User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Re:

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

First, I think I can help you guys out here. I have written a total of 7 chess books, all of which are tournament books. Four of them are about the Melody Amber chess tournament, where consensus seems to have emerged. One is not relevant to en:Wikipedia. The remaining two might, in theory, at some point in the future be added, but chances are slim because the relevant articles don't exist yet and I don't have the material or the desire to write them. So you are really shooting a bug with a cannon.

Second, however, I find your entire approach toward me extremely hostile and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says you cannot refer to your own work, and absolutely no reason whatsoever to block me. The only problem here is that certain other users, who never before have shown an interest in chess articles, wish to see my name deleted from the internet. You cannot hold me responsible for their actions and abuse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is guided by consensus. If a number of users propose a strong argument (in this case, neutrality/COI) against you having your works included in an article, which is considered consensus, then you will not be allowed to include your books. That is how Wikipedia works if there no specific guideline/policy (Wikipedia doesn't have "rules" per se) to settle it.

Editors do not need a background in any sort of topic to be able to make a decision about an article inside of that topic. So any sort of dismissal of an editors opinion simply because you believe them to have no background in it is simply discriminatory and that is going against the spirit of Wikipedia.

Either a) You stop adding in your own books (Which is considered a potential violation of WP:PROMOTION) and stop editing chess articles in such a way. Or b) You agree to allow a larger discussion to take place so as consensus can be achieved. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I tried to overrule consensus. You keep making accusations without backing them up.

I have initiated several attempts to start a larger discussion, but I am still waiting for someone to join in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evader

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Noted, thanks. I may do that instead and I'm undecided as yet - if Io lets it go, so will I, so all my work may be for naught. Hopefully actually, but I kinda doubt it. WLU (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing

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

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

HP SPaM

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

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

H. Paul Shuch at WP:COI/N

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

I think it should go to AfD as it is now, so people can get the full effect. If the article is kept, we might benefit from the AfD comments as to what is most important. Since SETI is a quasi-scientific field we could also search in places like Google Scholar to see if people are citing his work. I agree that Category:SETI is not all important people, but you might find somebody in there who you DO think deserves an article, who is like a journeyman worker in the field; Shuch tells a good story but it is hard to find articles that actually write about him. Suppose we had to build his entire article out of direct quotes about him from other publications, how large would it be? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am almost done here for now, so I will list it at AfD within the next day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is looking like a keep with lots of pruning recommended. I will wait until the AfD closes then edit out fluff and try to avoid copyvio from his SETI League bio too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the article needs to be trimmed but I have little stomach for such work. What do you think should be done? Sorry this is taking so long, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See a proposal for how I would fix the article and eliminate the tags at Talk:H. Paul Shuch#Proposed rewrite. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EIW

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

Block Log

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

Hi

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

Invitation

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

Hi Elonka. I added my name to the list of admins, though I don't know how active I will be there. I hope the experiment works! The task looks like it could be labor-intensive for admins. It may appear that some editors should be given long-term article bans from all Eastern European articles. If this checkuser case is an example of the general attitudes in this area, it's discouraging. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a couple of them seem to be heading for longterm bans, but I'm trying to give them every opportunity to "go straight". And no worries on the time requirements, just pop in as you can. Often I just find myself playing the role of mentor, as I instruct them on various Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. So if you see a thread where you think you can be helpful, go ahead and post a note. And if you see someone that needs to be blocked, go right ahead. You can tell on the mainpage which ones are already under editing restrictions, so you have pretty wide latitude. --Elonka 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Hiya, to try and reduce the time-intensive nature of things, I've created an "admin log" at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Admin notes. What do you think of this idea? --Elonka 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I notice that you may be wanting some reviews of your admin actions, and I'll try to contribute when I can. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one non-urgent one at the moment, mostly as a test case. And if you can think of any other ways to streamline the system, I'm listening. Over at the WorkGroup wiki (we're looking for new members, is that something you'd be interested in joining?) one of the suggestions is that any admin action should require approval of at least 3 other admins to ensure consensus, but I personally think that's impossible. I understand the need to review of controversial admin decisions, but I think any tools we come up with, they're more likely to be under used than abused.  :) Anyway, let me know, Elonka 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Request of edit of protected pages

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working

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

Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia

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

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

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Full Protection of International Sahaja Public School

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

I protected the article at the request of User:Will Beback, who is a very experienced editor. It is better if you take your questions to him. It is now (a) too late for a 3RR on the earlier edits, (b) somebody needs to actually make a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that its too late now but you were the one who took the action by protecting the page. I was just curious if there was an underlying reason that I don't know about. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is sometimes used to force contending editors to work for consensus on the Talk page. Even a 3RR block is at most a temporary solution, since it is usually quite short. I see no Talk discussion since 18 April so I guess there is no progress yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile sock pocket found

