promptly.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:
Hi, in April you blocked User:Septate for 48 hours for edit-warring with deceptive edit summaries to remove a particular image of Muhammad from the Islam article, in response to my 3RR report here. Today, he removed it again here. Someone else gave him a 3RR warning in response. What's the correct process at this point and can action be taken because of this one further removal? To be honest I've given up on AGF for this user and he seems to be waiting for "the dust to settle" so no one will notice (as he thinks) to try it again. DeCausa ( talk) 05:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In January, you consulted me regarding the topic ban on Antidiskriminator ( talk · contribs). I'm afraid that there's been no actual improvement despite the second chance. The flamewars at Talk:Pavle Đurišić appear to be back, and in general there's been way too much acrimony for a situation where someone is given another chance after having been banned for inappropriately causing acrimony.
More specifically, there's been a number of largely unproductive and often unpleasant interactions with him with regard to Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia, Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. I believe that his interpretation of the sourcing policy is largely shoddy, and that his argumentation is largely specious. I have diligently tried to address each of those sourcing issues with a focus on the content rather than the contributor, but I can't help that I notice a pattern - it's often the same editor behaving in such a specific way - writing articles based on cherry-picked quotes from Google Books searches, which are usually in various Serbian nationalist topic areas.
In response, he's approached me directly on my talk page several times now (you can also see that in the last archives, I can send you specific links to that if you need them), with various claims how I was abusing him, the combined effect of which I see as WP:DEPE, pretty much; when I told him off, his instant retort was that I was doing the same to him. *facepalm*
I thought I'll be able to tolerate this, and let him continue to occasionally vent, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me this time is the fact that I got into an unusual amount of trouble recently with fellow admins thinking I was editing while involved, where one of the contentious points was a tiny bit of Antidiskriminator's taunting at Talk:Vukovar that I had reacted to in an annoyed manner. He asked me "wasn't I involved", and I told him to not beat around the bush - if he actually thought that I was involved, he should provide a modicum of explanation why. He didn't do that, just as I expected. Yet, the point that he asked was later brought up by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs), because I could have used that opportunity to consider that issue myself, yet I just dismissed him because I knew it was his habit to make these sorts of annoying statements. I didn't stop to think how this might look to an innocent bystander, and this slip-up was one in a series that led to me being preventively blocked because JamesBWatson thought it all added up into me being actually involved.
In retrospect, my takeaway from that situation is that Ad's actions are really starting to get to me, and that if left unchecked, this is going to boil over one way or another. Since JamesBWatson criticized me for not asking for help earlier in that (unrelated) situation, and rightly so - here I am, asking for your help.
I realize how this may sound - I'm asking a ban-imposing admin to reconsider a ban on a user, while saying I don't want to drive that user away. I honestly don't care whether Antidiskriminator leaves or stays - but I do want this ridiculous downward spiral of increasingly poisonous interactions to stop.
I thought of a self-imposed interaction ban with him, but the problem is that I see that Ad's interactions are having an eerily similar effect on Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs), which is making me think that the main problem isn't really with me.
I suppose it's also possible that two unrelated people from different continents are just being subtle jerks towards Ad, but I don't think that's likely in this case because Pm67 is a user who actually seems to have a sound understanding of the policies and has made a substantially positive contribution.)
Sorry for the wall of text, but this just isn't a trivial thing to explain :/ Thanks. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You blocked Manzilnfl ( talk · contribs) here. I think they're back as Mnzlpoudar ( talk · contribs): similar pattern of weird deletions (eg: at Yadav today) and interest in an article that has been at AfD under various titles at least twice ( Poudar - see here and here). Does this tally with your experience of Blackhu20 ( talk · contribs), who also seems to be a sock of someone else? Should I log a case at SPI? Last time round, it didn't really get anywhere due to lack of overlap etc. - Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that the vandalism which, for years, used to take up a lot of editors' time at Germany (whenever semi-protection was lifted) has restarted. Could it be that the expiry of your recent full protection unintentionally removed the indefinite semi-protection? -- Boson ( talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I notified FatGuySeven ( talk · contribs) here of the SAQ ArbCom sanctions. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I got a notification about this comment. What does this mean and how does it concern me? FatGuySeven ( talk) 03:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Was the discussion over? I see that user:elmasmelih moved the article again. I was not aware of a consensus. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 14:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I just created a second report at AN3. Can't remember when I've created two in the space of a few days. It's hard work. Some of the instructions are confusing. What does "Previous version reverted to" mean? I always ignore it when evaluating reports, but it's not obvious to me what you're supposed to put there. Going to bed now.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this is fine in relation to Kohala Pakistan. But didn't notice at the time that there were two Kohala Hawaii articles. I'll leave a note on the relevant article Talk pages. No need for you to do anything, just heads up. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you believe that this editor needs to be alerted again of the existence of discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBPIA? As I understand the complicated instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts, he does not because although he was warned more than a year ago, he was also sanctioned by you in February 2013. His block log shows it, but I believe you neglected to log the sanction (you logged the warning). I don't think that matters, though. Your view?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ed, I am somewhat concerned by the antics of the above IP regarding the wholesale deletion of "Quotes". They have now reverted my comment on their Talk page regarding the whole discussion. Whilst I fully accept they can delete from their Talk page, it does seem rather strange that they are also trying to censor comments on their actions. I consider their wholesale deletions with a comment that they would not transfer them to Wikiquote to be pure vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I could have written much more in my request at ARE, but I was trying to stay within the 500 word limit. If you have any questions, please let me know. Also, I left some explanatory replies on Sandstein's talk page. Personally, I think the editor in question is trying to wear me down. He edits a lot of porn-star pages, and he knows I'm a woman. I doubt he has a lot of respect for women - though, of course, that is only my opinion. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Does this qualify as harassment? After I reverted an unsourced BLP addition at Billy Connolly ( [2]) that was removed by another ( [3]), 173.58.213.175 reverted my edits thrice ( [4], [5], and [6]). TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 03:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, in the past you helped me keep and eye on a number of IP ranges to keep tabs on an IP sock (self-styled as "Cassandra"), such as this:
http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.0.0/19
With Toolserver out of the picture, do you know if there's an alternative tool which I could use for range monitoring as Cassandra still occasionally re-surfaces with POV-pushing edits. (Your "revert, ignore" advice seems to be a productive strategy though, as they tend to disappear for a while thereafter.) Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ed, if you have time, would it be possible for you have a quick read through User talk:Sean.hoyland#Khdeir article and editor Midrashah to see whether an ARBPIA notification for editor Midrashah (or other advice) might help address Dovid's concerns about the editor, which seem reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, regarding this, what do you want to do? Note that according to contribution, Plot Spoiler hasn't edited since June 26. Suspend it longer, or? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 13:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
These pages no longer needs to be salted after creation are limited to administrators, account creators, and template editors. These will no longer be a target of abuse, and account creators and template editors can create it per consensus or techincal reason.-- GZWDer ( talk) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If it might be helpful, I will have time this weekend to make a statement concerning this request. However, I'd hate to prolong the death of that thread unnecessarily. Please advise. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a COI. Concerned about a recent IP edit and was wondering if you had time to take a look [7] CorporateM ( Talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Makedonovlah started his disruption again after the 2-week block which you gave him. A longer block may be necessary. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked consensus. Why Mister Δρ.Κ. doesnt talk on the talk page? Why he only wants to block me? I Asked consensus and i gave the source for my change. Mister DrK has something personal with an user? Thank you. ( Makedonovlah ( talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
Hello Yagmurlukorfez. I noticed this unusual page title, and figured that it was created by mistake. It's now been deleted per WP:CSD#G6. Generally user pages and user talk pages are not moved. Nobody is required to have a user page, but you generally need to have a user talk which corresponds to your account name. If you desire to change your user name, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston: Just a heads up, because it's hard to tell who's seen what in ARE discussions: I've added info to my request, as you suggested on 14 July 2014 - unless you or Lord Roem, or Penwhale, or Sandstein have more questions?
The addition is Reply to Admins, and you might review the details of my reply to Scalhotrod, too. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, thanks for closing the AE re Baghdad Bombings. You mentioned that my edits have caused concerns, but didn't mention what/how. As you may know I often edit in this very difficult area of our project, primarily because I believe that the passions of the opposing editors can be put to good use in creating a more balanced and neutral narrative on the I-P conflict than is otherwise available anywhere else. I am very cognizant of the challenges of the area, and so strive to hold myself to the highest talk page standards. The problem is that it's not always clear what those standards should be. I had been following the advice of User:Georgewilliamherbert, as I mentioned at the AE, but from your closing comments I now wonder whether George's advice reflects admins' consensus view of how to work with editors who are reverting but not contributing. In your closing comment you mentioned Dispute Resolution, which of course ultimately requires convincing a third party to care enough about the subject to (1) bother reading all the sources, and (2) spend the time to negotiate with both sides to find an acceptable solution. Which is why in disputes which depend on reading a lot of sources, Dispute Resolution often hits a brick wall and just wastes a lot of time. The core issue in my mind is why should a third party have to waste their time getting involved if one of the two opposing sides are simply not pulling their weight at the talk page? Anyway, the reason for this post is to ask whether you can be a little more specific in your views, and /or whether you have any other advice for me going forward to avoid such concerns? This is not the first time I have come up against a slow burn edit war with an editor who doesn't have the time or inclination to discuss the sources, and it won't be the last, so any advice would be appreciated.
TLDR: What exactly can I do better next time, recognising the shortcomings of WP:DR?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just read the essay Responding to a failure to discuss by User:TransporterMan.
The essay states clearly, "As noted in the Dispute Resolution policy, all content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there), and Formal Mediation — require thorough talk page discussion at the article talk page before a request for DR can be properly filed."
My situation therefore appears to have fallen between the cracks:
So unless i've misunderstood, I cannot use WP:DR or WP:AE, and Plot Spoiler continues to ignore my pleas to discuss, so I am totally stuck. Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with Dailey78 ( talk · contribs)'s NPOV editing of a quote and other issues and just realised that he's ignoring the restriction he accepted instead of a block, see User talk:Dailey78#Please adhere to your restriction on editing. He simply doesn't seem able to or willing to follow our NPOV policy and continues to edit without gaining consensus at both articles, which of course causes more work for others as well as breaking his restriction. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) and
Naqada culture, similar to the Badari
Rod (
talk)
16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not changing my quotation to split it and add 'however' is a revert is debatable, some Admins would see it as a revert and others would not. But that doesn't really matter, it was a violation of your restriction. The first one that I said was a clear revert[ [15]]. And a violation of your restriction, which is why I came here. Nice that you appreciate my being civil, but your statement that I am on a witch-hunt rather devalues that. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston.
My edit wasn't incorrect. I am aware of the revival of Greek religion. The problem is that the name "Hellenismos" has been chosen and imposed throughout Wikipedia by user Reigndog, who I suspect to be the same as Dchmelik, the same user who "coined" the term creating the portal. The name "Hellenismos" has the problem to be a hybrid word neither Greek (the transliteration is conventional) nor English, where English has its native term "Hellenism".-- Karl's Wagon ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no consensus for the use of "Hellenismos", as you can read here, here and here, contrary to what user Reigndog claims.-- Karl's Wagon ( talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you, have fixed it. Semitransgenic talk. 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just blocked him per WP:ARBPIA for violating 1RR. We are permitted to block without warning after a 1RR violation, but generally I don't like to. In this case, your warning satisfied me. That said, I wanted also to alert him to DS because using that as a basis for sanctions in the future does require an alert. However, the template is so unsuitable in these circumstances. The final sentence ("This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.") is so dissonant as to be ludicrous. This isn't the first time that sentence has bothered me, but it's the most stark.
