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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 53 |
I left a message at User talk:Worm That Turned:
Hi there, I was originally going to message User:EdJohnston in view of my experience of his past admin work. But then I saw you represented the arbcom in the recent Volunteer Marek versus Icewhiz case. I have a concern about a related matter in the WP:ARBEE topic area. It would be helpful if VMvI could be learned from by all users. It would also be helpful if editors could notify admins about places where there are signs of possible future escalation. Is there a noticeboard where I can flag the issue to all relevant administrators on that VMvI case (and/or ARBEE in general) in one go, rather than messaging admins directly? I have no wish to raise formal procedure, I would simply like to flag a volatile area so that things do not to have to get that far. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't heard back yet, so please could you let me know your opinion on the appropriate noticeboard or equivalent WP:APL and/or WP:ARBEE related discussion pages? Much obliged, -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I just made a wikipedia account so I could address this: I'm really concerned that the coronavirus page has inaccurate scientific information that has serious implications. Since my account is new I can't edit the talk page, which is where I would have preferred to put this.
The page currently has the CFR of COVID-19 at 7.1, citing the JHU dashboard. This is a crude estimate of the CFR, and one likely to inflict more panic than appropriate. See the following articles for better information on epidemiologists estimating CFRs (in ways more comparable to SARS and MERS as would be appropriate for your table): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. As you'll see, most estimates for the CFR are closer to 1-4%. I propose you remove the inaccurate and unbased 7% figure and replace it with a note that the CFR is an active field of research and the information is not yet available to say certainly what it is. Your table conveys far too much certainty and this is really dangerous.
NoozeEnvy ( talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi EdJohnston, I noticed you block me from editing Beyonceś page due to edit warring, may I request to unblock me? I will add awards with proper links on her page. Thank you Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an IP that was adding Original research to article Jehovah's Witness. I reverted because it was using the bible to explain the belief and not a reliable source explicitly stating this. 2 reverts to the IP. Now 1 revert to the new account. I left warnings and a note. Where do I stand as far as 3RR, I don't think it counts as an exception and thus barring any communication from the user, I should stop? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked user:184.98.237.95 infinitely, which I know is not supposed to normally be done to IP addresses. Just wanted to let you know. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in this article Glina, Croatia It seems to me accusations of me breaking some of Wikipedia’s rules are not true. Can you take a look. PortalTwo ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this article. There was an edit dispute, which you closed, with the remark "Try to ensure that your additional changes have consensus". Although not an employee of the organization, I admitted a close relationship, posted a COI notice, and have restricted my comments to the talk page. After a period of inactivity I just suggested what appears to be a good WP:RS. diff. This seems to have provoked a response from Ferderline who has edited the article, characterizing opposition to the PIR sale as "significant", adding anti-sale material while ignoring any corresponding responses. And then appended another item (Iran) that is sourced to an ISOC internal mailing list. diff Further, Ferderline has gone to my own user page and edited it to say "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Internet Society for his contributions to Wikipedia." diff when I have done nothing of the kind. What say? Might some kind of block be in order? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wwwhatsup ( talk), EdJohnston ( talk). I apologize for not being involved in this conversation sooner and for my absence from Wikipedia. I am still learning how this website works and how best I can contribute. My edits yesterday were not provoked by any recent changes to the Internet Society article; it was merely a case of me stumbling across another Wikipedia article and then noticing there were unread notifications. I clicked on one and noticed that edits had been made to the Internet Society article. I made some further, factual contributions to the page using neutral language. I do not appreciate it, Wwwhatsup, that you question my motivations so frequently. I also find it scandalous that you would seek to have me blocked from this website. You are paid by the Internet Society to make social media posts, so if anyone has a conflict of interest here, it is very clearly you. Wwwhatsup is correct that one claim is unsourced; I will add a citation now to the article so that this claim is supported by a primary source. The inclusion of the OFAC issue is a legitimate controversy so I do not support removing it. I have never before been told that I must propose a change on a Wikipedia talk page, I was always under the impression one may edit Wikipedia whenever they like and directly on the page itself. As for your allegations that my language was not neutral, I reject these claims. Ferdeline ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, Wwwhatsup ( talk) states that I "characteriz[ed] opposition to the PIR sale as "significant"." Yes I did, and I believe this to be a true and fair statement. Opposition to the sale has included three separate petitions with tens of thousands of signatures, opposition by ISOC's own chapters, letters from the California Attorney General, five US Senators including Senator Elizabeth Warren, and letters of opposition from a coalition of organizations including National Geographic, the Red Cross, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, and the Girl Scouts of America. There are literally only two public supporters of the sale, Vint Cerf and ISOC itself! Ferdeline ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how citing off-platform harassment is bad faith, if it is pertinent to a pattern of harrasment. I do admit, when the RFC first came out, I did post a notice to a topic-related closed facebook group to try to recruit more independent minds, familiar to both of us, to respond. Not with any visible success, sorry to say. This is different to the public outing and harassment I am receiving. This includes the latest suggestion on my talk page that I may not discuss the article.( diff). It is difficult to see how consensus based editing, as suggested, may proceed. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. I’m not sure what Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are? I know I had got into a revert war at one point though not the same reverts. But I walked aways from the article days before this report was made by the other user. I had no interest returning to that article. Why am I being sanctioned? The ANI you linked to was made about the other user, I wasn’t part of that ANI or listed there. This is the first time ever someone had reported me. OyMosby ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your block of User:Dr Parthiv Ravichandiran, I don't know if you noticed, but User:Periyarist has made the same legal threat though with less words. See this diff. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit is source misrepresentation and original research. Considering it is an IP that continues to edit war their POV into the article, what can be done? They have been warned twice by Materialscientist.
P.S. Hope you and yours are safe and healthy during these crazy times on this planet. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this report was archived, prematurely it seems. Can someone provide an evaluation of the report? Thank you. MA Javadi ( talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I know you do not patrol SPI, but I filed a report on the above user, with whom you have had some familiarity, with commentary here. The alacrity at which they have been following my edits (see below) is quite impressive:
Diffs
|
---|
|
CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. Thanks for your comments about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) on closing the AN3 report on User:Lobsterthermidor, here. You mentioned raising an RfC on its talk page - in the light of what's on that page now, what aspect do you see the RfC covering? — SMALL JIM 22:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure about that? The way I read it, they were reverting vandalism; in fact vandalism from exactly the LTA the filter was supposed to stop. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston ( talk) I noticed that I am still blocked from editing the page while Cornerstonepicker who initiated the edit warring is still active deleting awards from the page, It´s unfair how he isn´t blocked but I was. I already posted at the Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration and WP:Request for comment but still, no one replied and I am still blocked. I hope you reconsider things. Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 02 May 2020 (UTC)
You say that some awards have their own Wikipedia articles. Can you give examples? EdJohnston ( talk) 04:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There are also awards that don´t have wikipedia page but got sources from reputable sites. For example is the WACO Humanitarian Award https://www.eonline.com/shows/e_news/news/921692/beyonce-was-honored-with-the-humanitarian-award-at-the-2018-wearable-art-gala https://www.essence.com/celebrity/beyonce-humanitarian-award-speech-tina-knowles/
There are more awards from the previous pages deleted. Again, I don´t have intentions on having edit warri ng, I only want access to edit the page again for future use when she won awards. I hope you understand. Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 12 May 2020
Why did you protected Santasa edits, his removal of the sourced references? Čeha ( razgovor) 13:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
has continued the same nonsense not logged in (see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honest_Yusuf_Cricket); their recent disruptive edits are at
Peter Pan (1953 film) and
Song of the South. Any chance you could do something about it, or should I take it to a noticeboard? (
JWB
JBW put some protection on
Criticism of The Walt Disney Company, I see, but they've just shifted to other articles.) --
JBL (
talk)
00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@LBJHa! Apologies for the mix-up. I agree with your analysis. -- JBL ( talk) 23:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! Do you know, or what do you think, if GA reviewer is allowed to seek "second opinion" - nominator is advised to seek second opinion on reviewer's conclusions, perspectives, etc., per GA support pages, but nowhere is explicitly mentioned that reviewer too could seek second opinion if some issue can't be solved easily or simply reviewer find him/herself unsure about something particular in the article. Thanks and take care.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. First off, thank you very much for semi-protecting The Great Cold Distance and Night Is the New Day. I think that is already positively affecting those pages.
With that said, one of the IP genre vandals involved with the ultimate semi-protection of those pages, one in the #2804 range, has committed similar activity for over four years. I have started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the person/people, and any input you may have would be appreciated. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch ( talk) 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hiya. This user [7] whomst you warned earlier doesn't seem to be here to WP:BUILDWP and shows a clearcase of WP:HUH? as well, constantly edit warring and whatnot [8] [9] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, after this 3rr report you gave a 48-hour edit-warring block to Honduras200010. As soon as it expired, they were back to make the same edit removing large sections of the article without explanation or discussion: [10], [11]. They've also continued to add copyright violations. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Ed Johnston. I am sorry to have wasted your time on this silliness. Had the vandalism been small, I would have just ignored it completely, but it brings up a question you may be able to answer for me.
If somebody deleted a large amount of dispersed information from an article, and then other people edited the article after that, is there a simple method to re-incorporate the old, deleted, dispersed information into the most recent page?
Zeus Maximus (
talk)
03:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'd just like to thank you for protecting the Sylheti Nagri page from vandalism. Is it possible to also protect the Sylheti language page as it tends to occasionally have a lot of vandals as well? It has been protected in the past due to a number of incidents which you can see in the talk page. Many thanks. UserNumber ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This IP has categorically been deleting referenced information from a wide span of article, ranging from Armenian to Turkish to Persian/Iranian. Examples:
Many more not shown. I personally checked the Mimar Sinan and Franco-Ottoman alliance references and they checked out. I believe the IP is simply removing information they do not like. Said IP has 6 warnings on their talk page from 6 different editors(I have not posted any). Would you be interested in addressing this issue? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. If it's not any trouble, could you please review my notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? The user in question is continuing to disrupt the page. Thanks in advance. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 20:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I apologize as I was not looking at the posting on the talk page, as my system hadn't refreshed it's self, I reverted it, at the bottom of the talk paged I have placed content for review, by others and feedback. Any other further guidance that you could provide would be wonderful.