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

Please file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets if you are concerned. The complaint would have more credibility if it came from an account with a track record. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I believe you've just met the infamous Ararat Arev. who has 80 banned sock puppets to his name (and counting..): [2] The same person who launched a personal attack on my talk page just yesterday: [3]? It has almost the same anonymous IP address. The Admins all know him sadly as you can sadly see from 2006: [4] Regards, Artene50 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

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

Sorry, but people would think that the 3RR system is toothless after he skirted the edge of the rules on more than one article. If he has important knowledge that should go into some of the articles, he could always add it to his own Talk page (which he can still edit during the block). Then you or anyone else who thinks the info is correct could add it to the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unblocking him would only give him the idea that he can do whatever he wants as long as he has the right alliances, and this would only promote edit warring and disruptive behavior when we're trying to reduce it. I've personally never seen somebody so blatently violate the 3RR rule in such combative ways on four pages at once over a 24 hr period. They are textbook 3RR violations, he was warned, and he knew this would happen when he did it. Not to mention the aggrevating comments. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Loner

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

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

Re the 3RR noticeboard

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

I was all set to follow up, but Seicer beat me to it! I hope you have a plan for automating yourself; this must take a lot of work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I found out how to renew the computer account on which I did that one automated edit; so we'll see! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

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

Komodo Lover...again.

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

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

I blocked Total Ignorent boy and protected the redirect as you requested. I am glad to see the new collection of data at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. Do you think a checkuser would be worthwhile? EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Definately CBFan (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello CBFan. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Komodo lover. If you know how to file these CU requests, maybe you can look at this one and see if it was done correctly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Komodo lover

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

Sorry - have looked a bit more at stuff. Don't think I can add much. A CU would either be accepted or rejected. There's enough to show long-term abuse to merit it, but I question whether there's going to be an underlying IP to block. We'll see, though. _GB^T/C 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem that the numbered SSP reports didn't all use the same capitalization: some of them use 'Komodo lover' (the correct name) while two of them use 'Komodo Lover' (wrong capitalization). I would fix them all if I didn't think it would mess up the system. Or perhaps I can consolidate them all into a single report? EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't consolidate them, but move the incorrect ones to correct capitalisation then fix any double redirects. I probably didn't block the IP because it was an IP and there hadn't been any edits for a couple of days. In retrospect that's probably because they'd been caught by the autoblock on the accounts, but there you go. No more detailed thinking at play than that! _GB^T/C 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the SSP reports now have consistent names. The latest is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (10th) and it is nearly ready to close. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon's work on this article was motivated by the posting at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It doesn't look good if you yell at the ostensibly-neutral person coming in from outside to help fix the problems. Calling this group 'right-wing' is something that would need to be carefully traced to sources, given that the topic is emotionally-charged. Your recent revert looks like a blunderbuss attempt to make the article reflect your own point of view. If you are willing to provide sources and negotiate carefully, your participation will be welcome on the article's Talk page. It's very inadvisable to do wholesale reverts without first getting consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MigrationWatch is rightwing. That is just reality. I don't know how much you follow the British media. There are sources for this in the refs. There have been sources for quite a while. It would be like saying that Americans for Tax Reform is not conservative. There has been much discussion over the last 18 months about this label. Recently one biased editor in particular deleted this label against the consensus. I merely restated that previously held consensus. I suggest that as a neutral third party you carefully investigate the history of the editing of this article and you will see what I am saying. I am not trying to yell at anyone. I would also note that it doesn't look good that as a neutral third party your actions look as though you have taken sides. As for your description that I am trying to edit this article to reflect a point of view - you could not be further from the truth. I have always given both sides of the debate 'equal time' in the article and quoted the left and wing points of view. Indeed the whole reason I spent time lengthening the article was to avoid the demogogary that surrounds issues of immigration. I can't force you to believe me. My 12 months worth of edits speak for themselves. See here [5]Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a discussion thread on your own Talk, I prefer to continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

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

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

Wessex Institute / Socks / Edit wars

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

RE:Minor

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

Thanks

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

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

Karina Pasian

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

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

British Isles WP:3RR

Thanks for the notification, have commented there. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK with me to move the discussion to Talk:British Isles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment. The "dispute" on the British Isles page should go to accelerated arbitration, mediation, or Arbcom. It's apparently been going on for YEARS. There are editors who refuse to accept verifiable sources and reject all facts that don't agree with their view. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anything going to happen on the 3RR? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the "No Action" on the 3RR. I'm disgusted/disappointed/amazed. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Snakezilla and more

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

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov

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

Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)

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

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

User:DemolitionMan

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

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

PeeJay2K3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrarily deep

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

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

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Ed.