My preference would be to eliminate the sentence. I don't see why we need it. If that won't fly, I would strike "only" and add the bolded word as follows:
What do you think?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
im sorry about the edit issue with collateral am I let off the hook. can I get a response thanks from tomwikiman. Tomwikiman ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, Ed. Any idea when the AfD brought by the blocked user might close? [17] It has been open for awhile. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have made my response to the accusations made by user Faustian. The reply is a bit on the lengthy side, but I included some very valid comments made by other contributors to the Talk Page who also had issue with user Faustian's editing, and potential bias. The reverts are due to Faustian continuing to add highly controversial material despite recommendations by other users against doing so. -- COD T 3 ( talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston; From the notice you left for Editor BigBaby regarding the "Wikipedia" page, I have noticed that he/she has ignored your fair warning and is continuing the reverts now into August 1. Three of us have engaged on Talk page there and have been involved in cleaning up the page without success. This is the latest time stamp from after your fair warning to that user. If you would like me to post the links and diffs for all these, then let me know and I'll try to fill them in if the ANI is needed to help to protect the page. The 4 of us trying to help are getting pretty exhausted:
(cur | prev) 01:11, 1 August 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (216,787 bytes) (+403) . . (Undid revision 619351965 by LawrencePrincipe. This violates WP:NPOV by using WP:WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:COAT to completely nullify the Criticism section. Intro=represent article in full.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:15, 31 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,177 bytes) (+403) . . (less text (as commented before) this paragraph was all WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:Peacock.Now it is reflecting and summarizing the vast Criticism section as per WP:LEAD) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:33, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,345 bytes) (+1,073) . . (reverted LawrencePrincipe .BRD policy guidelines are being misused and misrepresented in order to block a legitimate edit) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:25, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) m . . (217,345 bytes) (-193) . . (fixed mistake (double sentence)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:19, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,538 bytes) (+1,266) . . (Reverted LawrencePrincipe. This has nothing to do with the MAY edit. the Slate reference is misrepresented and Major Criticism of Wikipedia has due weight in the lead. See talk page) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:43, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,345 bytes) (+322) . . (continued from last edit) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:32, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,023 bytes) (-285) . . (This notable and scholarly sources have not "examined" they have criticized wikipedia. the Slate article is a negative article about wikipedia, misrepresented as a positive reference. WP:LEAD requires us to add main criticism in lead.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:45, 28 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (216,004 bytes) (+974) . . (added the major criticisms from the most scholarly sources from the wikipedia criticism article to the lead.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:24, 28 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,221 bytes) (+674) . . (→Criticism: I read the main criticism article. somebody made a mess here with the citation and text. I put the right reference + presented the citations criticism in a NPOV) (undo | thank)
If you would like us to continue to try to reason again with that user, then let me know and we can try again. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
the truth about the entire max havoc/albert pyun story is here: http://impactonline.co/features/1704-albert-pyun-max-havoc-unclassified
Could you please list it on the page. The LIES NEED TO STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.128.123.119 ( talk) 04:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Is User:COD T 3 still blocked? It appears, when I edit his talk page, that he is still blocked. He posted a request to his talk page asking me to help him prepare an RFC. I declined the request. However, it now occurs to me that maybe that was an inappropriate use of his talk page while blocked, to request conduct assistance rather than to discuss his block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ed, are you reading my comments or Collect's [18] Where have I not been clear that I understand I violated the ban and won't do it again? I'd appreciate the input. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, here: [19] you made a comment about me "I have some concerns about User:Faustian's edits but I don't think the problem is severe enough for anything more than a warning at this time" and I would like your advice, which maybe would help me deal with disruptive editors in the future. What could I do, that I did not do, when someone decides to just blank information in an obscure article without other editors around to, for example, "outvote" him by reverts? When it is only me, and the guy deleting stuff. He deleted, I added, and it became an edit war. But if I didn't add the info, he would just essentially have had veto power over the article. I opened two RfCs, each of which had few outside voices, but in both the outside commenters agreed with me and the RfC was closed. I then again added the statement, and then other guy again deleted it. So I added it again, and he deleted. So, how else could I have approached this? If I were dealing with a collaborative editor acting in good faith to build the encyclopedia my multiple reverts would have been wrong, but they were clearly in response to someone simply motivated to keep the info off the article for the sake of keeping negative info off an article. In that specific context, what was concerning about my edits? Respectfully, Faustian ( talk) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Wikiman 36 appeared right after User:COD T 3 was banned. And he jumped into the same editing: [21]. I reverted his changes (is it okay to revert changed of a banned sockpuppet without getting into 3R trouble? I'm not close to 3R yet of course). I've contacted the 2 admins who blocked/banned User:COD T 3 but am hoping this gets resolved quickly. Thanks. Faustian ( talk) 18:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
After account COD T 3 was blocked, user Faustian edited the Blue Army (Poland) article. The edits are significant/bias and were made without initiating any kind of discussion on the talk page (not covered by any of the RfCs). Also, the changes were made immediately after user Faustian received a ArbCom warning regarding his approach to editing the article. Please take action against such disruptive and bias behavior.
-- Wikirun 20 ( talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
Thanks for handling that issue on ANI. I don't know if you read through it, but things were starting to get a little hostile. And it's not the first time, either. Now that that episode has been dealt with, I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice on how best to proceed with a related issue.
Over the past few months, I have been repeatedly referred to various ANIs by the same editor, Tvx1. The reasons for those are many and varied, but nothing has ever come about from them aside from the odd warning. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but that's separate to the issue - the fact is that Tvx1 refers me to an ANI shortly after he and I dispute the best way forward for an article, and I feel it is happening a little too frequently for it to be coincidence anymore. He claims to be acting in the interests of articles, but I have only ever seen him refer people he has disagreed with to ANI. Between that and some of the tactics he uses on talk pages to get his way, it's very hard to assume good faith. Nevertheless, I think it is an issue that should be explored in some way, but I don't know what the appropriate format would be. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article. I hope many editors participate in the RfC to get an idea of the correctness resp. bias of the views involved in the discussion. Please, stay by to intervene if some editor run out of arguments and begins with personal attacks. --Keysanger ( Talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, i'm currently interested in the RfC forum and i've made my contribution to it. However Eduardo seems to be making Personal Attacks on Keysanger and his attempted rebuttals of anything written by Keysanger is just getting repetitive and clogging up the section. Even his reply to my comments somehow attacks keysanger. what is your opinion of this behavior? I'm just asking as a curious contributor to the project. 210.50.245.62 ( talk) 22:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
Edit protect}}
to the request. I hope it helps. --Keysanger (
Talk)
20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Could you please take a look at Frankie Grande. User JHUbal27, an editor you previously blocked for edit warring, seems to be at it again. I've already tried to fix things twice, and I realize WP:3RR doesn't apply in such cases, but it's getting a little tedious. Sorry for laying this on your doorstep, but I don't think adding another warning to this person's talk page is going to make much of a difference. Perhaps as an admin, you can try a different course of action. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Ed, You intervened in a content dispute at Isotretinoin a few months back with a temporary block. The issues have come up again here. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:User931_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29
I thought you might be able to add some neutral input to the discussion.
It is not my habit or intent to canvass, and if you feel this solicitation of your opinion is inappropriate, please disregard this request. Frankly I'm not sure what you will say, but you seemed to have sensible things to say last time around, and that can't be a bad thing. Thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look into a subject which I am sure holds for you only a small fraction of that it holds for me. Formerly 98 ( talk) 05:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98, Thank you for striking, I do have a long standing interest in health, but I’m still confused by the “most of these involvements” comment. I honestly can only remember ever editing two articles with you (Paracetamol and Isotretinoin). Regarding disagreement, we obviously firmly disagreed on Paracetamol, but at this point, I’m not even sure I disagree with you on Isotretinoin. Just feel the issue there isn’t clear, but will try to chime in on talk:Isotretinoin when get a chance. Also, I do have multiple noticeboards on watchlist, and I comment on notices semi-regularly. I really do not feel comfortable refraining from commenting on a listing, if I notice something such as not enough reverts for 3RR violation, because your name is associated with report in some way. I do appreciate you apologizing and striking.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You contacted me about the IP 205.232.106.254, asking me if this was my IP. I'm not sure if it is or not. I did edit the status box in that article, but I wasn't the only one making edits. Furthermore, I have used multiple IP addresses in the past, so I'm not sure if that was one of them. In all honesty, I don't really keep track of that stuff. I hope that answers your question, and sorry I couldn't give a better answer. Toolen ( talk) 05:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Please review recent edits at Deutschlandlied, in which user Comitus has resumed edit warring by reinsertion of disputed content based on original research, synthesis, and misrepresentation/misinterpretation of sources as well as pointy deletion of an entire long-stable section. 2600:1006:B120:5E5F:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You recently instituted a 48 hour block (see User talk:Texasreb#Edit warring at Confederate States of America). Upon his return he made the exact edit that was involved in this block and I have again referred it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion regarding this John Carter ( talk) 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Would it be considered petty to file a second request based on
this edit? I know it is a bit of a trivial violation perhaps, and so soon after your recent finding of no violation, but it does seem to meet the minimum requirements of the 3rd bullet-point at
WP:IBAN. And my apologies to you if you think it too trivial to deserve any attention.
John Carter (
talk)
19:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, it seems not logical to have this page fully protected. The title of the page itself is 'succession controversy' and if all fact/information whatever available is not presented in whatsoever manner best to Wiki rules this article is of no use/weightage. This article should help reader to decide what are the facts/information being discussed in various sources and they should be free to decide themselves. We can let this page edited in whatever best Wiki possible, such that facts/information which are best represented in all the reliable sources (including primary authenticated source( max.it can be marked for unreliable source?, such that reader can decide themselves about the source) as relaxed at WP:WPNOTRS, let it be allowed for both the claimants primary sources to give equal opportunities to have best NPOV possible).
Hope this controversy article need not to be fully protected. Semi protected level upto auto conformed editor may be sufficient please.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you recently placed a protection on the above article, ostensibly for the purpose of controlling an edit war. However, if you actually look through the edit history you will see that it is the other editor, and not I, who was hell-bent on some sort of "war of the words". If anything, you should have repremanded or perhaps even blocked *that* particlular editor for their behavior (who, by the way, has a history with distruptive edits), instead of punishing the rest of us as you did by locking out the page. Your response would be appreciated. Thanks! Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect En otra piel too, User:Damián80 was warring there too. Dswq78 ( talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for responding on the the request page (penguin changes reviewer). I'll wait a bit longer to get more experience. In the meantime, I'll work on editing articles, reverting vandalism and spam, expanding articles, etc.
Batreeqah ( talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone made that for me. It's not taken exactly from the game Club Penguin, it was made by someone and given to me.
Batreeqah ( talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear administrator!
User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.
Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.
Here is the meta puppet's wiki page: /info/en/?search=User:INeverCry
Meta puppets must be deleted.
Bye!-- Brelczer ( talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That IP user is still causing issues over at Sailor Moon S: The Movie ( [25]). Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks for cleaning that up. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Those sheep have been there for a couple of weeks now without opposition, or indeed any comment of any kind. Unless you, Anthony Appleyard or Jenks24 has any objection, I'd like to suggest that they now be moved back to WP:RMTR and dealt with by the ordinary process. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I need to find time to see if an SPI should be raised for the new account, just too busy, but given that it's basically the same content being added as by earlier socks... Dougweller ( talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How would you describe this edit? Bobrayner shows up, doesn't write a word on the talk page and removes a well-sourced review by VICE (magazine). Do I have to ask for permission from anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editors to add well-sourced content to the website? Isn't he inciting another revert war? -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
You've helped out in the past when I found myself in incipient edit wars, and once again I find myself in a disagreement in which there is a lot of emotion and strong differences of opinion.
Was wondering if you could join us over at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tyrone_Hayes and provide a little neutral oversight of what is shaping up to be a difficult discussion.
Much appreciated. Formerly 98 ( talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your posting regarding the Edit Warring Noticeboard. I very much appreciated the request and clarification that you provided. Hopefully what I responded with is sufficient to understand the overall situation. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
Currently the talk page history is associated with the archive, not the talk page. Would you please fix this? -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I would like to let you know that another SPA is making fringe edits and edit-warring on Ioannis Kapodistrias adding fringe information about alleged Albanian relatives of Kapodistrias. They also left a nasty PA on my talk. This is while I am in the middle of the latest SPI regarding similar disruption in other Balkan-related articles such as Ancient Macedonians. I would appreciate any help/advice. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ed for your professional response. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 14:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, your decision here:- [26] makes no distinction between reverts that remove refs to BLPs, or inserts prejudicial descriptions of BLPs, or which have the agreement of the majority, and mere blind 'making a point'. What is an editor to do when another editor does not engage in discussion, but then sails in and reverts, again and again and again, for many years and against the wishes of the majority? I accept a 'rap on the knuckles', but also did expect some credit for 'calling a truce' and repeatedly attempting to resolve the matter on talk. Should I post this? Probably not, but will do so anyway … … thanks for reading this. Pincrete ( talk) 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
UpDate: UrbanVillager has just made 3 consecutive edits on the previously disputed text, diffs here: [27]. The first diff which claims to be 'as per talk' is the most serious … the second and third are trivial concerning only an acceptable renaming of a section and a link to a newly created page concerning a sequel … for which not even a release date exists. They are here:- [28] and here:- [29].