Thanks,
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwritter251 ( talk • contribs)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
I admit, was pessimist that the new naming dispute that arose at Macedonia Naming Dispute wouldn't be solved as quickly as it did! I am relieved and grateful to both Peacemaker67 for the quick resolution and to you for being a voice of logic in a dispute that had met all the conditions for spiralling out of control. Thank you, EdJohnston! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hey, Ed, your attention is needed at Macedonia and Macedonia Naming Dispute. Certain editors known in the past for their Macedonian POV, are trying to remove any qualifiers (i.e North) that were in place in front of the name Macedonia, a change which is finding me and other editors disagreeing with and was made without seeking WP:CONSENSUS first. I strongly believe these qualifiers have to stay to avoid potential semiological confusion. The disputed changes the editors made are:
Lengthy post. Click to view. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change:
Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is:
Now the editors changed it unilaterally (without having consensus) to:
Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change:
Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is:
Now the editors reverted it unilaterally (without having consensus) to:
|
I notice that you recently closed a dispute regarding User:Jontel repeatedly removing information critical of Gilad Atzmon which resulted in no sanction due to Jontel promising not to edit the page for a month. However, Jontel has now begun removing well sourced information which is critical of Atzmon from a significant number of pages using, what seems to me, rather weak and non-policy based reasons. I noticed when they twice removed well sourced information from a page I was editing ( Special:Diff/960630625/960691250 & Special:Diff/960787948/960830079 ) with edit summaries that appear to be attempts to explain why the cited source is wrong. They have also removed well sourced information on Atzman from at least 7 other pages (can provide diffs if requested). I know that it is not directly editing Atzmon's page, but it seems to violate the spirit of the promise, and given that they immediately reverted my re-addition of the material even after it was reworded to more closely match the source, and this exact topic has been point of contention in the recent past, I did not want to edit war, or to be seen as hounding them if I re-added the improperly removed material from the other articles (even though I know that "correcting related problems on multiple articles" is expressly not hounding, I know it can appear as such). So, any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. AmbivalentUnequivocality ( talk) 06:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, considering that you were involved on several pages regarding Bosnia in the middle ages which have been targeted by a number of editors who undertook several long POV edit wars, and considering that you are familiar with all editors involved, I must ask, considering that editor Ceha was recently banned, how is it possible that other editors involved in those edit-wars (from the other side) were not sanctioned at all? As somebody who was observer in those cases, it seems to me that only due to eloquence and unkept promises of proper behaviour other parties engaged remained without the ban which was imposed to Čeha. For example, just recently, on this page we had various smaller edit wars and point-scoring [15] (see edits made on the 18th may and 3RR broken [16]). Just recently I was given this sort of diff (on the page which I have edit some time ago, prior to this "encounter") [17]. Please do something about it, as it is getting out of hand, which became apparent after the editor who was engaged in several edit-wars with this editor and a few more, was removed out of their way. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I provided sources for the edit, and user:Quale was fine with the edit after it was modified, check his talk page. I don’t »hop ips«, that’s my provider and it’s beyond my control. I wasn’t edit warring, the other party was. Lots of accusations and unfounded claims on your part that you used for an arbitrary move. Good to see in which direction Wikipedia is headed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:4540:641d:4900:4d1f:aa0d:b168:3d47 ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for swiftly blocking User:2600:1702:1450:2BE0:5DF7:662A:5535:BAE4. Cheers. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you've blocked me for three months. However, the recent edits that have been traced to me aren't actually mine. I've only been editing UFC event pages and articles pertaining to the ICC Awards lately, so I suspect foul play is involved here. Most of this disruptive editing hasn't really been done by me and I'm hoping you'll unblock me when I next log out. — 29cwcst ( talk) 06:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a slow motion edit war dispute occurring on
Nicholas II of Russia
[18] between several users. It is over whether the term "execution" or a change to the term "murder" (and their variants in the article) is the correct term to use regarding the killing of the Tsar. "Execution" appears in the stable version prior to the dispute
[19] and the term used at
Execution of the Romanov family.
I have not become involved because I'm not sure how to properly mediate the issue. Since you are involved in the edit war boards, I figured the best course was to ask, watch, and learn. Thank you in advance. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, i have to say that im just applying the outcome of basically all discussions on the matter on the talk page of the Nicholas II's page, indeed im sad to beging called in a "slow motion edit "war" " But indeed, the term murmer have been chosen de facto when he was declared innocent by the russian court of Justice, and even if this would have not outcurred the term is becoming day by day obsolete, but, apart this fact, simply the word "Execution" means an systematic thing, the Romanov family murder was not. It happened in a basament, informally, and many of the murders were drunk. I hope you will understand this, cheers - Mattia332 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I did some checking with the two sources I have. Robert Massie (Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty) and Robert Service (The Last of the Tsars: Nicholas II and the Russia Revolution) use both terms.
@ Mattia332: I apologize if my use of "slow motion edit war" was offensive. I honestly intended no disrespect to anyone and was simply trying to find a way to mediate this. Please forgive any offense as it was unintended. I have also modified my original comment. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Users that agree with me trought the Talks held the the discussion page of Nicholas II of Russia, with either the terms i proposed of assassination, murder or killing... : Averell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FlaviaR ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MJFroggie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 122.106.255.204 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Keltara ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jeanne Boleyn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sdsures ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Федоров ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.114.16.212 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I hope this will list will be useful. -- Mattia332 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I see, then i thanks you and hereby ask to help me in that of Nicholas II's, neutrally speaking deserve more than outdated word that for for dictionary means a formal and legally recognized thing... Cheers. Mattia332 ( talk) 9:49, 18 June 2020 (CET)
On 6 September 2019, you indefinitely semi-move-protected Punjab Sports University due to its history of move-warring by IPs over the name, and as per a rough consensus that Punjab Sports University is the common name. However, it seems that it has a longer name again. It appears that User:Anthony Appleyard has also been trying to clean up the mess that these IPs are making. Are they gaming the semi-move-protection again somehow? Please figure out what is going on, and do whatever needs to be done. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, not sure why, but it seems you Blocked my IP address Michael773623 ( talk) 10:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Michael773623 ( talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add some Citations yesterday, I could enter the data but the Edits didn't appear, so it seemed to me it was a full block - I'll try later today to see if it works :-) Michael773623 ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Confirming, EdJohnston I am still not able to Edit Michael773623 ( talk) 03:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add citations to existing text re Marc Newson, and add new text to The Saturday Paper but the citations won't load there either. I have been Logged In both times Michael773623 ( talk) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks EdJohnston - I was testing what was possible, I can Add and Delete text but I can't add a Citation. The Citation dialog box appears, I enter the data and press Insert, and I land back on the Edit page but the Citation hasn't loaded. I guess the issue is that if I can't add citations, I can't really Edit. Michael773623 ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe I'm using the Visual Editor, I haven't learnt how to manually add citations Michael773623 ( talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I've worked out how to manually enter Citations - thx, feel free to Delete this chain of msgs Michael773623 ( talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm responding (I think) to this issue, that I don't really see as an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Perrine ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The picture in question was agreed to. and I was part of the consensus. is that okay, now? Please remember I created the page and have been a major contributor to it for years, Unlike Tartan, who is just an occassional visitor.! Arglebargle79 ( talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Long time no see. I have recently been confronted by a strange new (likely single purpose) account making accusations about my behaviour (such as that I have 'locked' the article from being edited), in relation to Frankfurt School. You're the fellow that protected the page, it seems, and in any case, my experience with this article is that these sorts of accounts are better not engaged with. Perhaps you can take a look for me? RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Unhelpful post |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm flattered that you assumed i launched into this without reading the edits. I did go through them which is how I identified said fucknut above who then directed me to a second fucknut (you). Its okay, there are plenty of other sources to gather information written by legitimate academics, I dont need to read the musings of people who can only accomplish monopolizing free public platforms to pursue their own political agenda. I dont need to cipher through asinine protocals designed to protect people like you. I feel much better now having read message board upon message board of people who have been bullied out of the use of this site -- who's catchphrase appears to be "anyone can edit!", i guess they didnt anticipate it being infiltrated by people like yourselves who cannot use a public platform without asserting dominance over it as a form public masturbation. All the best to both of you, I hope you enjoy your tiny, quite places in history as two faceless authoritarian wikipedia page editors (lmao). I think I just broke every last one of your protocol there, this website is clearly a sinking ship xox |
Katiedel0 ( talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I don't know if this is possible but I need your help to edit an Edit Summary. First of all let me explain: a broken edit summary text slipped my attention when I transfered my unpublished edits from the Phone version of Wikipedia to the PC version of it. (I was hoping the Phone application of Wikipedia would let me edit Wikipedia but its different UI was causing me frustration). In this progress, the Edit summary which was meant to write:
ended up writing:
FYI, There is no North Macedonian people. Also to make things worse, the edit summary is on an article of a politically-sensitive topic.
I usually double-check the edit summaries before I publish them, and any mistakes in them are usually ignored. But this time? I can't let it like that due to falling on people idendities and this may be perceived as insult. It is driving me nuts. Can please something be done about it?
Edit summary in question is found here: [20]
I will be grateful! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston, Can you take a look at this report ( User:Afer Ephraimite). The user started again edit warring in the page Barghawata. Kind Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Just informing that this edit violates the topic ban you imposed on Spicybiryani. [21] Siddsg ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(Original title of this thread was: Stalking )
After their snide remark on another article followed by an attempt to make it personal(ie. what I should go do with myself), clearly this individual has now decided to make this personal by stalking my edits.
Clearly Wikipedia has become a place for a chosen few to use what they want to write what they want. When they can not prove a source is reliable, then snide remarks and personalized comments are used. I see no reason to continue editing when harassment is a tool to be used to verify the reliability of a source! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello there,
I'd like to draw you attention that User:Santasa99 is again engaging in a revert war by re-installing the disputed templates without a consensus. I see he added a RfC on the TP and is using that as an excuse for re-adding the templates, but I would like to kindly ask you to take action against this unilateral act, because myself and other users are tired of the edit war that User:Santasa99 single-handedly caused. Could you please remove the tags or, if you disagree, inform users that it is OK to add tags and then open a discussion on them.
Thanks,
-- UrbanVillager ( talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you block me for 24 hours, please? I need to stop myself from doing something I would regret... GUtt01 ( talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (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.
Dear EdJohnston, I have noticed you have blocked Konli17. But he actually has explained his edit around the disputed Washington Post quote rather good at the talk page, and it makes sense to me. Tell Abyad was surely not detached from the Raqqa Governorate "unilateraly" by the SDF/YPG in 2015. The capital of the Raqqa Governorate was at the time Raqqa, and Raqqa a large territory surrounding it was Governed by the Islamic State well into 2016. Raqqa fell only in October 2017. The rest is explained at the Talk page. Maybe you could have a look at it there, too. I think he should be deblocked. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, we have tried to find a solution to the conflict at Tell Abyad, but most, (You, the ANI, the DRN, the Teahouse refused to comment on it, as for now) refused to comment on the content of the dispute so far. Now the complaining editor was reverting me twice without giving me any answer at the talk page, even though I have added several sources to the talk page 6 days ago. I'd like to know what's your call now!. You were the blocking sysop in the first place, maybe you find a good solution. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry to bother you; you adjudicated on this in May. my closure of the edit warring complaint I am encountering a number of conduct issues on editing and the talk page incorporating what seems to me to be multiple non policy compliance from one editor. I have looked through dispute resolution but think only sanctions would have any effect. Could you suggest my best course of action? Many thanks, Jontel ( talk) 08:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Vlachs, I edit information according to the RS. Some information does not exist in the source but I can't delete it although evidence is on that source's page. Explained on talk page: "This information does not exist in RS, the proof is on the page p. 203-204, everything outside the source is OR and personal opinion which is not allowed in the article. We must respect RS." [23] I'm interested what I as an editor can do to keep information consistent with the RS, ie what options do I have not to enter in the edit war. Proof that this information does not exist in the source is claim of one editor "Then also find a source about it and add there so the reader will have clue of deeper historic background of the term". Thanks. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to these Muslim auxiliary forces there were some zimmi who performed regular military duties and had the same rights as the müsellem. They were known under various names — Uskok, Valachs and Martolos among others — and were counted as members of the military class because of their occupation. Their origin is not quite clear. They might have been the descendants of Christians who fought as allies and vassals with Murad I and Bayezid I.