That there is NOT consensus about changing 'Criticism', despite recent patient discussion by me is evidenced here: [30], here:- [31] and here:- [32] . Since the discussion is a long one, you might want to read the LAST link FIRST, as the last very explicitly states that I do not agree with these changes, this last was written this morning and both read and replied to by UrbanVillager prior to his making these changes. All these discussions are SINCE the warning from you.
I apologise for bothering you, and if I am posting in the wrong place please advise me. Pincrete ( talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies again for bothering you, UrbanVillager has just inserted two completely new 'reviews' in the disputed section of the article. Both are in Serbian and neither seem to be reviews at all, rather articles, one of the reviews is written by a (very small) magazine that the film maker himself works for.
Neither review has consensus, since neither has been submitted for discussion or evaluation (or translation). It is possible that parts of either COULD be used, but having engaged in completely DIFFERENT discussions on talk for the last week, these reviews suddenly appeared tonight. Neither I nor any editor even knew about them.
It is impossible for me to believe that UrbanVillager is doing anything other than intentionally acting in bad faith. … ps I'm not sure whether it is proper to tell you this, but the three principal editors connected with the page are currently at ANI:- [33]. Pincrete ( talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. The remaining sock of Biar122/Arb12345/Malbin210 has reactivated again after his first 3RR block. Due to the delay in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91 we have a problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you again and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for protecting the page while the RfC is being discussed! I notice that the current version of the page has the proposed guideline included. Would you mind reverting to the previous version until consensus can be reached as to whether or not the new guideline should be added? Otherwise this may mislead other editors who are unaware of its non-consensus status. Thanks. Augurar ( talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you gave TitanSlayer232 a Ds/alert. From his contributions on Ariel University page it seems like it is a sock either of JarlaxleArtemis, Kipa Aduma, Esq. or AmirSurfLera. I have opened an SPI. I am not experienced in SPI matters, so I am not sure if I did the right thing or perhaps I moved too quickly. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. On September 15 you closed this 3RR request [34] as stale, which it was, since the user after being reported for a 3RR violation ceased to edit war. In your closing note you wrote "But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag.". Well, Ism schism has resumed the edit war [35] [36]. Additionally he has also started new edit warr over other issues with other users [37] [38] [39]. Volunteer Marek 03:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, note that they have not engaged in any talk page discussion regarding the tag in between the closure and the resumption of the edit war [40]. Volunteer Marek 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And more [41]. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And stalking [42]. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Its not the removal of the sections that concerns me, it is the whole notion that the removal was are targeted racially motivated act on behalf of Dr.K. Dr.K's comment on GiorgosY user account clearly is evident of his nature, this is the exact remark he made;
Wikipedia articles on Cyprus do not look good at the moment, since they are lacking reality, truth and a more realistic way of presenting things plus that are full with turkish propaganda, like the 1571 one. Anyhow, I will see what I am going to do.
note that this user is now banned from repeated disruption and violation on wikipedia. On the other hand I feel that Admin Diana is possibly abusing there admin role. The nature that this was dealt with wasn't very positive nor constructive, nor was it neutral in any nature. I also noticed that sections that were not added by me were also removed leaving the article on Northern Cyprus in a terrible un-repaired state. I would like to foward this
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for.
I don't believe that Admin Diana has acted in an appropriate nature when dealing with this issue, I am aware that the sections were copyright but the nature in which it was dealt was wrong. This is not what Wikipedia should be about. I was not aware of the copyright issues as I was still new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning, if I were to put the information into my own words Dr.K still disapproved of my edits by saying there not well sourced when they were clearly taking from books written by historians. Even if I were to provide more than one source he would still disprove, it seems the truth has disturbed this fellow Wikipedia user, if am not aloud to write well sourced truths, than my time on editing Wikipedia an even reading Wikipedia articles will be over. The level of inaccuracy and bias articles seen on Wikipedia will in future lead this site to losing much of its popularity and legitimacy as it already is declining. Good Day. ( Hasmens ( talk) 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC) )
Hi
You notified me in the past about a DRN discussion.This discussion is now stale as volunteer decided not to continue [49].Maybe you as admin can help somehow.Thanks.-- Shrike ( talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you were involved with the incidents between me and Hotwiki that led to his banning and my agreeing to avoid X-Men related pages for a week. I just wanted to let you know that now that Hotwiki is back, he has taken it upon himself to revert several pages to how they were before he was banned, and in many cases has given no or inadequate reasoning for it. I can't get involved, as I have agreed to leave the pages and user alone until Saturday I think, but I thought I should let you know about this. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Red_Slash_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 . My original request was for making Red Slash aware of the possibility of 1RR applying to this LAME by asking for the editor to be notified with a Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement. As only admins can do that, and 1RR isn't binding until the user is notified with it, we've now got the situation that I gave several warnings and escalated it there (more than I'd want to), but as it hasn't been given, 1RR still isn't in effect. The irony is that I'm not even against that editors proposed PRIMARYTOPIC, it just needs to follow process and not cause breakage and disruption for one of our most highly accessed content. Widefox; talk 07:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston,
I'd like to request you to check out my response here and reconsider your decision. You can also look at [ this article where people keep adding fixtures where it was meant to be just Draw. And I've to undo these types of edits so that I can help keep the articles according to their purpose. So if I'll have rollback right I can do it with ease. Ashesh 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheshneupane95 ( talk • contribs)
I really don't want to get involved in another arbcom case, but I wanted to point out something relevant to one of the cases. Specifically it's about Neotarf on the AE page and comments they made on another arbcom post. Am I able to just mention it to an arbiter like you on your talk page? Or do I need to file it on the AE page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you show me how to get evidence for edit warring reports so I can use them for the future? If you can please leave the message on my talk page. Thanks! - Theironminer ( talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you took just a few minutes you could easily find evidence that Neotarf is intimately familiar with these cases [ [50]] and even more telling [ [51]]. I do not expect you to go back n my talkpage archives but when it's at the top of the page I'm reporting it's a little frustrating that requests are declined. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but either way they are aware and have been for some time. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I misunderstood at first the WP:COI and the WP:Lead sections. I now understand them and there should be no additional need for action. I am clear as to how Wikipedia works now and am willing to work with other editors who are also willing to work with me to make factual corrections to articles. Thank you for reaching out to me.
One note regarding the statement but you removed most of the other information from the lead about her albums and other matters.: my edits will show that I removed sections which did not have proper citations and reworded existing content to match WP:Style. Ssilvers is upset because I did not understand about WP:COI and is understandably over-reacting slightly with some mild hyperbole. I'm not upset by it, Ssilvers was simply trying to make a point. I have no intention of rewording the lede at this point unless there is a relevant event, there are grammatical or spelling errors.
Loudersoft ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
As always, I appreciate your calm and wise approach at 3RR. I just disagree that BLPNAME allows for what you suggest, and what others are suggesting. Nonetheless, you are one of the admins I respect and have high regard for. Even when we disagree. Cheers, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to clarify regarding your previous decision, am I permitted to replace the Systemic Bias tag at American-led intervention in Iraq to continue solicitation of discussion or was it your feeling 6 hours was enough of a discussion on that? As I am the subject of active block-shopping by a tightly coordinated group of editors interfacing on IRC and elsewhere ( [52]), I want to proceed with an over-abundance of caution in all my edits. Sorry for the hassle of this direct request and thanks, in advance. DocumentError ( talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here and I do appreciate input -- esp. when the person giving it actually reads the material (e.g. "Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor") and asking questions to understand what I am saying. The issue (I believe) is over but perhaps a sanity check is in order. In your opinion, was it poor judgement to note that a statement from a bomb disposal official from the police force is not the same as "Ministry of Interior said"? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have, for example, opened a dispute at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using a comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed,
Where has this result been discussed and decided and by who? If you look at the edits they were both gradual and incorporated others neutral edits.
The reverting going on is by a group of individuals all connected to the religion, reverting back work to their chosen version which reads like an advert. It is impossible to justify it as it contains many errors or mistakes which Wikipedians are clear encouraged to act upon, e.g. unreferenced, out of date references, blogs references, self-published references etc etc etc.
Members of this group appear to be doing little more than filing complaints against others, and reverting their article.
In addition, why did only I get a warning when this group is clearly revert back any chances?
Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ed and sorry to butt in. About a year ago I fully protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following an edit war. I've been fairly inactive since then so I was a tad surprised to see the page pop up on my watchlist with essentially the same edit war still ongoing. User:Truth is the only religion is, I have no doubt whatsoever, the latest incarnation of Januarythe18th ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same combative approach, same arguments, reverting to a version written originally by said user. See also the SPI archive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th/Archive. User:Nyttend made the original block, however, rather than myself. If I had seen the account back when it started editing, I would have just blocked it but things have moved on since then. CIreland ( talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the SPI, I looked into that a week or two ago but hadn't found enough diffs for a really convincing report, though the MO is a match, as is the apparent inability to collaborate. I remember there being very suspicions that the old (Januarythe18th) account was a sock of someone else, but it was kind of the same deal where nobody could prove anything. In the end, it was the outing that led to the indef block, combined, if I recall correctly, with an obvious sock-puppet of either Januarythe18th or (as he claimed) someone trying to impersonate him. Anyway, I think the block was appropriate, and wanted to say thanks for the effort you put into resolving this. I also thought the warning you gave was an appropriate and creative approach :-) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of
American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here:
ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.)
DocumentError (
talk)
02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
May I comment here without running afoul of my restrictions? I wish to make a comment in support (ironically) of the person against whom the filing was made. Imo, the original comment that led to this filing was completely tendentious. diff An editor with an axe to grind against both parties thought they saw an opportunity for a two-fer and they took it. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You semi-protected the Ephesians article, after a report that after only two edits I was accused of both sock puppet and edit warring. I request that you rescind your blocking as I have been unfairly accused and now blocked for an entire month from editing this article. I was an IP when I made one revert, and right after created an account. Then I made one more revert. So only two. Now I've created an account and would like to edit, but cannot. Tikki-Tembo ( talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm... What's wrong with my other edit now? It's neutral and sourced. Please use talk page of article to interact with me, and my edits. Tikki-Tembo ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross. Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days. I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, SteveJRoss Stevejross ( talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note to Esvobo. He will not be able to provide a citation for Menon as founder because it was me who Brought Mr. Menon into the business (who I consider a dear friend) 1 year after I started the business. Thank you for watching to see if you receive a response (or no response) from this individual. We need this site to go back to a) being factual and b) so UST Global responsible individuals can go back to making accurate edits about their business. Here is a citation about the founding of the business:
Thank you Ed.
Steve Ross Stevejross ( talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We have noticed that over a week has gone by, and user User talk:Esvobo has not responded to your note. Can we put the site back to where it was before this user removed the factual citations. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Steve Ross Stevejross ( talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ed, I noticed that the UST Page is now 'Semi-Protected.' Can I ask you what does this mean. Am I able to make changes to the site while it is semi-protected ? If the individual User talk:Esvobo continues to remove our documented edits, without responding to either you or me (and without any citations of backup) - will you then consider putting back the block on edits for a period of time ?
Thanks for your reply to my questions when you have a chance. Best Regards, Steve Stevejross ( talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Hallo EdJohnston, with regard to the Renewable_resource conflict, there is no sign of an interest in consensus so far. The discussion on the talk page drifts into allegation of a conflict of interest on my side. I am not willing to continue like this, being asked to "explain myself" instead of discussing the sources in question. Is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Comments closed? What would you recommand? Thnx Serten ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I suppose I could take that approach but to all intense and purposes I did that with the posting to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#An RM to ISIS?.
The problem is that some editors initiate talks about possible requested moves in a new section (as was this section "An RM to ISIS?"), and other who would rather not discuss moves again immediately feel compelled to reply (presumably because silence equals consent).
In the case of the editor I have given a topic ban, that editor was notified of the editing restrictions, in which I pointed out that the editor had started at least two sections on the talk page about possible name changes while the last RM was still open (it only started on 17 September 2014 and was not closed until 3 October 2014).
The editor then presumably read my statement and made it quite clear (see the exchange in the collapse box below my statement) that the statement was not going to stop that editor from initiating an RfC on a move "in the next week or so" and that as far as this editor was concerned when it was suggested that my comment was read replied "Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else".
The editor was also changing the names within the article to match what that editor thins are the most appropriate names.
So at that point I decided that it had became necessary to follow up on that part of my statement which stated "In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page". The three month ban is for the same length of time that I have stated that further requested moves/discussion about moves are disruptive.-- PBS ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but I fear you wouldn't see it because the discussion will be archived soon. User:Dark Liberty is back in action at 2014 Hong Kong protests, edit warring, blanking sections and generally being disruptive. If you had time to check out his contributions it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Citobun ( talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, here is a reply to the note you left for me on the TALK page of the US Pro-life movement article:
Excuse me, I've been blocked once for reverting twice within a 24 hr period (by mistake, actually) so I'm trying to be extra careful not to offend again. Please note that my removal of my edit has been reverted (i. e. the sentence about the pro-violence rtl fringe element has been restored), but not by me, as the history shows, I didn't do it, nor did I canvass for it (just recently learned canvassing is a no-no). As far as consensus goes, I would call your attention to USER:Cloonmore, who repeatedly undoes other editor's edits with flimsy justification, and often does not discuss his reversions on the TALK page at all. When he does discuss them on the TALK page, his tone is often curt and arrogant. If you look at previous entries on the TALK page you will see that I am in fact pretty conscientious about justifying my edits on the TALK pages of articles I edit and seeking consensus, even from those who disagree with me (such as USER: Juno).
Best wishes, Goblinshark17 ( talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I just wanted to check with you once more the eligibility of Northern Cyprus topics under ARBMAC. I am thinking of filing an AE report on an SPA and I would like to confirm with you before any decision on my part to proceed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello - would you mind reversing your close at Talk:Postcards (disambiguation)? It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:PLURALPT. In your closing statement, you said that "The exceptions documented at WP:PLURALPT envision a singular and a plural that have different primary topics." But that's not true. The guideline specifically allows for a plural leading to a separate dab page: "Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Bookends), or to a dab page (Suns)." There are at least three examples of this on the page: Axes, Suns, and Walls. "Postcards" could certainly fall into that category. Thanks for your consideration. Dohn joe ( talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. I don't even want to edit Wikipedia anymore, I think it's waste of time and energy. You can edit, revert, move back, delete or whatever you want to do with anything I've added here. Feel free, I don't mind anymore. Thanks for stopping by. I just want peace. No arguments, no harassment, no verbal wars but just peace. Hemant Dabral Talk 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, the OP at ANEW seems to be at 5RR on the same page where he reported another editor. Diffs posted at ANEW. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, Are the 1RR restrictions on abortion related articles still in effect? If so, there are editors on United States pro-life movement who need notification.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Sathe.steel ( talk · contribs) has created a new account as Michael.tate.reed ( talk · contribs) (probably from a different PC to get around the account creation block), with the same behaviour at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding recent edit warring on this page, Gmurzynska is using a third IP address in order to suppress public material it wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.
The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.
As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I do not consider this 'edit warring', but a restoring of publicly available material, accurately sourced and cited. I welcome Administrators' views and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version of this page. I do not, however, wish to see a valuable reference resource used as a form of sanitized advertising board. I have not engaged in Talk with Art&Design3000 and his aliases because I do not see that as having any potential to produce an accurate version of the gallery history, given the editing methods it uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This user been engaged in a slow-motion revert war with me, consistently imposing a rather bizarre and tendentious text onto a heavily-trafficked page. As always, he refuses to engage in discussion, except for this: "cine esti tu sa ma explic in fata ta?" ("Who are you that I should have to explain myself before you?")
You recently blocked him for edit-warring. Even if he's technically staying on the right side of 3RR, the time for another block may have arrived. - Biruitorul Talk 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the Professor passed away last week I am thinking now might be the time to post his BIO. Is there a way I could get you to show me how to change the article from a draft and actually one published? LoveMonkey 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it was inadvertent. I noticed after I finished typing that everything was underlined, and I wasn't crazy about how it looked, but as I rarely am at Editwarring/3RR I just quickly assumed it was the default format for extended comments. My bad. Thanks for fixing before it seemed like I was screaming. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed--thanks for moderating my request to swap the redirect "QB3" with "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." As you may have noticed, I'm the institute's communications director. We ourselves do not use the long form of our name and rarely hear from people who do. It's an archaic form for us and Wikipedia may be propagating it, because people who want to know about QB3 will get redirected to the page titled with the long name. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
You mentioned that the long form of the name appears on our website. What's the URL for the page? I'll correct it.
Also, a minor issue, but I noticed that maybe 10% of the Google results for the search "qb3 -berkeley -ucsf -"santa cruz" actually refer to us. They just don't mention a particular campus.
It is true that no other entity worldwide is using the long form of the name. But, then, neither are we, anymore! So, it's specific, but not really correct.
Does it support our cause that Wikipedia has to date required no disambiguation for the redirect "QB3"? Nobody else has seen fit to create a page for any entity that shares our name.
Also, if you look at the number of Google searches for "QB3"--acknowledging that some of them might be for other purposes--they are far larger than the searches for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences" -- in fact the number of those searches is so small as to be effectively zero.
I'd appreciate your input on what constitutes "reliable sources." Evidently the world still thinks of us as having two names, but most sources overwhelmingly use "QB3" after, in some cases, making a nod to the long form of the name. Some recent media references (apologies for the URL gibberish):
http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2014/10/06/university-of-california-incubators-eager-to-scout-startups-co-investors-for-uc-ventures/ http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/biotech/2014/08/startx-qb3-incubator-stanford-uc-labs-accelerator.html http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-Palo-Alto-lab-for-life-science-startups-5717097.php?t=b83a2c613c&t=b83a2c613c
Please take a look and let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scerevisiae ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in that the UC professors do seem to be using the long form of the name, at least at cursory glance in Google Scholar: 5610 to 720 over the last year. One might expect faculty to prefer to use five words instead of one... But there is the question of how many people are exposed to these usages. How many people read the citations in Angewandte Chemie as opposed to the text of a story in the San Francisco Chronicle?
And also yes, the media articles often quote the long form of our name, but they use the short name in the title, and the long form is only used once, pushed several paragraphs down from the top, indicating the lesser importance the journalists give it. My point is that in daily, casual usage (and try searching Twitter for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences") people who write about QB3 from the outside refer to us predominantly as "QB3". The long academic form of the name is used by a subset of on-campus stakeholders. There are two names, but the short one is more commonly used in mass media, and therefore the redirect should be from the long form to the short one. Scerevisiae ( talk) 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for your explanations. Like many phenomena, this one is evolving, and from my perspective I can see which direction it's going--but I accept that it is not clear to someone who has not heard of us before. Also I can see that a major contributor to confusion lies within the institute's own governance and constitution. If we were more strongly centralized we could enforce our own naming conventions more effectively. Another factor is that QB3 operates in two distinct domains: research and commercialization. In research we are not externally recognized; but our affiliated faculty prefer to use the long form of the name. Yet most of our external recognition is for commercialization, and in that arena--which encompasses a different demographic (one which I believe is likely much larger in number), "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym." In this we are similar to the Silicon Valley accelerator Y Combinator, which is widely known, but whose name explains nothing up front. I'll have to think about how we might best demonstrate that this holds for us. Cheers. Scerevisiae ( talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed, I wish to appeal your closure, but I followed the link to the appeal page and I admit I am not sure how to do it properly. I do not want to screw it up. The instructions are rather confusing for a Wikipedia novice. Can we discuss it here?
These are the two points I would make, relevant to "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym.": 1) Substantial Google searches for "qb3" [1] compared to nonexistent searches for "california institute for quantitative biosciences" [2] Keeping in mind, of course, that "qb3" has a long tail of meanings for what I would argue are usages that people seldom search for ("qb3 chess", "qb3 football", "qb3 design" have negligible results). 2) This may be unorthodox, but one of the primary ways people show interest in us is to request a visit/tour. I looked back at my emails over the past year or so and compiled a redacted file--There are 19 messages that I could locate easily. Of these, 17 people make first contact with us saying they want to visit "QB3". Two say they want to visit "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." See the record here. [3] I'm going to take this file off the web after our discussion, in case there are privacy concerns, although all visitor contact info is blocked out. Scerevisiae ( talk) 22:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sir. I appreciate your unbiased approach and the education I'm getting on how Wikipedia works. Scerevisiae ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi Ed. This is to update you on a specific aspect of the activity of Alexyflemming. He is apparently preparing to move the POV "List of wars involving Northern Cyprus" from userspace to mainspace. The list of wars starts from Ottoman times and includes wars of modern times when TRNC did not exist historically. The account is on full-swing lately on other fronts as well, but I am focusing on this incident because it is obviously POV and ahistorical propaganda. I have objected at the talkpage of the userspace draft but I would also welcome your advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles ...Right, but there have been no wars involving Northern Cyprus. The only conflict that could maybe be listed is the '74 invasion, since it's effectively led to its establishment. 213.7.147.34 ( talk) 10:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I am prevented from creating a new Wiki article ("History of Northern Cyprus"): See,
here. The meddlers are
Dr.K. and
TU-nor.
I know and saw
Northern_Cyprus#History many times before. Also, I have already edited there many times as well.
I wanted to create a separate article on "History of Northern Cyprus". The article " Northern Cyprus" consists of only a small part of History of Northern Cyprus. There are many things to add to the history. Adding all these materials will unnecessarily inflate the Northern Cyprus article.
Look also the "History of..." Wiki articles of partially recognized states:
History of Abkhazia,
History of Kosovo,
History of Somaliland,
History of Transnistria,
History of the Republic of China,
History of Western Sahara.
Any help will be greatly appreciated. Alexyflemming ( talk) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I knew topic bans had to belong somewhere. I forgot about that page. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many more articles that have been lower cased by this single editor. I had only listed the moves he made in October. He has been at this since August. Is there some more efficient method of handling more of them that opening move requests for each one separately on the Requested Moves template? The samples on the Requested Moves article do not seem to be applicable either for single moves or multiples. Thanks Hmains ( talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
subst:RMassist|Drama uprising|Drama Uprising|reason=capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 |Copper riot|Copper Riot
This and several variations of this do not work. What does work? Hmains ( talk) 00:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge discussion that I initiated, WP:AN#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain, which needs to be closed. You're uninvolved, and seem to be familiar with such matters as these. Would you care to digest that discussion and close it as appropriate? If not, perhaps you could suggest someone I could ask to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you've blocked me for my criticism of Rms125a@hotmail.com re the Alzira Peirce article I'd like to draw your attention to evidence of Rms125sa@hotmail.com track record of abusing editor role available at http://www.questpedia.org/en/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com, http://en.wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_checkuser_Case_Rms125a@hotmail.com_b1fd.html. Margerypark ( talk) 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
KeyboardWarriorOfZion is edit warring again. Also for some reason they question the reliability of CNN, which IMO doesn't bode well. So far its just 1 revert, but I really don't feel like reverting and forcing the matter and then filing a report. And some of the comments on the talk page are straddling the line of personal attacks. Can you delve into the matter when you have a chance? Thanks. -- Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, if you had a minute I'd appreciate your input at the Plot Spoiler thread at WP:AE-- Cailil talk 13:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Hello - thanks for closing the discussion, but I think you misread the consensus. I think the consensus was to keep the redirect as it was - to Dire Straits. Most people agreed that that would be acceptable, especially after the dab page was created. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would you mind taking another look? Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
When I repaired the operation defensive shield article in the aftermath, I noticed that anytime you edit that article (and presumably any other israel palestine article) there's a notice that the article has a 1RR restriction, so there's no way he couldn't have known about the 1RR restriction having edited the article twice. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned me somehow to the moderators/administrators board as being a possible alias of EnlightenedOne? I can assure you I am simply a new user, though I realize this may be difficult to prove... but simply let me know if there's anything I can do differently! Thank you! Santacide ( talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
NOTICE : "The topic of Plasma cosmology is covered by an Arbcom case".