Thought you might want to be aware of [30] since you appear to have warned this editor. I am busy fixing [31] and have just fixed [32], [33], etc. in that article. This editor has had the "Bridgwater" edit reverted by others (for instance [34], [35]) but seems to persist with this for no apparent reason and no cited refs. The editor must know these are being reverted. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, this user who has had issues with edit warring and a rude personality is reverting edits that I personally believe were fine over at /info/en/?search=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 , They've had similar issues related to the show before, and though I restored the page to what I think is better, I'll let you make a call on it so as to not edit war, but I do want this user to know this behavior is not welcome here, Thanks! Noelephant ( talk) 14:51, 15 July 202 (UTC)
Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=968004485, they are clearly not listening.... Noelephant( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed. You said that you were blocking this editor, but they seem to have evaded it somehow: [40]. They're commenting on talk pages but do not seem at all interested in having a constructive discussion on the matter: [41]. It's disruptive and it seems likely they'll try to continue their edit warring subtlety. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This relates to your adjudication on 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) on the "edit warring" page:
"Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options."
I am afraid that no consensus has been reached. Another user (Andysmith248) started an RfC on the issue, but no one else has joined the discussion. A proposal has been made which I do not agree to, but I'm afraid that I cannot continue the discussion because I find Funky Snack's tone to be excessively aggressive. He does not appear to be interested in any sort of compromise or trying to understand other people's point of view. So I have withdrawn from the discussion and let things stand as they are for the time being.
Funky Snack is now telling me not to make any further edits to the Times Radio page. Does he have any authority to do this? As far as I know, as long as I don't revert any previous edits on the presenter list, I am free to add whatever content I like elsewhere on the page. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. GDBarry ( talk) 08:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Please take a look here. The user continues to be aggressive and make accusations. - Funky Snack ( Talk) 13:53, 20 July 2020 (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.
Hey, I saw that Looney Tunes Cartoons' 1st season has been categorized as 1A by User:Evelynkwapong539, and reverted since there was not a source, and though they did provide a source ( https://pressroom.warnermediagroup.com/us/media-release/hbo-max/hbo-max-highlights-august-2020), It does not provide evidence that the season is categorized as 1A, and they have continued to revert after I explained my reasoning without explanation. I think they are trying to be better considering past behavior, but I do not wish to edit war, but I did want to bring this to light. Noelephant( talk) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970234524, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970247049, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_shorts&diff=prev&oldid=970246796, They seem to not be listening to my reasoning, my defense for the cast list on the main page is that there are characters confirmed and sourced properly, I'd rather not engage anymore until there is a civil solution. Noelephant( talk) 4:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I was placing some welcome templates on newbies' talk pages, and I noticed that. Is it allowed to write on your Youtube channel that way on Wiki? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be closing most AN3 reports. Sadko, who has been logged in April at
AE for misusing a report he launched against Mikola22, now joined a report about
Ktrimi991 (after Mikola22 did) and then launched a series of personal accusations about several editors (including Mikola22). He even went so far as to say that Ktrimi991 in RL would instantly get fired for Mobbing
. If someone wrote that in my talkpage, I would even go as far as to ask for it to be deleted as a personal attack, but to make such comments in an admin noticeboard of all places requires admin oversight in that discussion because it has been derailing to a
WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's obvious that Sadko knew exactly what he was writing and that it is a personal attack against Ktrimi991 because in that same comment he also said that I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that.
[42] I'll post the same notification on El C's talkpage who is the admin who logged the warning about the Sadko-Mikola22 case at AE.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ed! Please look at Special:Contributions/International_Racialized_Student_in_Canada and the recent edits at List of universities in Canada, which I redid. Per W ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Afternoon Ed, I previously reported a user for edit warring with no action taken. They are still attempting to make the same unsupported changes while also leaving misleading edit summaries about prior discussions. The outcomes of the last discussion clearly supported existing language to which they barely contributed and he has been asked, along with another user, to support their claim with sourced information. I feel like this is such a silly thing, but it is utterly disruptive editing even if it is in good faith, and I don't want to get into an edit war over this crap again. What is the best solution? A full RFC? Do we leave the incorrect data up in the interim or is it okay to revert for the purpose of an RFC? Koncorde ( talk) 21:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Cuffthots now blocked per the SPI. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
'majoosi' Didn't know where else to take this and how serious this matter is. One could argue that I shouldn't have commented on it in my edit summary, but one could also argue we're living in 2020, and frankly slurs like this deserve to be condemned to show that they have absolutely no place in this day and age. It's basically a very discriminating term used against Iranians and Shia Muslims. EDIT: Looks like said user made a new account Majoosicorrector. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Ed, Thanks for the protection on the Judah P. Benjamin page. The IP has joined talk, accused three of us of socking and is now leaving comments such as “ Hope you enjoy having autism”. I’ve removed the comment but he’s put it back in. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, may I please ask you (or another administrator) to kindly close the AN appeal here, before the appeal is inadvertently archived. Thanks. Davidbena ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ed. I am sorry to ask you this but I do not know where else to ask. My Wikipedic life has been increasingly become more difficult not only with the Watchlist not working (since 2018) resulting in delayed response to disruption (the only way to overcome is to create dozens of bookmarks to articles and visit them manually), but also the Preview Mode is having problems (button is unresponsive to mouse clicks). This leaves me no other options but use my own talk page [43] just to test templates such as 3RR before using them in official capacity [44], or even use Microsoft Word to "preview" it before posting it. I assume these issues are better to be discussed by the technical support of Wikipedia, but I am not sure if there is an way for Editors to contact them? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to ask you about what would be a reasonable interpretation of
WP:SUMMARYNO in the context of me writing the following summary: Appian (1st century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies
which I
wrote in the context of an edit I made as a synthesis between previously held positions in a miniscule "dispute". Khirurg claims that it was a mocking of him and came to my talkpage
User_talk:Maleschreiber#Don't_mock_users_in_edit_summaries to "promise" that he would report me to AE if "did that again". I explained to him that I was definitely not mocking him. Nonetheless, he kept going that I'll have to defend myself in AE if I do it again and that I "shouldn't play dumb" about it. I again explained to him that in general there's no mocking in highlighting things that someone may not be aware of (the exact phrase I used) - when it's done in the context of information sharing. I'm not that fussed about the incident of him "promising" to report me, because as you remember from AN3 this sort of overblown behavior regularly happens the Balkans topic area, but for future reference I wanted to ask someone whose function in wikipedia is to interprete policies and guidelines if in the context of
WP:SUMMARYNO my summary could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
18:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
As incivility goes, this appears minor. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can you please help me with Haider Khan 10 he is bent on making his tribe fake Afghans or Pashtuns while they aren't such. He says he needs no reference. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 09:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the view point above they are Pashtunized tajiks or Dehqan race, while this user is bent on making them Bettanis. Ask him which Bettanis clan are they from and he thinks Swatis are pure Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I had written the exactly the same Pashtunized dehqan race to which his comments went even more derogatory as no need to mention Pashtunized as they are Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If you could just ask him to back his assertion with Swatis being Bettanis from which subtribe of Bettanis even that would be a help as this guy isn't only on this page but falsify Bettanis page, Pashtun page and other Afghan pages also. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand you won't have that kind of time but he is making disruptive edits to different pages without a reason. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Haider Khan10 he has been falsifying origins of different tribes since ages especially making Swati tribe page. Look at his attitude and answers. Why am I confronting him because he has been doing it since many years he needs to be stopped. Look at his response to you that he has been doing it since 10 years over Wikipedia and can't be blocked. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 17:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Well yes why not if he stops from editing and misqouting the sources. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My sources aren't books that people keep writing to their benefits as If they are fighting a case from the scratch to categorize this tribe a Pashtuns. These are as following and verifiable online:-
1. Hazara Gazetteer 1883 and 1907 2. Imperial Gazetteer of India (1 and 2 both official documents) 3. Tribes of Hindukush (John Biddulph 1880) 4. Notes on Afghanistan (Maj. Raverty) 5. History of Afghans by Dorn B. 6. The Pathans by Olaf Caroe. 1950...1952 7. Kindgom of Cauble Elphistone. 8. Hayat e Afghan by Hayat Khan. 9. Khursheed e Jahan by Sher Muhammad Gandapur. 10. An inquiry into Ethnography of Afghanistan.
These are all printed by "publishers" and not by "printers" like the other Haider Khan 10 is presenting to build up his case of the tribe being Pashtun or Afghan.
Late in 1960s some of these communities did try to generate content to prove they are Afghans or Pashtuns all printed by "printers" and poorly sourced. Same is the case with this tribe.
The editors Haider Khan 10 couldn't even answer my simple question if this tribe is:-
1. Sarbarni 2. Karlanri 3. Ghorghusts 4. Bettanis ( he did try to make an edit to call Swatis as Bettani tribe without any idea which Bettanis subsection they are from????
He doesn't believe in fables as he always keep saying but trying to descend from these fables himself. (Strange isn't it)???.
Swatis are Pashtunized Tajiks of an old race once known "Dehqans" that's they name they have been joining the British Army with and that Military paper is still valid for official purposes to date. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
May I write articles about Russian Ebola and MERS vaccines?-- Александр Мотин ( talk) 11:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I hope all is well with you. Once again, apparently, rival factions of the Gabrieleño/Gabrielino/Tongva people are edit-warring with the content of the Tongva page to conform it to their decidedly non-neutral point of views—one side adding biased text with misformatted and often non-reliably-sourced refs, while the other wholesale blanks entire sections of the article. Carlstak ( talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're well. Could you take a look at User talk:Crazydude1912#August 2020. He was blocked for 24-hours for edit-warring at Battle of Paštrik. His block expires in a few hours, so my request here is not an unblock review. What I would want is an outside opinion about the conditions of his original block. As I've explained there, this guy didn't made even 3 reverts that would get him a warning. He made 2 reverts inside the 24-hour cycle of content that has been readded by IPs/new accounts for weeks there day in, day out. The IPs/new accounts never respond and always add OR content or try to introduce some dubious sites. Also, another editor made also 2 reverts (with almost the same content as Crazydude1912) but he wasn't blocked. If someone reported CD1912 to AN3 for those 2 reverts, I don't think that he would get blocked for them.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, can you look at the personal attacks from this user here and here. This user has a history of personal attack and edit-warring, and needs to be stopped. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 17:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm this user and I came to know that you've imposed a sitewide block on me of 3 months. I want to know what was the reason to block me with proper evidence. I've never edited anything on any page however sometimes I've accidentally pressed the edit button but I return without doing any modifications. You've stated that I am guilty for long term abuse, abuse? What kind of abuse? Looks like you've randomly blocked me. If yes,then I'll complain about you to Wikipedia and ask them to take necessary action on you for misusing your administrative powers. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kartik0230 ( talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. On 20 Aug, you blocked an IP editor at [47]. Thanks for that. The IP editor is ranting at length at User talk:197.89.19.112, including numerous personal attacks on other editors. I'm not familiar with the precise criteria for the decision, but I wondered if it would be appropriate to block their Talk page editing as well? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The editor removed all topics from the talk page of the article. This is what they always do.... Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I fail to understand what has he done may be this what he wanted.... anyway he made edits to the article without reaching a consensus. I didn't undo it but I guess it's enough to prove he destroys these articles. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thanks for your help by sending in USaamo ,however, the user in question wants to change the racial identity of this tribe due his own alignment. USaamo and I both tried and rather USaamo gave him two very neutral ledes but the guy seems to be bent on making Swatis cis Indus tribe living Khyber Pukhtunkhawa as pure Pashtuns. The reality is this tribe is Pashtunized race of Tajiks called Dehqans (not ordinary farmer in local language).
You can ask USaamo further about it. I am really looking forward to help from you, please.
Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the book online but it simply made everyone Pukhtun written by one Roshan Khan who was a known Pashtun Nationalist however I can tell you this much about every tribe is a Pashtun to grab more votes. His paragraph on Swatis was since these people have village named Buttal in their district they are Bhittanis". Just four lines about Swatis nothing more it was printed in 70s in Urdu, Pashto and Persian also. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, apparently I was blocked by you on request of Aviartm - he had reverted my edits for more than 3 times in a 24 hours period himself. Please also take action against his user account. Thank you. Michael.alexander.kaufmann ( talk) 13:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I started to revert some of this users edits [48] (on articles that are on my watchlist), such as Yazid I which ignored WP:RS and MOS:LEAD ( [49]). Instead of taking my advice and reading the rules, he started hounding me, reverting two of my edits which I did a few days ago ( [50] and [51]). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (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.
Hey, Ed. Hope you're safe and well. So, there have been several move discussions in Kosovo-related articles. The better known in terms of daily readership are:
Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move 20 August 2020 and
Talk:Peć#Requested move 18 August 2020. There have been raised several concerns about canvassing attempts which affect the result. In fact, a similar editing pattern was observed at an AfD I filed a few weeks ago:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. As a result, they have been relisted. Today, an editor (
Anastan) who opposed all moves about a week ago, made a series of similar comments across three different discussions
[55]
[56]
[57] in which he accused Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by
WP:ARBMAC.
and that Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy.
It's obvious that
Mikola22 who opened the discussion about the title of
Vučitrn is not a paid advocacy account. Neither am I, nor is any of the ca. 25-30 editors across all articles - many of wildly different backgrounds - who have supported the moves paid by any government entity. Paid advocacy accusations which concern relations to government agencies are egregious and undermine the integrity of the project.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
11:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone is paid, that’s insane to me. Editors sometimes approach too emotionally. I have tried several times to point out the polarized and very tense atmosphere on Balkan topics. It was wrong to launch several similar RfCs and RMs at the same time, until at least one situation is resolved and tensions calm down. Quality and productive discussion cannot be conducted in these conditions. Bias and canvasing on both sides were obvious. Personally, I am already used to being declared both a “Serbian traitor” and a “Serbian ultranationalist” because I try to balance and add parts that criticize all nationalisms and authoritarian regimes. Admins persistently ignore a lot of my reports for serious offenses that could even endanger me. Only editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. @ Maleschreiber: Please stop dragging me into this story. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with such a mundane issue, but could you please take a look at the edits made by user 89MsHm regarding the article Guba Mass Grave? They keep removing sourced information, just because they dont agree with it. We were having a discussion in the Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Hayk_Demoyan_reaction, but they went and removed more sentences without discussion. Their whole argument is Azerbaijan archives prove it happened, so the Armenian reaction doesnt belong on the page. Same can be said about the Armenian Genocide or the pogroms that took place against Armenians by Azerbaijan, but those articles have a section depicting the Azerbaijani/Turkish side of events. Also, they have broken the 3 revert rule numerous times. Thank you for your time. Ninetoyadome ( talk) 04:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ed. Just wanted to say hello. Regarding the section above, I do have several problematic evidences about the traveling circus that tried to remove my comments, most of them gathered above, links about off wiki collaborations and few other troubling links, but i will not post those on wiki, as that way they will be able to hide their traces again, as they did before few times already (i have evidences for that too)... I would love to ask is there any place i can raise this question any other way but onwiki for all to see? It is also question of my personal safety, as you remember, some of them tried to find my real life identity, but luckily failed. Its real question here. I am so sorry to bother you with this pitiful troubles. This all takes us away from great joy of creation of new articles... But Wikipedia should not be used as propaganda tool and for political struggle. Thank you very much. P.S. Expecting comments right away here :) :) -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Another person two days ago just removed my source reference in the dispute Battle of Baltimore article as shown, but with similiar argument with the the IP days earlier. I came to you because I don't want to devolve into something that gets me nowhere and would lead to another edit war in the article. I just want to let you know because I don't want to get banned again unintentionally that would lead me back right to where it belongs. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 14:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am writing a request that the account "Ytpks896" be subjected to an appropriate penalty for his actions on various Wikipedia articles. In May 2020, I had reported this user (when I was cleaning up and restructuring the article for the Pakistan Air Force) for constantly reverting my edits and not bothering to conduct a discussion with me on the talk page (despite me starting one for the express purpose of resolving the conflict). This user received a warning (for edit warring) from you and backed down for a little while before coming back and reverting every single edit (including those that weren't made by me) in the article to go back to a version before I had started restructuring it (following which they promptly went onto other articles that were edited by me and reverted every single one of my edits without explanation as well). Eventually, they were warned again about a month later for the same offence. Following Ytpks896's talk page history and edits, you can see that they have a history of edit warring with other users and persistently reverting changes (which were valid or constructive more often than not). My purpose of writing here is to bring attention to this issue yet again due to the fact that Ytpks896 has come onto a page I recently worked on, Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier and reverted all my edits with no explanation whatsoever. I fear this is a very similar situation to what occurred in May 2020 over the Pakistan Air Force article and humbly request you to look into this issue and take appropriately strict action so that these problems do not continue. Thanks, Xeed.rice ( talk) 01:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston Please review Xeed.rice recent edits at Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier, He change Afghan opposition section into Afghan opposition and border dispute and totally turned whole section on there based information not according to the reference in his edits he saying there is consensus in Afghanistan to non−recognition of border with Pakistan and have historic claims on Pakistani provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Balochistan without any source or reference. Ytpks896 ( talk) 10:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
At Pakistan Air Force Xeed.rice posts on the article talk page, starting on 18 May. But he not properly mentioned or invite me for consensus I'm not received any notification and Xeed.rice also have been unactive from 24 May 2020 to 4 July 2020. Ytpks896 ( talk) 11:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, as I said on my page I ain't looking for a war, but come on this comment is stupid "Why do the race results source need to show nationality? This is not WP:OR." Then goes and adds a link when he reads the policy to something else, and still some of the information is still OR in that table. I'm going to wait until he has stopped owning the page, cause it was literally a min before he reverted me before I edit again. Also he seems to have this issue every year of warring with people. Games of the world ( talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Please remove my block for editing... Khuntmohit444 ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Why my account is ban.... Khuntmohit444 ( talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, there is an appeal at WP:AN for a topic ban issued by you (search for "ToBeFree") ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (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,
I have not been on Wikipedia for many years, but someone I knew in the film research field brought this to my attention. She and some other professionals in her field were originally concerned that the user User talk:EuroHorrorGuy seemed to be adding a *huge* number of links to a specific book known not to be very authoritative on multiple articles. Upon looking into it, it seemed to be a major COI / advocacy.
I then posted about it on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977113309&oldid=977048448 The full section, with other people posting to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977894795&oldid=977825296 When he deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=next&oldid=977932191
Since then, one of these other people mentioned to me that the edits look extremely similar to those made by User:68.129.15.71, who was supposedly banned for a year back in July of this year. It also appears that the user's account was only created last year right after he was warned that he could be blocked as the IP for six months. The entire user seems to have been created as block avoidance technique.
The major source that both accounts added as a citation to articles is a book promoting a specific author. I myself have not looked into enough to know the full story, but they are convinced it is scheme to make himself seem authoritative so he gets hired to do more commentary tracks on rereleases of old videos and to hawk books. What is not in dispute is that there are whole articles that have become nothing but a long string of references to one or two books over and over, far outsized to the book's standing in that particular field. They say they are especially upset at so many incorrect statements added with this book as a citation when many other books say just the opposite. Reportedly some of the things look to be things that were posted and flagged by others as needing sources and then miraculously a book came out later on a very small press/vanity press and the user used that to cite these same things. If true, it seems like a way to manufacture citations that at least superficially appear to meet reliable sources guidelines to try to justify inclusion of original research.
Also, I tried to find a link to some disciplinary page I could report this, but I saw you handles the blocks for the presumed related IP account, so I thought it best to give you a heads up so you could look into it.
(For transparency, I used to edit under User:DreamGuy. I think perusal of my edits would show I was not regularly involved in controversies about articles related to old films, so I have no dog in this fight. Some acquaintances were asking what should be done about this situation and if I knew anything about how Wikipedia works.) 2601:840:8402:690:E8D5:7C3C:D8A5:BAAF ( talk) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if its great to add this to the conversation now, but User:Akmadomad also appear to be a an extra account for this user who is back to his old habit of editing Japanese and Italian obscure genre films. Sometimes re-adding information the previous IPs have added that were removed. First note that both users have pretty much the same user page and User:FrankensteinsDad. Anyways, their edits are vague, such as sourcing a DVD here (there is no DVD release of this film). the user also removes any warning/notification on their talk page here, adds unsourced info here, and likes to add alternative titles with no context here, etc. I feel as if this user is making great lengths not to be removed from Wikipedia by dancing between accounts to edit certain articles, but that's just my opinion. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Nope its not me. Just wanted to clear that up. Akmadomad ( talk) 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be multiple issues regarding this editor and they are all being conflated to the extent it is very difficult for an impartial editor to follow what is going on. I will take them one at a time and offer my thoughts.
Personally I would address the socking issue first. If you get a positive there (which is odds on IMO) then the other issue become a moot point. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. So, there's a slooow edit-war on Vasojevići. An IP editor reverted the status quo of an old dispute which Mikola22 highlighted a few months ago. When the IP editor reached 3 reverts, an account created on September 11 appeared and made the same reverts. Now, there was a discussion on the talkpage about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources or their republication in outdated sources, but the account reverts Mikola22 every time they restore the stable version. Because it's one of those very slow edit-wars, I don't really know if they can even be reported on ANI/3R and I'm not sure what form of admin oversight is applicable here.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So from my part what I did was that I restored the source, opened a discussion on TP, even posted a question on RsN about reliability, fixed what was main objection so that it doesn't goes under WP:OR and in return only thing what I got was continuous deletion from both editors and even a threat to be reported from Maleschreiber who didn't even bother to check is the source WP:SECONDARY. And because of what? 2 letters that mentions Vasojevici to Queen Catherine 2 , I don't understand aggression or controversy , my belief that the source should be in article since information are scarce and the letter has it's significance explaining political situation. If your main argumentation is that you should report me because of 3R rule I am not the only one who broke it as it can been seen here [ [66]]. User:Cobalton ( talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Maleschereiber but you are wrong, first off Mikola22 is the one who deleted disputed content on August 2. without any consensus as you can see here.My job here is edit Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. My edit summary (Source not speak that these tribes are "as Serb tribes", see source, this is OR, the second source added is WP:AGE MATTERS , see talk page), to this day no one has returned this information because it is what I am talking about, OR. Consensus cannot return information to the article which is not written in the source. Unfortunately I am alone and with one revert as option, but I try as hard as I can. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
References
1788. год. пише Иван Радоњић, црногорски губернатор, руској царици Катарини II.: „Сада ми сви Срби Црногорци молимо вашу царску милост да пошљете к нама књаза Софронија Југовића"." 1789. год. пише опет Иван Радоњић, црногорски губернатор, руској царици: „Сад ми сви Срби из Црне Горе, Херцеговине, Бањана, Дробњака, Куча, Пипера, Бjeлопавлића, Зете, Климената, Васојевића, Братоножића, Пећи, Косова, Призрена, Арбаније, Маћедоније припадамо вашему величанству и молимо, да као милостива наша мајка пошљете к нама књаза Со- фронија Југовића
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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 53 |
I left a message at User talk:Worm That Turned:
Hi there, I was originally going to message User:EdJohnston in view of my experience of his past admin work. But then I saw you represented the arbcom in the recent Volunteer Marek versus Icewhiz case. I have a concern about a related matter in the WP:ARBEE topic area. It would be helpful if VMvI could be learned from by all users. It would also be helpful if editors could notify admins about places where there are signs of possible future escalation. Is there a noticeboard where I can flag the issue to all relevant administrators on that VMvI case (and/or ARBEE in general) in one go, rather than messaging admins directly? I have no wish to raise formal procedure, I would simply like to flag a volatile area so that things do not to have to get that far. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't heard back yet, so please could you let me know your opinion on the appropriate noticeboard or equivalent WP:APL and/or WP:ARBEE related discussion pages? Much obliged, -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I just made a wikipedia account so I could address this: I'm really concerned that the coronavirus page has inaccurate scientific information that has serious implications. Since my account is new I can't edit the talk page, which is where I would have preferred to put this.