REPLY: Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate alternative cosmological model postulated by professional physicists in accordance with accepted interactions of phyics. On these terms - it is neither Pseudoscience, nor fringe science. It is simply an alternative model. 217.208.57.69 ( talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, as agreed. The page need to be semi-protected. Furthermore, this same IP User 217.208.57.69 is again 3RRR Edit warring on Plasma cosmology again after a recent 48 hour sanction. Could you please advise on further action against this disruptive user? Arianewiki1 ( talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the hat-tip regarding the edits at Marco Rubio. Collect may have been in the wrong with how they were editing, but they were making a good point. -- McDoob AU93 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to give up because the article is false and racially offensive. A mater of fact I am going to get more people to edit this article because this is what is necessary to have the truth written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for protecting Ancient Macedonians, however, your protection of Talk:Gaulish language may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Only one IP edit, the latest, was a ban-evading Wikinger sock. All the previous ones are a single, apparently legitimate user. He's been making a bit of a nuisance of himself by refusing to sign his posts, and he has something of a penchant for OR arguments, but other than that I think he should still be regarded as legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that I understand your decision about the 3RR ruling you made about Cwobeel. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But furthermore, I just wanted to point out that there is more information that happened after your decision that I think you need to be made aware of. Cwobeel pasted the immature, "See I told you so comments below on my talk page." I think these comments indicate his attitude clearly. It indicates that he arrogant and unwilling to work with those who disagree with him. He will violate 3RR again, which he has in the past (he didn't get a pass that time) and I will report him again. Hopefully the new admin will be like the last admin and hold him accountable for his arrogant and self-righteous editing. I hope you have a good day!-- NK ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jaqeli nominated Pharnavaz I of Iberia for Good Article status. After I did the review, I realized that they are under a topic ban against editing articles relating to Georgia and Armenia. Does the ban extend to ancient Georgian history? I noted on their talk page and on the nomination list that the user is under a topic ban, and that once the ban is lifted they can address the issues that I brought up with the nomination. Today they edited the article in question in response to my review - is this within the scope of the ban or not? Please let me know promptly.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:
Hi, in April you blocked User:Septate for 48 hours for edit-warring with deceptive edit summaries to remove a particular image of Muhammad from the Islam article, in response to my 3RR report here. Today, he removed it again here. Someone else gave him a 3RR warning in response. What's the correct process at this point and can action be taken because of this one further removal? To be honest I've given up on AGF for this user and he seems to be waiting for "the dust to settle" so no one will notice (as he thinks) to try it again. DeCausa ( talk) 05:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In January, you consulted me regarding the topic ban on Antidiskriminator ( talk · contribs). I'm afraid that there's been no actual improvement despite the second chance. The flamewars at Talk:Pavle Đurišić appear to be back, and in general there's been way too much acrimony for a situation where someone is given another chance after having been banned for inappropriately causing acrimony.
More specifically, there's been a number of largely unproductive and often unpleasant interactions with him with regard to Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia, Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. I believe that his interpretation of the sourcing policy is largely shoddy, and that his argumentation is largely specious. I have diligently tried to address each of those sourcing issues with a focus on the content rather than the contributor, but I can't help that I notice a pattern - it's often the same editor behaving in such a specific way - writing articles based on cherry-picked quotes from Google Books searches, which are usually in various Serbian nationalist topic areas.
In response, he's approached me directly on my talk page several times now (you can also see that in the last archives, I can send you specific links to that if you need them), with various claims how I was abusing him, the combined effect of which I see as WP:DEPE, pretty much; when I told him off, his instant retort was that I was doing the same to him. *facepalm*
I thought I'll be able to tolerate this, and let him continue to occasionally vent, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me this time is the fact that I got into an unusual amount of trouble recently with fellow admins thinking I was editing while involved, where one of the contentious points was a tiny bit of Antidiskriminator's taunting at Talk:Vukovar that I had reacted to in an annoyed manner. He asked me "wasn't I involved", and I told him to not beat around the bush - if he actually thought that I was involved, he should provide a modicum of explanation why. He didn't do that, just as I expected. Yet, the point that he asked was later brought up by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs), because I could have used that opportunity to consider that issue myself, yet I just dismissed him because I knew it was his habit to make these sorts of annoying statements. I didn't stop to think how this might look to an innocent bystander, and this slip-up was one in a series that led to me being preventively blocked because JamesBWatson thought it all added up into me being actually involved.
In retrospect, my takeaway from that situation is that Ad's actions are really starting to get to me, and that if left unchecked, this is going to boil over one way or another. Since JamesBWatson criticized me for not asking for help earlier in that (unrelated) situation, and rightly so - here I am, asking for your help.
I realize how this may sound - I'm asking a ban-imposing admin to reconsider a ban on a user, while saying I don't want to drive that user away. I honestly don't care whether Antidiskriminator leaves or stays - but I do want this ridiculous downward spiral of increasingly poisonous interactions to stop.
I thought of a self-imposed interaction ban with him, but the problem is that I see that Ad's interactions are having an eerily similar effect on Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs), which is making me think that the main problem isn't really with me.
I suppose it's also possible that two unrelated people from different continents are just being subtle jerks towards Ad, but I don't think that's likely in this case because Pm67 is a user who actually seems to have a sound understanding of the policies and has made a substantially positive contribution.)
Sorry for the wall of text, but this just isn't a trivial thing to explain :/ Thanks. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You blocked Manzilnfl ( talk · contribs) here. I think they're back as Mnzlpoudar ( talk · contribs): similar pattern of weird deletions (eg: at Yadav today) and interest in an article that has been at AfD under various titles at least twice ( Poudar - see here and here). Does this tally with your experience of Blackhu20 ( talk · contribs), who also seems to be a sock of someone else? Should I log a case at SPI? Last time round, it didn't really get anywhere due to lack of overlap etc. - Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that the vandalism which, for years, used to take up a lot of editors' time at Germany (whenever semi-protection was lifted) has restarted. Could it be that the expiry of your recent full protection unintentionally removed the indefinite semi-protection? -- Boson ( talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I notified FatGuySeven ( talk · contribs) here of the SAQ ArbCom sanctions. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I got a notification about this comment. What does this mean and how does it concern me? FatGuySeven ( talk) 03:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Was the discussion over? I see that user:elmasmelih moved the article again. I was not aware of a consensus. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 14:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I just created a second report at AN3. Can't remember when I've created two in the space of a few days. It's hard work. Some of the instructions are confusing. What does "Previous version reverted to" mean? I always ignore it when evaluating reports, but it's not obvious to me what you're supposed to put there. Going to bed now.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this is fine in relation to Kohala Pakistan. But didn't notice at the time that there were two Kohala Hawaii articles. I'll leave a note on the relevant article Talk pages. No need for you to do anything, just heads up. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you believe that this editor needs to be alerted again of the existence of discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBPIA? As I understand the complicated instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts, he does not because although he was warned more than a year ago, he was also sanctioned by you in February 2013. His block log shows it, but I believe you neglected to log the sanction (you logged the warning). I don't think that matters, though. Your view?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ed, I am somewhat concerned by the antics of the above IP regarding the wholesale deletion of "Quotes". They have now reverted my comment on their Talk page regarding the whole discussion. Whilst I fully accept they can delete from their Talk page, it does seem rather strange that they are also trying to censor comments on their actions. I consider their wholesale deletions with a comment that they would not transfer them to Wikiquote to be pure vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I could have written much more in my request at ARE, but I was trying to stay within the 500 word limit. If you have any questions, please let me know. Also, I left some explanatory replies on Sandstein's talk page. Personally, I think the editor in question is trying to wear me down. He edits a lot of porn-star pages, and he knows I'm a woman. I doubt he has a lot of respect for women - though, of course, that is only my opinion. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Does this qualify as harassment? After I reverted an unsourced BLP addition at Billy Connolly ( [2]) that was removed by another ( [3]), 173.58.213.175 reverted my edits thrice ( [4], [5], and [6]). TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 03:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, in the past you helped me keep and eye on a number of IP ranges to keep tabs on an IP sock (self-styled as "Cassandra"), such as this:
http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.0.0/19
With Toolserver out of the picture, do you know if there's an alternative tool which I could use for range monitoring as Cassandra still occasionally re-surfaces with POV-pushing edits. (Your "revert, ignore" advice seems to be a productive strategy though, as they tend to disappear for a while thereafter.) Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ed, if you have time, would it be possible for you have a quick read through User talk:Sean.hoyland#Khdeir article and editor Midrashah to see whether an ARBPIA notification for editor Midrashah (or other advice) might help address Dovid's concerns about the editor, which seem reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, regarding this, what do you want to do? Note that according to contribution, Plot Spoiler hasn't edited since June 26. Suspend it longer, or? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 13:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
These pages no longer needs to be salted after creation are limited to administrators, account creators, and template editors. These will no longer be a target of abuse, and account creators and template editors can create it per consensus or techincal reason.-- GZWDer ( talk) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If it might be helpful, I will have time this weekend to make a statement concerning this request. However, I'd hate to prolong the death of that thread unnecessarily. Please advise. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a COI. Concerned about a recent IP edit and was wondering if you had time to take a look [7] CorporateM ( Talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Makedonovlah started his disruption again after the 2-week block which you gave him. A longer block may be necessary. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked consensus. Why Mister Δρ.Κ. doesnt talk on the talk page? Why he only wants to block me? I Asked consensus and i gave the source for my change. Mister DrK has something personal with an user? Thank you. ( Makedonovlah ( talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
Hello Yagmurlukorfez. I noticed this unusual page title, and figured that it was created by mistake. It's now been deleted per WP:CSD#G6. Generally user pages and user talk pages are not moved. Nobody is required to have a user page, but you generally need to have a user talk which corresponds to your account name. If you desire to change your user name, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston: Just a heads up, because it's hard to tell who's seen what in ARE discussions: I've added info to my request, as you suggested on 14 July 2014 - unless you or Lord Roem, or Penwhale, or Sandstein have more questions?
The addition is Reply to Admins, and you might review the details of my reply to Scalhotrod, too. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, thanks for closing the AE re Baghdad Bombings. You mentioned that my edits have caused concerns, but didn't mention what/how. As you may know I often edit in this very difficult area of our project, primarily because I believe that the passions of the opposing editors can be put to good use in creating a more balanced and neutral narrative on the I-P conflict than is otherwise available anywhere else. I am very cognizant of the challenges of the area, and so strive to hold myself to the highest talk page standards. The problem is that it's not always clear what those standards should be. I had been following the advice of User:Georgewilliamherbert, as I mentioned at the AE, but from your closing comments I now wonder whether George's advice reflects admins' consensus view of how to work with editors who are reverting but not contributing. In your closing comment you mentioned Dispute Resolution, which of course ultimately requires convincing a third party to care enough about the subject to (1) bother reading all the sources, and (2) spend the time to negotiate with both sides to find an acceptable solution. Which is why in disputes which depend on reading a lot of sources, Dispute Resolution often hits a brick wall and just wastes a lot of time. The core issue in my mind is why should a third party have to waste their time getting involved if one of the two opposing sides are simply not pulling their weight at the talk page? Anyway, the reason for this post is to ask whether you can be a little more specific in your views, and /or whether you have any other advice for me going forward to avoid such concerns? This is not the first time I have come up against a slow burn edit war with an editor who doesn't have the time or inclination to discuss the sources, and it won't be the last, so any advice would be appreciated.
TLDR: What exactly can I do better next time, recognising the shortcomings of WP:DR?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just read the essay Responding to a failure to discuss by User:TransporterMan.
The essay states clearly, "As noted in the Dispute Resolution policy, all content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there), and Formal Mediation — require thorough talk page discussion at the article talk page before a request for DR can be properly filed."
My situation therefore appears to have fallen between the cracks:
So unless i've misunderstood, I cannot use WP:DR or WP:AE, and Plot Spoiler continues to ignore my pleas to discuss, so I am totally stuck. Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with Dailey78 ( talk · contribs)'s NPOV editing of a quote and other issues and just realised that he's ignoring the restriction he accepted instead of a block, see User talk:Dailey78#Please adhere to your restriction on editing. He simply doesn't seem able to or willing to follow our NPOV policy and continues to edit without gaining consensus at both articles, which of course causes more work for others as well as breaking his restriction. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) and
Naqada culture, similar to the Badari
Rod (
talk)
16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not changing my quotation to split it and add 'however' is a revert is debatable, some Admins would see it as a revert and others would not. But that doesn't really matter, it was a violation of your restriction. The first one that I said was a clear revert[ [15]]. And a violation of your restriction, which is why I came here. Nice that you appreciate my being civil, but your statement that I am on a witch-hunt rather devalues that. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston.
My edit wasn't incorrect. I am aware of the revival of Greek religion. The problem is that the name "Hellenismos" has been chosen and imposed throughout Wikipedia by user Reigndog, who I suspect to be the same as Dchmelik, the same user who "coined" the term creating the portal. The name "Hellenismos" has the problem to be a hybrid word neither Greek (the transliteration is conventional) nor English, where English has its native term "Hellenism".-- Karl's Wagon ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no consensus for the use of "Hellenismos", as you can read here, here and here, contrary to what user Reigndog claims.-- Karl's Wagon ( talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you, have fixed it. Semitransgenic talk. 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just blocked him per WP:ARBPIA for violating 1RR. We are permitted to block without warning after a 1RR violation, but generally I don't like to. In this case, your warning satisfied me. That said, I wanted also to alert him to DS because using that as a basis for sanctions in the future does require an alert. However, the template is so unsuitable in these circumstances. The final sentence ("This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.") is so dissonant as to be ludicrous. This isn't the first time that sentence has bothered me, but it's the most stark.
My preference would be to eliminate the sentence. I don't see why we need it. If that won't fly, I would strike "only" and add the bolded word as follows:
What do you think?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
im sorry about the edit issue with collateral am I let off the hook. can I get a response thanks from tomwikiman. Tomwikiman ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, Ed. Any idea when the AfD brought by the blocked user might close? [17] It has been open for awhile. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have made my response to the accusations made by user Faustian. The reply is a bit on the lengthy side, but I included some very valid comments made by other contributors to the Talk Page who also had issue with user Faustian's editing, and potential bias. The reverts are due to Faustian continuing to add highly controversial material despite recommendations by other users against doing so. -- COD T 3 ( talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston; From the notice you left for Editor BigBaby regarding the "Wikipedia" page, I have noticed that he/she has ignored your fair warning and is continuing the reverts now into August 1. Three of us have engaged on Talk page there and have been involved in cleaning up the page without success. This is the latest time stamp from after your fair warning to that user. If you would like me to post the links and diffs for all these, then let me know and I'll try to fill them in if the ANI is needed to help to protect the page. The 4 of us trying to help are getting pretty exhausted:
(cur | prev) 01:11, 1 August 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (216,787 bytes) (+403) . . (Undid revision 619351965 by LawrencePrincipe. This violates WP:NPOV by using WP:WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:COAT to completely nullify the Criticism section. Intro=represent article in full.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:15, 31 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,177 bytes) (+403) . . (less text (as commented before) this paragraph was all WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:Peacock.Now it is reflecting and summarizing the vast Criticism section as per WP:LEAD) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:33, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,345 bytes) (+1,073) . . (reverted LawrencePrincipe .BRD policy guidelines are being misused and misrepresented in order to block a legitimate edit) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:25, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) m . . (217,345 bytes) (-193) . . (fixed mistake (double sentence)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:19, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,538 bytes) (+1,266) . . (Reverted LawrencePrincipe. This has nothing to do with the MAY edit. the Slate reference is misrepresented and Major Criticism of Wikipedia has due weight in the lead. See talk page) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:43, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,345 bytes) (+322) . . (continued from last edit) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:32, 30 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,023 bytes) (-285) . . (This notable and scholarly sources have not "examined" they have criticized wikipedia. the Slate article is a negative article about wikipedia, misrepresented as a positive reference. WP:LEAD requires us to add main criticism in lead.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:45, 28 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (216,004 bytes) (+974) . . (added the major criticisms from the most scholarly sources from the wikipedia criticism article to the lead.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:24, 28 July 2014 Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs) . . (217,221 bytes) (+674) . . (→Criticism: I read the main criticism article. somebody made a mess here with the citation and text. I put the right reference + presented the citations criticism in a NPOV) (undo | thank)
If you would like us to continue to try to reason again with that user, then let me know and we can try again. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
the truth about the entire max havoc/albert pyun story is here: http://impactonline.co/features/1704-albert-pyun-max-havoc-unclassified
Could you please list it on the page. The LIES NEED TO STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.128.123.119 ( talk) 04:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Is User:COD T 3 still blocked? It appears, when I edit his talk page, that he is still blocked. He posted a request to his talk page asking me to help him prepare an RFC. I declined the request. However, it now occurs to me that maybe that was an inappropriate use of his talk page while blocked, to request conduct assistance rather than to discuss his block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ed, are you reading my comments or Collect's [18] Where have I not been clear that I understand I violated the ban and won't do it again? I'd appreciate the input. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, here: [19] you made a comment about me "I have some concerns about User:Faustian's edits but I don't think the problem is severe enough for anything more than a warning at this time" and I would like your advice, which maybe would help me deal with disruptive editors in the future. What could I do, that I did not do, when someone decides to just blank information in an obscure article without other editors around to, for example, "outvote" him by reverts? When it is only me, and the guy deleting stuff. He deleted, I added, and it became an edit war. But if I didn't add the info, he would just essentially have had veto power over the article. I opened two RfCs, each of which had few outside voices, but in both the outside commenters agreed with me and the RfC was closed. I then again added the statement, and then other guy again deleted it. So I added it again, and he deleted. So, how else could I have approached this? If I were dealing with a collaborative editor acting in good faith to build the encyclopedia my multiple reverts would have been wrong, but they were clearly in response to someone simply motivated to keep the info off the article for the sake of keeping negative info off an article. In that specific context, what was concerning about my edits? Respectfully, Faustian ( talk) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Wikiman 36 appeared right after User:COD T 3 was banned. And he jumped into the same editing: [21]. I reverted his changes (is it okay to revert changed of a banned sockpuppet without getting into 3R trouble? I'm not close to 3R yet of course). I've contacted the 2 admins who blocked/banned User:COD T 3 but am hoping this gets resolved quickly. Thanks. Faustian ( talk) 18:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
After account COD T 3 was blocked, user Faustian edited the Blue Army (Poland) article. The edits are significant/bias and were made without initiating any kind of discussion on the talk page (not covered by any of the RfCs). Also, the changes were made immediately after user Faustian received a ArbCom warning regarding his approach to editing the article. Please take action against such disruptive and bias behavior.
-- Wikirun 20 ( talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
Thanks for handling that issue on ANI. I don't know if you read through it, but things were starting to get a little hostile. And it's not the first time, either. Now that that episode has been dealt with, I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice on how best to proceed with a related issue.
Over the past few months, I have been repeatedly referred to various ANIs by the same editor, Tvx1. The reasons for those are many and varied, but nothing has ever come about from them aside from the odd warning. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but that's separate to the issue - the fact is that Tvx1 refers me to an ANI shortly after he and I dispute the best way forward for an article, and I feel it is happening a little too frequently for it to be coincidence anymore. He claims to be acting in the interests of articles, but I have only ever seen him refer people he has disagreed with to ANI. Between that and some of the tactics he uses on talk pages to get his way, it's very hard to assume good faith. Nevertheless, I think it is an issue that should be explored in some way, but I don't know what the appropriate format would be. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article. I hope many editors participate in the RfC to get an idea of the correctness resp. bias of the views involved in the discussion. Please, stay by to intervene if some editor run out of arguments and begins with personal attacks. --Keysanger ( Talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, i'm currently interested in the RfC forum and i've made my contribution to it. However Eduardo seems to be making Personal Attacks on Keysanger and his attempted rebuttals of anything written by Keysanger is just getting repetitive and clogging up the section. Even his reply to my comments somehow attacks keysanger. what is your opinion of this behavior? I'm just asking as a curious contributor to the project. 210.50.245.62 ( talk) 22:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
Edit protect}}
to the request. I hope it helps. --Keysanger (
Talk)
20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Could you please take a look at Frankie Grande. User JHUbal27, an editor you previously blocked for edit warring, seems to be at it again. I've already tried to fix things twice, and I realize WP:3RR doesn't apply in such cases, but it's getting a little tedious. Sorry for laying this on your doorstep, but I don't think adding another warning to this person's talk page is going to make much of a difference. Perhaps as an admin, you can try a different course of action. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Ed, You intervened in a content dispute at Isotretinoin a few months back with a temporary block. The issues have come up again here. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:User931_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29
I thought you might be able to add some neutral input to the discussion.
It is not my habit or intent to canvass, and if you feel this solicitation of your opinion is inappropriate, please disregard this request. Frankly I'm not sure what you will say, but you seemed to have sensible things to say last time around, and that can't be a bad thing. Thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look into a subject which I am sure holds for you only a small fraction of that it holds for me. Formerly 98 ( talk) 05:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98, Thank you for striking, I do have a long standing interest in health, but I’m still confused by the “most of these involvements” comment. I honestly can only remember ever editing two articles with you (Paracetamol and Isotretinoin). Regarding disagreement, we obviously firmly disagreed on Paracetamol, but at this point, I’m not even sure I disagree with you on Isotretinoin. Just feel the issue there isn’t clear, but will try to chime in on talk:Isotretinoin when get a chance. Also, I do have multiple noticeboards on watchlist, and I comment on notices semi-regularly. I really do not feel comfortable refraining from commenting on a listing, if I notice something such as not enough reverts for 3RR violation, because your name is associated with report in some way. I do appreciate you apologizing and striking.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You contacted me about the IP 205.232.106.254, asking me if this was my IP. I'm not sure if it is or not. I did edit the status box in that article, but I wasn't the only one making edits. Furthermore, I have used multiple IP addresses in the past, so I'm not sure if that was one of them. In all honesty, I don't really keep track of that stuff. I hope that answers your question, and sorry I couldn't give a better answer. Toolen ( talk) 05:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Please review recent edits at Deutschlandlied, in which user Comitus has resumed edit warring by reinsertion of disputed content based on original research, synthesis, and misrepresentation/misinterpretation of sources as well as pointy deletion of an entire long-stable section. 2600:1006:B120:5E5F:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You recently instituted a 48 hour block (see User talk:Texasreb#Edit warring at Confederate States of America). Upon his return he made the exact edit that was involved in this block and I have again referred it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion regarding this John Carter ( talk) 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Would it be considered petty to file a second request based on
this edit? I know it is a bit of a trivial violation perhaps, and so soon after your recent finding of no violation, but it does seem to meet the minimum requirements of the 3rd bullet-point at
WP:IBAN. And my apologies to you if you think it too trivial to deserve any attention.
John Carter (
talk)
19:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, it seems not logical to have this page fully protected. The title of the page itself is 'succession controversy' and if all fact/information whatever available is not presented in whatsoever manner best to Wiki rules this article is of no use/weightage. This article should help reader to decide what are the facts/information being discussed in various sources and they should be free to decide themselves. We can let this page edited in whatever best Wiki possible, such that facts/information which are best represented in all the reliable sources (including primary authenticated source( max.it can be marked for unreliable source?, such that reader can decide themselves about the source) as relaxed at WP:WPNOTRS, let it be allowed for both the claimants primary sources to give equal opportunities to have best NPOV possible).
Hope this controversy article need not to be fully protected. Semi protected level upto auto conformed editor may be sufficient please.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you recently placed a protection on the above article, ostensibly for the purpose of controlling an edit war. However, if you actually look through the edit history you will see that it is the other editor, and not I, who was hell-bent on some sort of "war of the words". If anything, you should have repremanded or perhaps even blocked *that* particlular editor for their behavior (who, by the way, has a history with distruptive edits), instead of punishing the rest of us as you did by locking out the page. Your response would be appreciated. Thanks! Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect En otra piel too, User:Damián80 was warring there too. Dswq78 ( talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for responding on the the request page (penguin changes reviewer). I'll wait a bit longer to get more experience. In the meantime, I'll work on editing articles, reverting vandalism and spam, expanding articles, etc.
Batreeqah ( talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone made that for me. It's not taken exactly from the game Club Penguin, it was made by someone and given to me.
Batreeqah ( talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear administrator!
User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.
Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.
Here is the meta puppet's wiki page: /info/en/?search=User:INeverCry
Meta puppets must be deleted.
Bye!-- Brelczer ( talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That IP user is still causing issues over at Sailor Moon S: The Movie ( [25]). Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks for cleaning that up. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Those sheep have been there for a couple of weeks now without opposition, or indeed any comment of any kind. Unless you, Anthony Appleyard or Jenks24 has any objection, I'd like to suggest that they now be moved back to WP:RMTR and dealt with by the ordinary process. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I need to find time to see if an SPI should be raised for the new account, just too busy, but given that it's basically the same content being added as by earlier socks... Dougweller ( talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How would you describe this edit? Bobrayner shows up, doesn't write a word on the talk page and removes a well-sourced review by VICE (magazine). Do I have to ask for permission from anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editors to add well-sourced content to the website? Isn't he inciting another revert war? -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
You've helped out in the past when I found myself in incipient edit wars, and once again I find myself in a disagreement in which there is a lot of emotion and strong differences of opinion.
Was wondering if you could join us over at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tyrone_Hayes and provide a little neutral oversight of what is shaping up to be a difficult discussion.