The page currently has the CFR of COVID-19 at 7.1, citing the JHU dashboard. This is a crude estimate of the CFR, and one likely to inflict more panic than appropriate. See the following articles for better information on epidemiologists estimating CFRs (in ways more comparable to SARS and MERS as would be appropriate for your table): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. As you'll see, most estimates for the CFR are closer to 1-4%. I propose you remove the inaccurate and unbased 7% figure and replace it with a note that the CFR is an active field of research and the information is not yet available to say certainly what it is. Your table conveys far too much certainty and this is really dangerous.
NoozeEnvy ( talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi EdJohnston, I noticed you block me from editing Beyonceś page due to edit warring, may I request to unblock me? I will add awards with proper links on her page. Thank you Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an IP that was adding Original research to article Jehovah's Witness. I reverted because it was using the bible to explain the belief and not a reliable source explicitly stating this. 2 reverts to the IP. Now 1 revert to the new account. I left warnings and a note. Where do I stand as far as 3RR, I don't think it counts as an exception and thus barring any communication from the user, I should stop? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked user:184.98.237.95 infinitely, which I know is not supposed to normally be done to IP addresses. Just wanted to let you know. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in this article Glina, Croatia It seems to me accusations of me breaking some of Wikipedia’s rules are not true. Can you take a look. PortalTwo ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this article. There was an edit dispute, which you closed, with the remark "Try to ensure that your additional changes have consensus". Although not an employee of the organization, I admitted a close relationship, posted a COI notice, and have restricted my comments to the talk page. After a period of inactivity I just suggested what appears to be a good WP:RS. diff. This seems to have provoked a response from Ferderline who has edited the article, characterizing opposition to the PIR sale as "significant", adding anti-sale material while ignoring any corresponding responses. And then appended another item (Iran) that is sourced to an ISOC internal mailing list. diff Further, Ferderline has gone to my own user page and edited it to say "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Internet Society for his contributions to Wikipedia." diff when I have done nothing of the kind. What say? Might some kind of block be in order? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wwwhatsup ( talk), EdJohnston ( talk). I apologize for not being involved in this conversation sooner and for my absence from Wikipedia. I am still learning how this website works and how best I can contribute. My edits yesterday were not provoked by any recent changes to the Internet Society article; it was merely a case of me stumbling across another Wikipedia article and then noticing there were unread notifications. I clicked on one and noticed that edits had been made to the Internet Society article. I made some further, factual contributions to the page using neutral language. I do not appreciate it, Wwwhatsup, that you question my motivations so frequently. I also find it scandalous that you would seek to have me blocked from this website. You are paid by the Internet Society to make social media posts, so if anyone has a conflict of interest here, it is very clearly you. Wwwhatsup is correct that one claim is unsourced; I will add a citation now to the article so that this claim is supported by a primary source. The inclusion of the OFAC issue is a legitimate controversy so I do not support removing it. I have never before been told that I must propose a change on a Wikipedia talk page, I was always under the impression one may edit Wikipedia whenever they like and directly on the page itself. As for your allegations that my language was not neutral, I reject these claims. Ferdeline ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, Wwwhatsup ( talk) states that I "characteriz[ed] opposition to the PIR sale as "significant"." Yes I did, and I believe this to be a true and fair statement. Opposition to the sale has included three separate petitions with tens of thousands of signatures, opposition by ISOC's own chapters, letters from the California Attorney General, five US Senators including Senator Elizabeth Warren, and letters of opposition from a coalition of organizations including National Geographic, the Red Cross, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, and the Girl Scouts of America. There are literally only two public supporters of the sale, Vint Cerf and ISOC itself! Ferdeline ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how citing off-platform harassment is bad faith, if it is pertinent to a pattern of harrasment. I do admit, when the RFC first came out, I did post a notice to a topic-related closed facebook group to try to recruit more independent minds, familiar to both of us, to respond. Not with any visible success, sorry to say. This is different to the public outing and harassment I am receiving. This includes the latest suggestion on my talk page that I may not discuss the article.( diff). It is difficult to see how consensus based editing, as suggested, may proceed. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. I’m not sure what Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are? I know I had got into a revert war at one point though not the same reverts. But I walked aways from the article days before this report was made by the other user. I had no interest returning to that article. Why am I being sanctioned? The ANI you linked to was made about the other user, I wasn’t part of that ANI or listed there. This is the first time ever someone had reported me. OyMosby ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your block of User:Dr Parthiv Ravichandiran, I don't know if you noticed, but User:Periyarist has made the same legal threat though with less words. See this diff. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit is source misrepresentation and original research. Considering it is an IP that continues to edit war their POV into the article, what can be done? They have been warned twice by Materialscientist.
P.S. Hope you and yours are safe and healthy during these crazy times on this planet. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this report was archived, prematurely it seems. Can someone provide an evaluation of the report? Thank you. MA Javadi ( talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I know you do not patrol SPI, but I filed a report on the above user, with whom you have had some familiarity, with commentary here. The alacrity at which they have been following my edits (see below) is quite impressive:
Diffs
|
---|
|
CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. Thanks for your comments about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) on closing the AN3 report on User:Lobsterthermidor, here. You mentioned raising an RfC on its talk page - in the light of what's on that page now, what aspect do you see the RfC covering? — SMALL JIM 22:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure about that? The way I read it, they were reverting vandalism; in fact vandalism from exactly the LTA the filter was supposed to stop. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston ( talk) I noticed that I am still blocked from editing the page while Cornerstonepicker who initiated the edit warring is still active deleting awards from the page, It´s unfair how he isn´t blocked but I was. I already posted at the Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration and WP:Request for comment but still, no one replied and I am still blocked. I hope you reconsider things. Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 02 May 2020 (UTC)
You say that some awards have their own Wikipedia articles. Can you give examples? EdJohnston ( talk) 04:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There are also awards that don´t have wikipedia page but got sources from reputable sites. For example is the WACO Humanitarian Award https://www.eonline.com/shows/e_news/news/921692/beyonce-was-honored-with-the-humanitarian-award-at-the-2018-wearable-art-gala https://www.essence.com/celebrity/beyonce-humanitarian-award-speech-tina-knowles/
There are more awards from the previous pages deleted. Again, I don´t have intentions on having edit warri ng, I only want access to edit the page again for future use when she won awards. I hope you understand. Beyhiveboys ( Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 12 May 2020
Why did you protected Santasa edits, his removal of the sourced references? Čeha ( razgovor) 13:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
has continued the same nonsense not logged in (see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honest_Yusuf_Cricket); their recent disruptive edits are at
Peter Pan (1953 film) and
Song of the South. Any chance you could do something about it, or should I take it to a noticeboard? (
JWB
JBW put some protection on
Criticism of The Walt Disney Company, I see, but they've just shifted to other articles.) --
JBL (
talk)
00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@LBJHa! Apologies for the mix-up. I agree with your analysis. -- JBL ( talk) 23:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! Do you know, or what do you think, if GA reviewer is allowed to seek "second opinion" - nominator is advised to seek second opinion on reviewer's conclusions, perspectives, etc., per GA support pages, but nowhere is explicitly mentioned that reviewer too could seek second opinion if some issue can't be solved easily or simply reviewer find him/herself unsure about something particular in the article. Thanks and take care.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. First off, thank you very much for semi-protecting The Great Cold Distance and Night Is the New Day. I think that is already positively affecting those pages.
With that said, one of the IP genre vandals involved with the ultimate semi-protection of those pages, one in the #2804 range, has committed similar activity for over four years. I have started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the person/people, and any input you may have would be appreciated. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch ( talk) 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hiya. This user [7] whomst you warned earlier doesn't seem to be here to WP:BUILDWP and shows a clearcase of WP:HUH? as well, constantly edit warring and whatnot [8] [9] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, after this 3rr report you gave a 48-hour edit-warring block to Honduras200010. As soon as it expired, they were back to make the same edit removing large sections of the article without explanation or discussion: [10], [11]. They've also continued to add copyright violations. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Ed Johnston. I am sorry to have wasted your time on this silliness. Had the vandalism been small, I would have just ignored it completely, but it brings up a question you may be able to answer for me.
If somebody deleted a large amount of dispersed information from an article, and then other people edited the article after that, is there a simple method to re-incorporate the old, deleted, dispersed information into the most recent page?
Zeus Maximus (
talk)
03:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'd just like to thank you for protecting the Sylheti Nagri page from vandalism. Is it possible to also protect the Sylheti language page as it tends to occasionally have a lot of vandals as well? It has been protected in the past due to a number of incidents which you can see in the talk page. Many thanks. UserNumber ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This IP has categorically been deleting referenced information from a wide span of article, ranging from Armenian to Turkish to Persian/Iranian. Examples:
Many more not shown. I personally checked the Mimar Sinan and Franco-Ottoman alliance references and they checked out. I believe the IP is simply removing information they do not like. Said IP has 6 warnings on their talk page from 6 different editors(I have not posted any). Would you be interested in addressing this issue? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. If it's not any trouble, could you please review my notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? The user in question is continuing to disrupt the page. Thanks in advance. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 20:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I apologize as I was not looking at the posting on the talk page, as my system hadn't refreshed it's self, I reverted it, at the bottom of the talk paged I have placed content for review, by others and feedback. Any other further guidance that you could provide would be wonderful.