Much appreciated. Formerly 98 ( talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your posting regarding the Edit Warring Noticeboard. I very much appreciated the request and clarification that you provided. Hopefully what I responded with is sufficient to understand the overall situation. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
Currently the talk page history is associated with the archive, not the talk page. Would you please fix this? -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I would like to let you know that another SPA is making fringe edits and edit-warring on Ioannis Kapodistrias adding fringe information about alleged Albanian relatives of Kapodistrias. They also left a nasty PA on my talk. This is while I am in the middle of the latest SPI regarding similar disruption in other Balkan-related articles such as Ancient Macedonians. I would appreciate any help/advice. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ed for your professional response. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 14:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, your decision here:- [26] makes no distinction between reverts that remove refs to BLPs, or inserts prejudicial descriptions of BLPs, or which have the agreement of the majority, and mere blind 'making a point'. What is an editor to do when another editor does not engage in discussion, but then sails in and reverts, again and again and again, for many years and against the wishes of the majority? I accept a 'rap on the knuckles', but also did expect some credit for 'calling a truce' and repeatedly attempting to resolve the matter on talk. Should I post this? Probably not, but will do so anyway … … thanks for reading this. Pincrete ( talk) 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
UpDate: UrbanVillager has just made 3 consecutive edits on the previously disputed text, diffs here: [27]. The first diff which claims to be 'as per talk' is the most serious … the second and third are trivial concerning only an acceptable renaming of a section and a link to a newly created page concerning a sequel … for which not even a release date exists. They are here:- [28] and here:- [29].
That there is NOT consensus about changing 'Criticism', despite recent patient discussion by me is evidenced here: [30], here:- [31] and here:- [32] . Since the discussion is a long one, you might want to read the LAST link FIRST, as the last very explicitly states that I do not agree with these changes, this last was written this morning and both read and replied to by UrbanVillager prior to his making these changes. All these discussions are SINCE the warning from you.
I apologise for bothering you, and if I am posting in the wrong place please advise me. Pincrete ( talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies again for bothering you, UrbanVillager has just inserted two completely new 'reviews' in the disputed section of the article. Both are in Serbian and neither seem to be reviews at all, rather articles, one of the reviews is written by a (very small) magazine that the film maker himself works for.
Neither review has consensus, since neither has been submitted for discussion or evaluation (or translation). It is possible that parts of either COULD be used, but having engaged in completely DIFFERENT discussions on talk for the last week, these reviews suddenly appeared tonight. Neither I nor any editor even knew about them.
It is impossible for me to believe that UrbanVillager is doing anything other than intentionally acting in bad faith. … ps I'm not sure whether it is proper to tell you this, but the three principal editors connected with the page are currently at ANI:- [33]. Pincrete ( talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. The remaining sock of Biar122/Arb12345/Malbin210 has reactivated again after his first 3RR block. Due to the delay in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91 we have a problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you again and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for protecting the page while the RfC is being discussed! I notice that the current version of the page has the proposed guideline included. Would you mind reverting to the previous version until consensus can be reached as to whether or not the new guideline should be added? Otherwise this may mislead other editors who are unaware of its non-consensus status. Thanks. Augurar ( talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you gave TitanSlayer232 a Ds/alert. From his contributions on Ariel University page it seems like it is a sock either of JarlaxleArtemis, Kipa Aduma, Esq. or AmirSurfLera. I have opened an SPI. I am not experienced in SPI matters, so I am not sure if I did the right thing or perhaps I moved too quickly. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. On September 15 you closed this 3RR request [34] as stale, which it was, since the user after being reported for a 3RR violation ceased to edit war. In your closing note you wrote "But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag.". Well, Ism schism has resumed the edit war [35] [36]. Additionally he has also started new edit warr over other issues with other users [37] [38] [39]. Volunteer Marek 03:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, note that they have not engaged in any talk page discussion regarding the tag in between the closure and the resumption of the edit war [40]. Volunteer Marek 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And more [41]. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And stalking [42]. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Its not the removal of the sections that concerns me, it is the whole notion that the removal was are targeted racially motivated act on behalf of Dr.K. Dr.K's comment on GiorgosY user account clearly is evident of his nature, this is the exact remark he made;
Wikipedia articles on Cyprus do not look good at the moment, since they are lacking reality, truth and a more realistic way of presenting things plus that are full with turkish propaganda, like the 1571 one. Anyhow, I will see what I am going to do.
note that this user is now banned from repeated disruption and violation on wikipedia. On the other hand I feel that Admin Diana is possibly abusing there admin role. The nature that this was dealt with wasn't very positive nor constructive, nor was it neutral in any nature. I also noticed that sections that were not added by me were also removed leaving the article on Northern Cyprus in a terrible un-repaired state. I would like to foward this
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for.
I don't believe that Admin Diana has acted in an appropriate nature when dealing with this issue, I am aware that the sections were copyright but the nature in which it was dealt was wrong. This is not what Wikipedia should be about. I was not aware of the copyright issues as I was still new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning, if I were to put the information into my own words Dr.K still disapproved of my edits by saying there not well sourced when they were clearly taking from books written by historians. Even if I were to provide more than one source he would still disprove, it seems the truth has disturbed this fellow Wikipedia user, if am not aloud to write well sourced truths, than my time on editing Wikipedia an even reading Wikipedia articles will be over. The level of inaccuracy and bias articles seen on Wikipedia will in future lead this site to losing much of its popularity and legitimacy as it already is declining. Good Day. ( Hasmens ( talk) 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC) )
Hi
You notified me in the past about a DRN discussion.This discussion is now stale as volunteer decided not to continue [49].Maybe you as admin can help somehow.Thanks.-- Shrike ( talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you were involved with the incidents between me and Hotwiki that led to his banning and my agreeing to avoid X-Men related pages for a week. I just wanted to let you know that now that Hotwiki is back, he has taken it upon himself to revert several pages to how they were before he was banned, and in many cases has given no or inadequate reasoning for it. I can't get involved, as I have agreed to leave the pages and user alone until Saturday I think, but I thought I should let you know about this. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Red_Slash_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 . My original request was for making Red Slash aware of the possibility of 1RR applying to this LAME by asking for the editor to be notified with a Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement. As only admins can do that, and 1RR isn't binding until the user is notified with it, we've now got the situation that I gave several warnings and escalated it there (more than I'd want to), but as it hasn't been given, 1RR still isn't in effect. The irony is that I'm not even against that editors proposed PRIMARYTOPIC, it just needs to follow process and not cause breakage and disruption for one of our most highly accessed content. Widefox; talk 07:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston,
I'd like to request you to check out my response here and reconsider your decision. You can also look at [ this article where people keep adding fixtures where it was meant to be just Draw. And I've to undo these types of edits so that I can help keep the articles according to their purpose. So if I'll have rollback right I can do it with ease. Ashesh 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheshneupane95 ( talk • contribs)
I really don't want to get involved in another arbcom case, but I wanted to point out something relevant to one of the cases. Specifically it's about Neotarf on the AE page and comments they made on another arbcom post. Am I able to just mention it to an arbiter like you on your talk page? Or do I need to file it on the AE page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you show me how to get evidence for edit warring reports so I can use them for the future? If you can please leave the message on my talk page. Thanks! - Theironminer ( talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you took just a few minutes you could easily find evidence that Neotarf is intimately familiar with these cases [ [50]] and even more telling [ [51]]. I do not expect you to go back n my talkpage archives but when it's at the top of the page I'm reporting it's a little frustrating that requests are declined. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but either way they are aware and have been for some time. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I misunderstood at first the WP:COI and the WP:Lead sections. I now understand them and there should be no additional need for action. I am clear as to how Wikipedia works now and am willing to work with other editors who are also willing to work with me to make factual corrections to articles. Thank you for reaching out to me.
One note regarding the statement but you removed most of the other information from the lead about her albums and other matters.: my edits will show that I removed sections which did not have proper citations and reworded existing content to match WP:Style. Ssilvers is upset because I did not understand about WP:COI and is understandably over-reacting slightly with some mild hyperbole. I'm not upset by it, Ssilvers was simply trying to make a point. I have no intention of rewording the lede at this point unless there is a relevant event, there are grammatical or spelling errors.
Loudersoft ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
As always, I appreciate your calm and wise approach at 3RR. I just disagree that BLPNAME allows for what you suggest, and what others are suggesting. Nonetheless, you are one of the admins I respect and have high regard for. Even when we disagree. Cheers, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to clarify regarding your previous decision, am I permitted to replace the Systemic Bias tag at American-led intervention in Iraq to continue solicitation of discussion or was it your feeling 6 hours was enough of a discussion on that? As I am the subject of active block-shopping by a tightly coordinated group of editors interfacing on IRC and elsewhere ( [52]), I want to proceed with an over-abundance of caution in all my edits. Sorry for the hassle of this direct request and thanks, in advance. DocumentError ( talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here and I do appreciate input -- esp. when the person giving it actually reads the material (e.g. "Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor") and asking questions to understand what I am saying. The issue (I believe) is over but perhaps a sanity check is in order. In your opinion, was it poor judgement to note that a statement from a bomb disposal official from the police force is not the same as "Ministry of Interior said"? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have, for example, opened a dispute at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using a comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed,
Where has this result been discussed and decided and by who? If you look at the edits they were both gradual and incorporated others neutral edits.
The reverting going on is by a group of individuals all connected to the religion, reverting back work to their chosen version which reads like an advert. It is impossible to justify it as it contains many errors or mistakes which Wikipedians are clear encouraged to act upon, e.g. unreferenced, out of date references, blogs references, self-published references etc etc etc.
Members of this group appear to be doing little more than filing complaints against others, and reverting their article.
In addition, why did only I get a warning when this group is clearly revert back any chances?
Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ed and sorry to butt in. About a year ago I fully protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following an edit war. I've been fairly inactive since then so I was a tad surprised to see the page pop up on my watchlist with essentially the same edit war still ongoing. User:Truth is the only religion is, I have no doubt whatsoever, the latest incarnation of Januarythe18th ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same combative approach, same arguments, reverting to a version written originally by said user. See also the SPI archive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th/Archive. User:Nyttend made the original block, however, rather than myself. If I had seen the account back when it started editing, I would have just blocked it but things have moved on since then. CIreland ( talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the SPI, I looked into that a week or two ago but hadn't found enough diffs for a really convincing report, though the MO is a match, as is the apparent inability to collaborate. I remember there being very suspicions that the old (Januarythe18th) account was a sock of someone else, but it was kind of the same deal where nobody could prove anything. In the end, it was the outing that led to the indef block, combined, if I recall correctly, with an obvious sock-puppet of either Januarythe18th or (as he claimed) someone trying to impersonate him. Anyway, I think the block was appropriate, and wanted to say thanks for the effort you put into resolving this. I also thought the warning you gave was an appropriate and creative approach :-) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of
American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here:
ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.)
DocumentError (
talk)
02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
May I comment here without running afoul of my restrictions? I wish to make a comment in support (ironically) of the person against whom the filing was made. Imo, the original comment that led to this filing was completely tendentious. diff An editor with an axe to grind against both parties thought they saw an opportunity for a two-fer and they took it. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You semi-protected the Ephesians article, after a report that after only two edits I was accused of both sock puppet and edit warring. I request that you rescind your blocking as I have been unfairly accused and now blocked for an entire month from editing this article. I was an IP when I made one revert, and right after created an account. Then I made one more revert. So only two. Now I've created an account and would like to edit, but cannot. Tikki-Tembo ( talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm... What's wrong with my other edit now? It's neutral and sourced. Please use talk page of article to interact with me, and my edits. Tikki-Tembo ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross. Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days. I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, SteveJRoss Stevejross ( talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note to Esvobo. He will not be able to provide a citation for Menon as founder because it was me who Brought Mr. Menon into the business (who I consider a dear friend) 1 year after I started the business. Thank you for watching to see if you receive a response (or no response) from this individual. We need this site to go back to a) being factual and b) so UST Global responsible individuals can go back to making accurate edits about their business. Here is a citation about the founding of the business:
Thank you Ed.
Steve Ross Stevejross ( talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We have noticed that over a week has gone by, and user User talk:Esvobo has not responded to your note. Can we put the site back to where it was before this user removed the factual citations. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Steve Ross Stevejross ( talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ed, I noticed that the UST Page is now 'Semi-Protected.' Can I ask you what does this mean. Am I able to make changes to the site while it is semi-protected ? If the individual User talk:Esvobo continues to remove our documented edits, without responding to either you or me (and without any citations of backup) - will you then consider putting back the block on edits for a period of time ?
Thanks for your reply to my questions when you have a chance. Best Regards, Steve Stevejross ( talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Hallo EdJohnston, with regard to the Renewable_resource conflict, there is no sign of an interest in consensus so far. The discussion on the talk page drifts into allegation of a conflict of interest on my side. I am not willing to continue like this, being asked to "explain myself" instead of discussing the sources in question. Is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Comments closed? What would you recommand? Thnx Serten ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I suppose I could take that approach but to all intense and purposes I did that with the posting to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#An RM to ISIS?.
The problem is that some editors initiate talks about possible requested moves in a new section (as was this section "An RM to ISIS?"), and other who would rather not discuss moves again immediately feel compelled to reply (presumably because silence equals consent).
In the case of the editor I have given a topic ban, that editor was notified of the editing restrictions, in which I pointed out that the editor had started at least two sections on the talk page about possible name changes while the last RM was still open (it only started on 17 September 2014 and was not closed until 3 October 2014).
The editor then presumably read my statement and made it quite clear (see the exchange in the collapse box below my statement) that the statement was not going to stop that editor from initiating an RfC on a move "in the next week or so" and that as far as this editor was concerned when it was suggested that my comment was read replied "Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else".
The editor was also changing the names within the article to match what that editor thins are the most appropriate names.
So at that point I decided that it had became necessary to follow up on that part of my statement which stated "In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page". The three month ban is for the same length of time that I have stated that further requested moves/discussion about moves are disruptive.-- PBS ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but I fear you wouldn't see it because the discussion will be archived soon. User:Dark Liberty is back in action at 2014 Hong Kong protests, edit warring, blanking sections and generally being disruptive. If you had time to check out his contributions it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Citobun ( talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, here is a reply to the note you left for me on the TALK page of the US Pro-life movement article:
Excuse me, I've been blocked once for reverting twice within a 24 hr period (by mistake, actually) so I'm trying to be extra careful not to offend again. Please note that my removal of my edit has been reverted (i. e. the sentence about the pro-violence rtl fringe element has been restored), but not by me, as the history shows, I didn't do it, nor did I canvass for it (just recently learned canvassing is a no-no). As far as consensus goes, I would call your attention to USER:Cloonmore, who repeatedly undoes other editor's edits with flimsy justification, and often does not discuss his reversions on the TALK page at all. When he does discuss them on the TALK page, his tone is often curt and arrogant. If you look at previous entries on the TALK page you will see that I am in fact pretty conscientious about justifying my edits on the TALK pages of articles I edit and seeking consensus, even from those who disagree with me (such as USER: Juno).
Best wishes, Goblinshark17 ( talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I just wanted to check with you once more the eligibility of Northern Cyprus topics under ARBMAC. I am thinking of filing an AE report on an SPA and I would like to confirm with you before any decision on my part to proceed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello - would you mind reversing your close at Talk:Postcards (disambiguation)? It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:PLURALPT. In your closing statement, you said that "The exceptions documented at WP:PLURALPT envision a singular and a plural that have different primary topics." But that's not true. The guideline specifically allows for a plural leading to a separate dab page: "Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Bookends), or to a dab page (Suns)." There are at least three examples of this on the page: Axes, Suns, and Walls. "Postcards" could certainly fall into that category. Thanks for your consideration. Dohn joe ( talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. I don't even want to edit Wikipedia anymore, I think it's waste of time and energy. You can edit, revert, move back, delete or whatever you want to do with anything I've added here. Feel free, I don't mind anymore. Thanks for stopping by. I just want peace. No arguments, no harassment, no verbal wars but just peace. Hemant Dabral Talk 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, the OP at ANEW seems to be at 5RR on the same page where he reported another editor. Diffs posted at ANEW. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, Are the 1RR restrictions on abortion related articles still in effect? If so, there are editors on United States pro-life movement who need notification.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Sathe.steel ( talk · contribs) has created a new account as Michael.tate.reed ( talk · contribs) (probably from a different PC to get around the account creation block), with the same behaviour at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding recent edit warring on this page, Gmurzynska is using a third IP address in order to suppress public material it wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.
The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.
As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I do not consider this 'edit warring', but a restoring of publicly available material, accurately sourced and cited. I welcome Administrators' views and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version of this page. I do not, however, wish to see a valuable reference resource used as a form of sanitized advertising board. I have not engaged in Talk with Art&Design3000 and his aliases because I do not see that as having any potential to produce an accurate version of the gallery history, given the editing methods it uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This user been engaged in a slow-motion revert war with me, consistently imposing a rather bizarre and tendentious text onto a heavily-trafficked page. As always, he refuses to engage in discussion, except for this: "cine esti tu sa ma explic in fata ta?" ("Who are you that I should have to explain myself before you?")
You recently blocked him for edit-warring. Even if he's technically staying on the right side of 3RR, the time for another block may have arrived. - Biruitorul Talk 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the Professor passed away last week I am thinking now might be the time to post his BIO. Is there a way I could get you to show me how to change the article from a draft and actually one published? LoveMonkey 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it was inadvertent. I noticed after I finished typing that everything was underlined, and I wasn't crazy about how it looked, but as I rarely am at Editwarring/3RR I just quickly assumed it was the default format for extended comments. My bad. Thanks for fixing before it seemed like I was screaming. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed--thanks for moderating my request to swap the redirect "QB3" with "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." As you may have noticed, I'm the institute's communications director. We ourselves do not use the long form of our name and rarely hear from people who do. It's an archaic form for us and Wikipedia may be propagating it, because people who want to know about QB3 will get redirected to the page titled with the long name. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
You mentioned that the long form of the name appears on our website. What's the URL for the page? I'll correct it.
Also, a minor issue, but I noticed that maybe 10% of the Google results for the search "qb3 -berkeley -ucsf -"santa cruz" actually refer to us. They just don't mention a particular campus.
It is true that no other entity worldwide is using the long form of the name. But, then, neither are we, anymore! So, it's specific, but not really correct.
Does it support our cause that Wikipedia has to date required no disambiguation for the redirect "QB3"? Nobody else has seen fit to create a page for any entity that shares our name.
Also, if you look at the number of Google searches for "QB3"--acknowledging that some of them might be for other purposes--they are far larger than the searches for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences" -- in fact the number of those searches is so small as to be effectively zero.
I'd appreciate your input on what constitutes "reliable sources." Evidently the world still thinks of us as having two names, but most sources overwhelmingly use "QB3" after, in some cases, making a nod to the long form of the name. Some recent media references (apologies for the URL gibberish):
http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2014/10/06/university-of-california-incubators-eager-to-scout-startups-co-investors-for-uc-ventures/ http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/biotech/2014/08/startx-qb3-incubator-stanford-uc-labs-accelerator.html http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-Palo-Alto-lab-for-life-science-startups-5717097.php?t=b83a2c613c&t=b83a2c613c
Please take a look and let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scerevisiae ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in that the UC professors do seem to be using the long form of the name, at least at cursory glance in Google Scholar: 5610 to 720 over the last year. One might expect faculty to prefer to use five words instead of one... But there is the question of how many people are exposed to these usages. How many people read the citations in Angewandte Chemie as opposed to the text of a story in the San Francisco Chronicle?
And also yes, the media articles often quote the long form of our name, but they use the short name in the title, and the long form is only used once, pushed several paragraphs down from the top, indicating the lesser importance the journalists give it. My point is that in daily, casual usage (and try searching Twitter for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences") people who write about QB3 from the outside refer to us predominantly as "QB3". The long academic form of the name is used by a subset of on-campus stakeholders. There are two names, but the short one is more commonly used in mass media, and therefore the redirect should be from the long form to the short one. Scerevisiae ( talk) 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for your explanations. Like many phenomena, this one is evolving, and from my perspective I can see which direction it's going--but I accept that it is not clear to someone who has not heard of us before. Also I can see that a major contributor to confusion lies within the institute's own governance and constitution. If we were more strongly centralized we could enforce our own naming conventions more effectively. Another factor is that QB3 operates in two distinct domains: research and commercialization. In research we are not externally recognized; but our affiliated faculty prefer to use the long form of the name. Yet most of our external recognition is for commercialization, and in that arena--which encompasses a different demographic (one which I believe is likely much larger in number), "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym." In this we are similar to the Silicon Valley accelerator Y Combinator, which is widely known, but whose name explains nothing up front. I'll have to think about how we might best demonstrate that this holds for us. Cheers. Scerevisiae ( talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed, I wish to appeal your closure, but I followed the link to the appeal page and I admit I am not sure how to do it properly. I do not want to screw it up. The instructions are rather confusing for a Wikipedia novice. Can we discuss it here?
These are the two points I would make, relevant to "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym.": 1) Substantial Google searches for "qb3" [1] compared to nonexistent searches for "california institute for quantitative biosciences" [2] Keeping in mind, of course, that "qb3" has a long tail of meanings for what I would argue are usages that people seldom search for ("qb3 chess", "qb3 football", "qb3 design" have negligible results). 2) This may be unorthodox, but one of the primary ways people show interest in us is to request a visit/tour. I looked back at my emails over the past year or so and compiled a redacted file--There are 19 messages that I could locate easily. Of these, 17 people make first contact with us saying they want to visit "QB3". Two say they want to visit "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." See the record here. [3] I'm going to take this file off the web after our discussion, in case there are privacy concerns, although all visitor contact info is blocked out. Scerevisiae ( talk) 22:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sir. I appreciate your unbiased approach and the education I'm getting on how Wikipedia works. Scerevisiae ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi Ed. This is to update you on a specific aspect of the activity of Alexyflemming. He is apparently preparing to move the POV "List of wars involving Northern Cyprus" from userspace to mainspace. The list of wars starts from Ottoman times and includes wars of modern times when TRNC did not exist historically. The account is on full-swing lately on other fronts as well, but I am focusing on this incident because it is obviously POV and ahistorical propaganda. I have objected at the talkpage of the userspace draft but I would also welcome your advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles ...Right, but there have been no wars involving Northern Cyprus. The only conflict that could maybe be listed is the '74 invasion, since it's effectively led to its establishment. 213.7.147.34 ( talk) 10:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I am prevented from creating a new Wiki article ("History of Northern Cyprus"): See,
here. The meddlers are
Dr.K. and
TU-nor.
I know and saw
Northern_Cyprus#History many times before. Also, I have already edited there many times as well.
I wanted to create a separate article on "History of Northern Cyprus". The article " Northern Cyprus" consists of only a small part of History of Northern Cyprus. There are many things to add to the history. Adding all these materials will unnecessarily inflate the Northern Cyprus article.
Look also the "History of..." Wiki articles of partially recognized states:
History of Abkhazia,
History of Kosovo,
History of Somaliland,
History of Transnistria,
History of the Republic of China,
History of Western Sahara.
Any help will be greatly appreciated. Alexyflemming ( talk) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I knew topic bans had to belong somewhere. I forgot about that page. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many more articles that have been lower cased by this single editor. I had only listed the moves he made in October. He has been at this since August. Is there some more efficient method of handling more of them that opening move requests for each one separately on the Requested Moves template? The samples on the Requested Moves article do not seem to be applicable either for single moves or multiples. Thanks Hmains ( talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
subst:RMassist|Drama uprising|Drama Uprising|reason=capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 |Copper riot|Copper Riot
This and several variations of this do not work. What does work? Hmains ( talk) 00:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge discussion that I initiated, WP:AN#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain, which needs to be closed. You're uninvolved, and seem to be familiar with such matters as these. Would you care to digest that discussion and close it as appropriate? If not, perhaps you could suggest someone I could ask to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you've blocked me for my criticism of Rms125a@hotmail.com re the Alzira Peirce article I'd like to draw your attention to evidence of Rms125sa@hotmail.com track record of abusing editor role available at http://www.questpedia.org/en/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com, http://en.wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_checkuser_Case_Rms125a@hotmail.com_b1fd.html. Margerypark ( talk) 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
KeyboardWarriorOfZion is edit warring again. Also for some reason they question the reliability of CNN, which IMO doesn't bode well. So far its just 1 revert, but I really don't feel like reverting and forcing the matter and then filing a report. And some of the comments on the talk page are straddling the line of personal attacks. Can you delve into the matter when you have a chance? Thanks. -- Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, if you had a minute I'd appreciate your input at the Plot Spoiler thread at WP:AE-- Cailil talk 13:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)