Thanks,
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwritter251 ( talk • contribs)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
I admit, was pessimist that the new naming dispute that arose at Macedonia Naming Dispute wouldn't be solved as quickly as it did! I am relieved and grateful to both Peacemaker67 for the quick resolution and to you for being a voice of logic in a dispute that had met all the conditions for spiralling out of control. Thank you, EdJohnston! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hey, Ed, your attention is needed at Macedonia and Macedonia Naming Dispute. Certain editors known in the past for their Macedonian POV, are trying to remove any qualifiers (i.e North) that were in place in front of the name Macedonia, a change which is finding me and other editors disagreeing with and was made without seeking WP:CONSENSUS first. I strongly believe these qualifiers have to stay to avoid potential semiological confusion. The disputed changes the editors made are:
Lengthy post. Click to view. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change:
Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is:
Now the editors changed it unilaterally (without having consensus) to:
Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change:
Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is:
Now the editors reverted it unilaterally (without having consensus) to:
|
I notice that you recently closed a dispute regarding User:Jontel repeatedly removing information critical of Gilad Atzmon which resulted in no sanction due to Jontel promising not to edit the page for a month. However, Jontel has now begun removing well sourced information which is critical of Atzmon from a significant number of pages using, what seems to me, rather weak and non-policy based reasons. I noticed when they twice removed well sourced information from a page I was editing ( Special:Diff/960630625/960691250 & Special:Diff/960787948/960830079 ) with edit summaries that appear to be attempts to explain why the cited source is wrong. They have also removed well sourced information on Atzman from at least 7 other pages (can provide diffs if requested). I know that it is not directly editing Atzmon's page, but it seems to violate the spirit of the promise, and given that they immediately reverted my re-addition of the material even after it was reworded to more closely match the source, and this exact topic has been point of contention in the recent past, I did not want to edit war, or to be seen as hounding them if I re-added the improperly removed material from the other articles (even though I know that "correcting related problems on multiple articles" is expressly not hounding, I know it can appear as such). So, any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. AmbivalentUnequivocality ( talk) 06:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, considering that you were involved on several pages regarding Bosnia in the middle ages which have been targeted by a number of editors who undertook several long POV edit wars, and considering that you are familiar with all editors involved, I must ask, considering that editor Ceha was recently banned, how is it possible that other editors involved in those edit-wars (from the other side) were not sanctioned at all? As somebody who was observer in those cases, it seems to me that only due to eloquence and unkept promises of proper behaviour other parties engaged remained without the ban which was imposed to Čeha. For example, just recently, on this page we had various smaller edit wars and point-scoring [15] (see edits made on the 18th may and 3RR broken [16]). Just recently I was given this sort of diff (on the page which I have edit some time ago, prior to this "encounter") [17]. Please do something about it, as it is getting out of hand, which became apparent after the editor who was engaged in several edit-wars with this editor and a few more, was removed out of their way. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I provided sources for the edit, and user:Quale was fine with the edit after it was modified, check his talk page. I don’t »hop ips«, that’s my provider and it’s beyond my control. I wasn’t edit warring, the other party was. Lots of accusations and unfounded claims on your part that you used for an arbitrary move. Good to see in which direction Wikipedia is headed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:4540:641d:4900:4d1f:aa0d:b168:3d47 ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for swiftly blocking User:2600:1702:1450:2BE0:5DF7:662A:5535:BAE4. Cheers. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you've blocked me for three months. However, the recent edits that have been traced to me aren't actually mine. I've only been editing UFC event pages and articles pertaining to the ICC Awards lately, so I suspect foul play is involved here. Most of this disruptive editing hasn't really been done by me and I'm hoping you'll unblock me when I next log out. — 29cwcst ( talk) 06:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a slow motion edit war dispute occurring on
Nicholas II of Russia
[18] between several users. It is over whether the term "execution" or a change to the term "murder" (and their variants in the article) is the correct term to use regarding the killing of the Tsar. "Execution" appears in the stable version prior to the dispute
[19] and the term used at
Execution of the Romanov family.
I have not become involved because I'm not sure how to properly mediate the issue. Since you are involved in the edit war boards, I figured the best course was to ask, watch, and learn. Thank you in advance. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, i have to say that im just applying the outcome of basically all discussions on the matter on the talk page of the Nicholas II's page, indeed im sad to beging called in a "slow motion edit "war" " But indeed, the term murmer have been chosen de facto when he was declared innocent by the russian court of Justice, and even if this would have not outcurred the term is becoming day by day obsolete, but, apart this fact, simply the word "Execution" means an systematic thing, the Romanov family murder was not. It happened in a basament, informally, and many of the murders were drunk. I hope you will understand this, cheers - Mattia332 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I did some checking with the two sources I have. Robert Massie (Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty) and Robert Service (The Last of the Tsars: Nicholas II and the Russia Revolution) use both terms.
@ Mattia332: I apologize if my use of "slow motion edit war" was offensive. I honestly intended no disrespect to anyone and was simply trying to find a way to mediate this. Please forgive any offense as it was unintended. I have also modified my original comment. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Users that agree with me trought the Talks held the the discussion page of Nicholas II of Russia, with either the terms i proposed of assassination, murder or killing... : Averell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FlaviaR ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MJFroggie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 122.106.255.204 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Keltara ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jeanne Boleyn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sdsures ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Федоров ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.114.16.212 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I hope this will list will be useful. -- Mattia332 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I see, then i thanks you and hereby ask to help me in that of Nicholas II's, neutrally speaking deserve more than outdated word that for for dictionary means a formal and legally recognized thing... Cheers. Mattia332 ( talk) 9:49, 18 June 2020 (CET)
On 6 September 2019, you indefinitely semi-move-protected Punjab Sports University due to its history of move-warring by IPs over the name, and as per a rough consensus that Punjab Sports University is the common name. However, it seems that it has a longer name again. It appears that User:Anthony Appleyard has also been trying to clean up the mess that these IPs are making. Are they gaming the semi-move-protection again somehow? Please figure out what is going on, and do whatever needs to be done. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, not sure why, but it seems you Blocked my IP address Michael773623 ( talk) 10:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Michael773623 ( talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add some Citations yesterday, I could enter the data but the Edits didn't appear, so it seemed to me it was a full block - I'll try later today to see if it works :-) Michael773623 ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Confirming, EdJohnston I am still not able to Edit Michael773623 ( talk) 03:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add citations to existing text re Marc Newson, and add new text to The Saturday Paper but the citations won't load there either. I have been Logged In both times Michael773623 ( talk) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks EdJohnston - I was testing what was possible, I can Add and Delete text but I can't add a Citation. The Citation dialog box appears, I enter the data and press Insert, and I land back on the Edit page but the Citation hasn't loaded. I guess the issue is that if I can't add citations, I can't really Edit. Michael773623 ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe I'm using the Visual Editor, I haven't learnt how to manually add citations Michael773623 ( talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I've worked out how to manually enter Citations - thx, feel free to Delete this chain of msgs Michael773623 ( talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm responding (I think) to this issue, that I don't really see as an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Perrine ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The picture in question was agreed to. and I was part of the consensus. is that okay, now? Please remember I created the page and have been a major contributor to it for years, Unlike Tartan, who is just an occassional visitor.! Arglebargle79 ( talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Long time no see. I have recently been confronted by a strange new (likely single purpose) account making accusations about my behaviour (such as that I have 'locked' the article from being edited), in relation to Frankfurt School. You're the fellow that protected the page, it seems, and in any case, my experience with this article is that these sorts of accounts are better not engaged with. Perhaps you can take a look for me? RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Unhelpful post |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm flattered that you assumed i launched into this without reading the edits. I did go through them which is how I identified said fucknut above who then directed me to a second fucknut (you). Its okay, there are plenty of other sources to gather information written by legitimate academics, I dont need to read the musings of people who can only accomplish monopolizing free public platforms to pursue their own political agenda. I dont need to cipher through asinine protocals designed to protect people like you. I feel much better now having read message board upon message board of people who have been bullied out of the use of this site -- who's catchphrase appears to be "anyone can edit!", i guess they didnt anticipate it being infiltrated by people like yourselves who cannot use a public platform without asserting dominance over it as a form public masturbation. All the best to both of you, I hope you enjoy your tiny, quite places in history as two faceless authoritarian wikipedia page editors (lmao). I think I just broke every last one of your protocol there, this website is clearly a sinking ship xox |
Katiedel0 ( talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I don't know if this is possible but I need your help to edit an Edit Summary. First of all let me explain: a broken edit summary text slipped my attention when I transfered my unpublished edits from the Phone version of Wikipedia to the PC version of it. (I was hoping the Phone application of Wikipedia would let me edit Wikipedia but its different UI was causing me frustration). In this progress, the Edit summary which was meant to write:
ended up writing:
FYI, There is no North Macedonian people. Also to make things worse, the edit summary is on an article of a politically-sensitive topic.
I usually double-check the edit summaries before I publish them, and any mistakes in them are usually ignored. But this time? I can't let it like that due to falling on people idendities and this may be perceived as insult. It is driving me nuts. Can please something be done about it?
Edit summary in question is found here: [20]
I will be grateful! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston, Can you take a look at this report ( User:Afer Ephraimite). The user started again edit warring in the page Barghawata. Kind Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Just informing that this edit violates the topic ban you imposed on Spicybiryani. [21] Siddsg ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(Original title of this thread was: Stalking )
After their snide remark on another article followed by an attempt to make it personal(ie. what I should go do with myself), clearly this individual has now decided to make this personal by stalking my edits.
Clearly Wikipedia has become a place for a chosen few to use what they want to write what they want. When they can not prove a source is reliable, then snide remarks and personalized comments are used. I see no reason to continue editing when harassment is a tool to be used to verify the reliability of a source! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello there,
I'd like to draw you attention that User:Santasa99 is again engaging in a revert war by re-installing the disputed templates without a consensus. I see he added a RfC on the TP and is using that as an excuse for re-adding the templates, but I would like to kindly ask you to take action against this unilateral act, because myself and other users are tired of the edit war that User:Santasa99 single-handedly caused. Could you please remove the tags or, if you disagree, inform users that it is OK to add tags and then open a discussion on them.
Thanks,
-- UrbanVillager ( talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you block me for 24 hours, please? I need to stop myself from doing something I would regret... GUtt01 ( talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (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.
Dear EdJohnston, I have noticed you have blocked Konli17. But he actually has explained his edit around the disputed Washington Post quote rather good at the talk page, and it makes sense to me. Tell Abyad was surely not detached from the Raqqa Governorate "unilateraly" by the SDF/YPG in 2015. The capital of the Raqqa Governorate was at the time Raqqa, and Raqqa a large territory surrounding it was Governed by the Islamic State well into 2016. Raqqa fell only in October 2017. The rest is explained at the Talk page. Maybe you could have a look at it there, too. I think he should be deblocked. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, we have tried to find a solution to the conflict at Tell Abyad, but most, (You, the ANI, the DRN, the Teahouse refused to comment on it, as for now) refused to comment on the content of the dispute so far. Now the complaining editor was reverting me twice without giving me any answer at the talk page, even though I have added several sources to the talk page 6 days ago. I'd like to know what's your call now!. You were the blocking sysop in the first place, maybe you find a good solution. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry to bother you; you adjudicated on this in May. my closure of the edit warring complaint I am encountering a number of conduct issues on editing and the talk page incorporating what seems to me to be multiple non policy compliance from one editor. I have looked through dispute resolution but think only sanctions would have any effect. Could you suggest my best course of action? Many thanks, Jontel ( talk) 08:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Vlachs, I edit information according to the RS. Some information does not exist in the source but I can't delete it although evidence is on that source's page. Explained on talk page: "This information does not exist in RS, the proof is on the page p. 203-204, everything outside the source is OR and personal opinion which is not allowed in the article. We must respect RS." [23] I'm interested what I as an editor can do to keep information consistent with the RS, ie what options do I have not to enter in the edit war. Proof that this information does not exist in the source is claim of one editor "Then also find a source about it and add there so the reader will have clue of deeper historic background of the term". Thanks. Mikola22 ( talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to these Muslim auxiliary forces there were some zimmi who performed regular military duties and had the same rights as the müsellem. They were known under various names — Uskok, Valachs and Martolos among others — and were counted as members of the military class because of their occupation. Their origin is not quite clear. They might have been the descendants of Christians who fought as allies and vassals with Murad I and Bayezid I.
Thought you might want to be aware of [30] since you appear to have warned this editor. I am busy fixing [31] and have just fixed [32], [33], etc. in that article. This editor has had the "Bridgwater" edit reverted by others (for instance [34], [35]) but seems to persist with this for no apparent reason and no cited refs. The editor must know these are being reverted. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, this user who has had issues with edit warring and a rude personality is reverting edits that I personally believe were fine over at /info/en/?search=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 , They've had similar issues related to the show before, and though I restored the page to what I think is better, I'll let you make a call on it so as to not edit war, but I do want this user to know this behavior is not welcome here, Thanks! Noelephant ( talk) 14:51, 15 July 202 (UTC)
Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=968004485, they are clearly not listening.... Noelephant( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed. You said that you were blocking this editor, but they seem to have evaded it somehow: [40]. They're commenting on talk pages but do not seem at all interested in having a constructive discussion on the matter: [41]. It's disruptive and it seems likely they'll try to continue their edit warring subtlety. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This relates to your adjudication on 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) on the "edit warring" page:
"Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options."
I am afraid that no consensus has been reached. Another user (Andysmith248) started an RfC on the issue, but no one else has joined the discussion. A proposal has been made which I do not agree to, but I'm afraid that I cannot continue the discussion because I find Funky Snack's tone to be excessively aggressive. He does not appear to be interested in any sort of compromise or trying to understand other people's point of view. So I have withdrawn from the discussion and let things stand as they are for the time being.
Funky Snack is now telling me not to make any further edits to the Times Radio page. Does he have any authority to do this? As far as I know, as long as I don't revert any previous edits on the presenter list, I am free to add whatever content I like elsewhere on the page. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. GDBarry ( talk) 08:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Please take a look here. The user continues to be aggressive and make accusations. - Funky Snack ( Talk) 13:53, 20 July 2020 (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.
Hey, I saw that Looney Tunes Cartoons' 1st season has been categorized as 1A by User:Evelynkwapong539, and reverted since there was not a source, and though they did provide a source ( https://pressroom.warnermediagroup.com/us/media-release/hbo-max/hbo-max-highlights-august-2020), It does not provide evidence that the season is categorized as 1A, and they have continued to revert after I explained my reasoning without explanation. I think they are trying to be better considering past behavior, but I do not wish to edit war, but I did want to bring this to light. Noelephant( talk) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970234524, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970247049, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_shorts&diff=prev&oldid=970246796, They seem to not be listening to my reasoning, my defense for the cast list on the main page is that there are characters confirmed and sourced properly, I'd rather not engage anymore until there is a civil solution. Noelephant( talk) 4:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I was placing some welcome templates on newbies' talk pages, and I noticed that. Is it allowed to write on your Youtube channel that way on Wiki? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be closing most AN3 reports. Sadko, who has been logged in April at
AE for misusing a report he launched against Mikola22, now joined a report about
Ktrimi991 (after Mikola22 did) and then launched a series of personal accusations about several editors (including Mikola22). He even went so far as to say that Ktrimi991 in RL would instantly get fired for Mobbing
. If someone wrote that in my talkpage, I would even go as far as to ask for it to be deleted as a personal attack, but to make such comments in an admin noticeboard of all places requires admin oversight in that discussion because it has been derailing to a
WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's obvious that Sadko knew exactly what he was writing and that it is a personal attack against Ktrimi991 because in that same comment he also said that I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that.
[42] I'll post the same notification on El C's talkpage who is the admin who logged the warning about the Sadko-Mikola22 case at AE.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ed! Please look at Special:Contributions/International_Racialized_Student_in_Canada and the recent edits at List of universities in Canada, which I redid. Per W ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Afternoon Ed, I previously reported a user for edit warring with no action taken. They are still attempting to make the same unsupported changes while also leaving misleading edit summaries about prior discussions. The outcomes of the last discussion clearly supported existing language to which they barely contributed and he has been asked, along with another user, to support their claim with sourced information. I feel like this is such a silly thing, but it is utterly disruptive editing even if it is in good faith, and I don't want to get into an edit war over this crap again. What is the best solution? A full RFC? Do we leave the incorrect data up in the interim or is it okay to revert for the purpose of an RFC? Koncorde ( talk) 21:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Cuffthots now blocked per the SPI. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
'majoosi' Didn't know where else to take this and how serious this matter is. One could argue that I shouldn't have commented on it in my edit summary, but one could also argue we're living in 2020, and frankly slurs like this deserve to be condemned to show that they have absolutely no place in this day and age. It's basically a very discriminating term used against Iranians and Shia Muslims. EDIT: Looks like said user made a new account Majoosicorrector. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Ed, Thanks for the protection on the Judah P. Benjamin page. The IP has joined talk, accused three of us of socking and is now leaving comments such as “ Hope you enjoy having autism”. I’ve removed the comment but he’s put it back in. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, may I please ask you (or another administrator) to kindly close the AN appeal here, before the appeal is inadvertently archived. Thanks. Davidbena ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ed. I am sorry to ask you this but I do not know where else to ask. My Wikipedic life has been increasingly become more difficult not only with the Watchlist not working (since 2018) resulting in delayed response to disruption (the only way to overcome is to create dozens of bookmarks to articles and visit them manually), but also the Preview Mode is having problems (button is unresponsive to mouse clicks). This leaves me no other options but use my own talk page [43] just to test templates such as 3RR before using them in official capacity [44], or even use Microsoft Word to "preview" it before posting it. I assume these issues are better to be discussed by the technical support of Wikipedia, but I am not sure if there is an way for Editors to contact them? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to ask you about what would be a reasonable interpretation of
WP:SUMMARYNO in the context of me writing the following summary: Appian (1st century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies
which I
wrote in the context of an edit I made as a synthesis between previously held positions in a miniscule "dispute". Khirurg claims that it was a mocking of him and came to my talkpage
User_talk:Maleschreiber#Don't_mock_users_in_edit_summaries to "promise" that he would report me to AE if "did that again". I explained to him that I was definitely not mocking him. Nonetheless, he kept going that I'll have to defend myself in AE if I do it again and that I "shouldn't play dumb" about it. I again explained to him that in general there's no mocking in highlighting things that someone may not be aware of (the exact phrase I used) - when it's done in the context of information sharing. I'm not that fussed about the incident of him "promising" to report me, because as you remember from AN3 this sort of overblown behavior regularly happens the Balkans topic area, but for future reference I wanted to ask someone whose function in wikipedia is to interprete policies and guidelines if in the context of
WP:SUMMARYNO my summary could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
18:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
As incivility goes, this appears minor. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can you please help me with Haider Khan 10 he is bent on making his tribe fake Afghans or Pashtuns while they aren't such. He says he needs no reference. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 09:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the view point above they are Pashtunized tajiks or Dehqan race, while this user is bent on making them Bettanis. Ask him which Bettanis clan are they from and he thinks Swatis are pure Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I had written the exactly the same Pashtunized dehqan race to which his comments went even more derogatory as no need to mention Pashtunized as they are Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If you could just ask him to back his assertion with Swatis being Bettanis from which subtribe of Bettanis even that would be a help as this guy isn't only on this page but falsify Bettanis page, Pashtun page and other Afghan pages also. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand you won't have that kind of time but he is making disruptive edits to different pages without a reason. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Haider Khan10 he has been falsifying origins of different tribes since ages especially making Swati tribe page. Look at his attitude and answers. Why am I confronting him because he has been doing it since many years he needs to be stopped. Look at his response to you that he has been doing it since 10 years over Wikipedia and can't be blocked. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 17:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Well yes why not if he stops from editing and misqouting the sources. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My sources aren't books that people keep writing to their benefits as If they are fighting a case from the scratch to categorize this tribe a Pashtuns. These are as following and verifiable online:-
1. Hazara Gazetteer 1883 and 1907 2. Imperial Gazetteer of India (1 and 2 both official documents) 3. Tribes of Hindukush (John Biddulph 1880) 4. Notes on Afghanistan (Maj. Raverty) 5. History of Afghans by Dorn B. 6. The Pathans by Olaf Caroe. 1950...1952 7. Kindgom of Cauble Elphistone. 8. Hayat e Afghan by Hayat Khan. 9. Khursheed e Jahan by Sher Muhammad Gandapur. 10. An inquiry into Ethnography of Afghanistan.
These are all printed by "publishers" and not by "printers" like the other Haider Khan 10 is presenting to build up his case of the tribe being Pashtun or Afghan.
Late in 1960s some of these communities did try to generate content to prove they are Afghans or Pashtuns all printed by "printers" and poorly sourced. Same is the case with this tribe.
The editors Haider Khan 10 couldn't even answer my simple question if this tribe is:-
1. Sarbarni 2. Karlanri 3. Ghorghusts 4. Bettanis ( he did try to make an edit to call Swatis as Bettani tribe without any idea which Bettanis subsection they are from????
He doesn't believe in fables as he always keep saying but trying to descend from these fables himself. (Strange isn't it)???.
Swatis are Pashtunized Tajiks of an old race once known "Dehqans" that's they name they have been joining the British Army with and that Military paper is still valid for official purposes to date. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
May I write articles about Russian Ebola and MERS vaccines?-- Александр Мотин ( talk) 11:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I hope all is well with you. Once again, apparently, rival factions of the Gabrieleño/Gabrielino/Tongva people are edit-warring with the content of the Tongva page to conform it to their decidedly non-neutral point of views—one side adding biased text with misformatted and often non-reliably-sourced refs, while the other wholesale blanks entire sections of the article. Carlstak ( talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're well. Could you take a look at User talk:Crazydude1912#August 2020. He was blocked for 24-hours for edit-warring at Battle of Paštrik. His block expires in a few hours, so my request here is not an unblock review. What I would want is an outside opinion about the conditions of his original block. As I've explained there, this guy didn't made even 3 reverts that would get him a warning. He made 2 reverts inside the 24-hour cycle of content that has been readded by IPs/new accounts for weeks there day in, day out. The IPs/new accounts never respond and always add OR content or try to introduce some dubious sites. Also, another editor made also 2 reverts (with almost the same content as Crazydude1912) but he wasn't blocked. If someone reported CD1912 to AN3 for those 2 reverts, I don't think that he would get blocked for them.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, can you look at the personal attacks from this user here and here. This user has a history of personal attack and edit-warring, and needs to be stopped. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 17:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm this user and I came to know that you've imposed a sitewide block on me of 3 months. I want to know what was the reason to block me with proper evidence. I've never edited anything on any page however sometimes I've accidentally pressed the edit button but I return without doing any modifications. You've stated that I am guilty for long term abuse, abuse? What kind of abuse? Looks like you've randomly blocked me. If yes,then I'll complain about you to Wikipedia and ask them to take necessary action on you for misusing your administrative powers. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kartik0230 ( talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. On 20 Aug, you blocked an IP editor at [47]. Thanks for that. The IP editor is ranting at length at User talk:197.89.19.112, including numerous personal attacks on other editors. I'm not familiar with the precise criteria for the decision, but I wondered if it would be appropriate to block their Talk page editing as well? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The editor removed all topics from the talk page of the article. This is what they always do.... Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I fail to understand what has he done may be this what he wanted.... anyway he made edits to the article without reaching a consensus. I didn't undo it but I guess it's enough to prove he destroys these articles. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thanks for your help by sending in USaamo ,however, the user in question wants to change the racial identity of this tribe due his own alignment. USaamo and I both tried and rather USaamo gave him two very neutral ledes but the guy seems to be bent on making Swatis cis Indus tribe living Khyber Pukhtunkhawa as pure Pashtuns. The reality is this tribe is Pashtunized race of Tajiks called Dehqans (not ordinary farmer in local language).
You can ask USaamo further about it. I am really looking forward to help from you, please.
Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the book online but it simply made everyone Pukhtun written by one Roshan Khan who was a known Pashtun Nationalist however I can tell you this much about every tribe is a Pashtun to grab more votes. His paragraph on Swatis was since these people have village named Buttal in their district they are Bhittanis". Just four lines about Swatis nothing more it was printed in 70s in Urdu, Pashto and Persian also. Regards Azmarai76 ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, apparently I was blocked by you on request of Aviartm - he had reverted my edits for more than 3 times in a 24 hours period himself. Please also take action against his user account. Thank you. Michael.alexander.kaufmann ( talk) 13:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I started to revert some of this users edits [48] (on articles that are on my watchlist), such as Yazid I which ignored WP:RS and MOS:LEAD ( [49]). Instead of taking my advice and reading the rules, he started hounding me, reverting two of my edits which I did a few days ago ( [50] and [51]). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (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.
Hey, Ed. Hope you're safe and well. So, there have been several move discussions in Kosovo-related articles. The better known in terms of daily readership are:
Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move 20 August 2020 and
Talk:Peć#Requested move 18 August 2020. There have been raised several concerns about canvassing attempts which affect the result. In fact, a similar editing pattern was observed at an AfD I filed a few weeks ago:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. As a result, they have been relisted. Today, an editor (
Anastan) who opposed all moves about a week ago, made a series of similar comments across three different discussions
[55]
[56]
[57] in which he accused Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by
WP:ARBMAC.
and that Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy.
It's obvious that
Mikola22 who opened the discussion about the title of
Vučitrn is not a paid advocacy account. Neither am I, nor is any of the ca. 25-30 editors across all articles - many of wildly different backgrounds - who have supported the moves paid by any government entity. Paid advocacy accusations which concern relations to government agencies are egregious and undermine the integrity of the project.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
11:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone is paid, that’s insane to me. Editors sometimes approach too emotionally. I have tried several times to point out the polarized and very tense atmosphere on Balkan topics. It was wrong to launch several similar RfCs and RMs at the same time, until at least one situation is resolved and tensions calm down. Quality and productive discussion cannot be conducted in these conditions. Bias and canvasing on both sides were obvious. Personally, I am already used to being declared both a “Serbian traitor” and a “Serbian ultranationalist” because I try to balance and add parts that criticize all nationalisms and authoritarian regimes. Admins persistently ignore a lot of my reports for serious offenses that could even endanger me. Only editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. @ Maleschreiber: Please stop dragging me into this story. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with such a mundane issue, but could you please take a look at the edits made by user 89MsHm regarding the article Guba Mass Grave? They keep removing sourced information, just because they dont agree with it. We were having a discussion in the Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Hayk_Demoyan_reaction, but they went and removed more sentences without discussion. Their whole argument is Azerbaijan archives prove it happened, so the Armenian reaction doesnt belong on the page. Same can be said about the Armenian Genocide or the pogroms that took place against Armenians by Azerbaijan, but those articles have a section depicting the Azerbaijani/Turkish side of events. Also, they have broken the 3 revert rule numerous times. Thank you for your time. Ninetoyadome ( talk) 04:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ed. Just wanted to say hello. Regarding the section above, I do have several problematic evidences about the traveling circus that tried to remove my comments, most of them gathered above, links about off wiki collaborations and few other troubling links, but i will not post those on wiki, as that way they will be able to hide their traces again, as they did before few times already (i have evidences for that too)... I would love to ask is there any place i can raise this question any other way but onwiki for all to see? It is also question of my personal safety, as you remember, some of them tried to find my real life identity, but luckily failed. Its real question here. I am so sorry to bother you with this pitiful troubles. This all takes us away from great joy of creation of new articles... But Wikipedia should not be used as propaganda tool and for political struggle. Thank you very much. P.S. Expecting comments right away here :) :) -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Another person two days ago just removed my source reference in the dispute Battle of Baltimore article as shown, but with similiar argument with the the IP days earlier. I came to you because I don't want to devolve into something that gets me nowhere and would lead to another edit war in the article. I just want to let you know because I don't want to get banned again unintentionally that would lead me back right to where it belongs. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 14:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am writing a request that the account "Ytpks896" be subjected to an appropriate penalty for his actions on various Wikipedia articles. In May 2020, I had reported this user (when I was cleaning up and restructuring the article for the Pakistan Air Force) for constantly reverting my edits and not bothering to conduct a discussion with me on the talk page (despite me starting one for the express purpose of resolving the conflict). This user received a warning (for edit warring) from you and backed down for a little while before coming back and reverting every single edit (including those that weren't made by me) in the article to go back to a version before I had started restructuring it (following which they promptly went onto other articles that were edited by me and reverted every single one of my edits without explanation as well). Eventually, they were warned again about a month later for the same offence. Following Ytpks896's talk page history and edits, you can see that they have a history of edit warring with other users and persistently reverting changes (which were valid or constructive more often than not). My purpose of writing here is to bring attention to this issue yet again due to the fact that Ytpks896 has come onto a page I recently worked on, Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier and reverted all my edits with no explanation whatsoever. I fear this is a very similar situation to what occurred in May 2020 over the Pakistan Air Force article and humbly request you to look into this issue and take appropriately strict action so that these problems do not continue. Thanks, Xeed.rice ( talk) 01:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston Please review Xeed.rice recent edits at Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier, He change Afghan opposition section into Afghan opposition and border dispute and totally turned whole section on there based information not according to the reference in his edits he saying there is consensus in Afghanistan to non−recognition of border with Pakistan and have historic claims on Pakistani provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Balochistan without any source or reference. Ytpks896 ( talk) 10:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
At Pakistan Air Force Xeed.rice posts on the article talk page, starting on 18 May. But he not properly mentioned or invite me for consensus I'm not received any notification and Xeed.rice also have been unactive from 24 May 2020 to 4 July 2020. Ytpks896 ( talk) 11:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ed, as I said on my page I ain't looking for a war, but come on this comment is stupid "Why do the race results source need to show nationality? This is not WP:OR." Then goes and adds a link when he reads the policy to something else, and still some of the information is still OR in that table. I'm going to wait until he has stopped owning the page, cause it was literally a min before he reverted me before I edit again. Also he seems to have this issue every year of warring with people. Games of the world ( talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Please remove my block for editing... Khuntmohit444 ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Why my account is ban.... Khuntmohit444 ( talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, there is an appeal at WP:AN for a topic ban issued by you (search for "ToBeFree") ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (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,
I have not been on Wikipedia for many years, but someone I knew in the film research field brought this to my attention. She and some other professionals in her field were originally concerned that the user User talk:EuroHorrorGuy seemed to be adding a *huge* number of links to a specific book known not to be very authoritative on multiple articles. Upon looking into it, it seemed to be a major COI / advocacy.
I then posted about it on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977113309&oldid=977048448 The full section, with other people posting to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977894795&oldid=977825296 When he deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=next&oldid=977932191
Since then, one of these other people mentioned to me that the edits look extremely similar to those made by User:68.129.15.71, who was supposedly banned for a year back in July of this year. It also appears that the user's account was only created last year right after he was warned that he could be blocked as the IP for six months. The entire user seems to have been created as block avoidance technique.
The major source that both accounts added as a citation to articles is a book promoting a specific author. I myself have not looked into enough to know the full story, but they are convinced it is scheme to make himself seem authoritative so he gets hired to do more commentary tracks on rereleases of old videos and to hawk books. What is not in dispute is that there are whole articles that have become nothing but a long string of references to one or two books over and over, far outsized to the book's standing in that particular field. They say they are especially upset at so many incorrect statements added with this book as a citation when many other books say just the opposite. Reportedly some of the things look to be things that were posted and flagged by others as needing sources and then miraculously a book came out later on a very small press/vanity press and the user used that to cite these same things. If true, it seems like a way to manufacture citations that at least superficially appear to meet reliable sources guidelines to try to justify inclusion of original research.
Also, I tried to find a link to some disciplinary page I could report this, but I saw you handles the blocks for the presumed related IP account, so I thought it best to give you a heads up so you could look into it.
(For transparency, I used to edit under User:DreamGuy. I think perusal of my edits would show I was not regularly involved in controversies about articles related to old films, so I have no dog in this fight. Some acquaintances were asking what should be done about this situation and if I knew anything about how Wikipedia works.) 2601:840:8402:690:E8D5:7C3C:D8A5:BAAF ( talk) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if its great to add this to the conversation now, but User:Akmadomad also appear to be a an extra account for this user who is back to his old habit of editing Japanese and Italian obscure genre films. Sometimes re-adding information the previous IPs have added that were removed. First note that both users have pretty much the same user page and User:FrankensteinsDad. Anyways, their edits are vague, such as sourcing a DVD here (there is no DVD release of this film). the user also removes any warning/notification on their talk page here, adds unsourced info here, and likes to add alternative titles with no context here, etc. I feel as if this user is making great lengths not to be removed from Wikipedia by dancing between accounts to edit certain articles, but that's just my opinion. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Nope its not me. Just wanted to clear that up. Akmadomad ( talk) 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be multiple issues regarding this editor and they are all being conflated to the extent it is very difficult for an impartial editor to follow what is going on. I will take them one at a time and offer my thoughts.
Personally I would address the socking issue first. If you get a positive there (which is odds on IMO) then the other issue become a moot point. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. So, there's a slooow edit-war on Vasojevići. An IP editor reverted the status quo of an old dispute which Mikola22 highlighted a few months ago. When the IP editor reached 3 reverts, an account created on September 11 appeared and made the same reverts. Now, there was a discussion on the talkpage about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources or their republication in outdated sources, but the account reverts Mikola22 every time they restore the stable version. Because it's one of those very slow edit-wars, I don't really know if they can even be reported on ANI/3R and I'm not sure what form of admin oversight is applicable here.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So from my part what I did was that I restored the source, opened a discussion on TP, even posted a question on RsN about reliability, fixed what was main objection so that it doesn't goes under WP:OR and in return only thing what I got was continuous deletion from both editors and even a threat to be reported from Maleschreiber who didn't even bother to check is the source WP:SECONDARY. And because of what? 2 letters that mentions Vasojevici to Queen Catherine 2 , I don't understand aggression or controversy , my belief that the source should be in article since information are scarce and the letter has it's significance explaining political situation. If your main argumentation is that you should report me because of 3R rule I am not the only one who broke it as it can been seen here [ [66]]. User:Cobalton ( talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Maleschereiber but you are wrong, first off Mikola22 is the one who deleted disputed content on August 2. without any consensus as you can see here.My job here is edit Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. My edit summary (Source not speak that these tribes are "as Serb tribes", see source, this is OR, the second source added is WP:AGE MATTERS , see talk page), to this day no one has returned this information because it is what I am talking about, OR. Consensus cannot return information to the article which is not written in the source. Unfortunately I am alone and with one revert as option, but I try as hard as I can. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
References
1788. год. пише Иван Радоњић, црногорски губернатор, руској царици Катарини II.: „Сада ми сви Срби Црногорци молимо вашу царску милост да пошљете к нама књаза Софронија Југовића"." 1789. год. пише опет Иван Радоњић, црногорски губернатор, руској царици: „Сад ми сви Срби из Црне Горе, Херцеговине, Бањана, Дробњака, Куча, Пипера, Бjeлопавлића, Зете, Климената, Васојевића, Братоножића, Пећи, Косова, Призрена, Арбаније, Маћедоније припадамо вашему величанству и молимо, да као милостива наша мајка пошљете к нама књаза Со- фронија Југовића