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

Aee1980

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

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

Request for fix on LP page

My apologies, but I don't know how to fix this, and you may care to do it.

The Logic_programming page, at the end of the first section (History), mentions Fernando Pereira (USA). However, the link is to a photographer of the same name.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.128.215 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

EdJohnston, thanks for being level-headed during the whole "meatpuppet" thing with Sgt. Bender, me, and other accounts. You are officially cool. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (2nd)

Since you're familiar with Koov, can you please see if he's been evading the block again? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The two IPs are blocked for one month. I hope you'll check the contribution histories to be sure this is unlikely to be anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I FYI

You've been brought up in a discussion at AN/I. Just letting you know. --Onorem♠Dil 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re : COI Editor on Viktor Rydberg Page

Hi EdJohnston,

I posted,

"What an absurd accusation, and completely baseless, that Reaves is attempting to bias the Wikipedia article as part of some promotion campaign for his books. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, regardless of who printed the books, he has made available in English works of Rydberg that were not available in English before, and inclusion of such works is completely relevant to readers who would like to know more about Rydberg. In fact, your polemic suggests that you personally are biased in such a direction that you would rather not have anyone reading such works, based, apparently, on your own purist interpretations of what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology. Reaves' portrayals are balanced and inclusive of criticism, but if he is slanting the editing of articles, perhaps it is to counter another editor who clearly has not just an agenda, but a vendetta against both Rydberg and Reaves, and is quite clearly trying to introduce bias into the article based on that agenda.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"

and you deleted it, saying, "Removing Carla O'Harris's comment because it contains personal attacks. Please rephrase without commenting on the editor's character."

How is the agenda of Mr. Rorik not relevant to the concerns here? He has repeatedly made swipes at Mr. Reaves' intentions, so the intentions and agenda of Mr. Rorik are completely relevant. In fact, he DOES demonstrate both an agenda and a vendetta, and that is worthy of editorial notice. I stand by my statements. If you have specific suggestions on how I can edit this comment in such a way that it tailors what you consider to be "personal attacks", while at the same time retaining the substance of the points, I am open to suggestion.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In support of this, see this quotation from one of Mr. Rorik's edits and response to my original comment : "Mr. Reaves has devoted himself to eliminating any and all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg's racial-nationalist nonsense, in order to create the false impression that this work (and by extension, Mr. Reaves' amateur "translations" of it) have some value."

That directly supports my saying that "would rather not have anyone reading such works, based, apparently, on your own purist interpretations of what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology." CarlaO'Harris (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being open to suggestion about how to word your comment. I trust you are familiar with the core policy known as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. From your previous statement (above) I'd like to remove everything which is a comment on the person and not on the content of his edits:

• We could do without terms like 'absurd accusation.' Instead, just explain why (in your opinion) the thing being attacked is actually correct.
• Using the term 'polemic' to refer to Radford's comments
• Saying that Radford has an agenda, and has a vendetta against both Rydberg and Reaves
• Saying that Radford is trying to introduce bias into the article

I assume you are not surprised that I reverted Radford's comment also, and for a similar reason. The underlying point you're trying to make will probably be more persuasive to other editors without the personal elements.

Radford arrived intending to introduce balance into a one-sided article, and it's possible things have actually gone too far in the other direction. From the article Talk, you'll notice that Jack's side of the argument is now getting some attention. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet claims

Discussion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. Im writing to address the sockpuppetry claims against user Jvolkblum and the number of other connected and linked users and IP addresses. I am certain that (for the most part) the users are all different individuals. For the most part these users are familiar with one another in their daily lives and share computer resources with each other as well. This is not an attempt to define them as abusers, vandals, or people out to intentionally cause problems . . . but more to give a basic reason as to why and how common threads + connections can be seen. The common viewpoint among these individuals is that there exists a bias against the subject matter at hand (ie:westchester articles/villages/towns etc.) which is evidenced quite clearly in: {{sincere apologies if this makes little or no sense > its difficult to coherently put this all into words}} - the edit histories of select 'administrators' (some of whom show a personal affinity for these articles which stand out from their other work on Wikipedia) - the harsh/aggressive nature of their edits relating to these articles in regards to content control, and in dealing with almost all additions or contributions made - authoritative edits to 'stylistic' problems (simple user differences of opinion) blatantly and continuously overiding contributions of others without just cause (ie: image size settings/ text size settings) - admin attention to + edits targeted against these articles/content versus being fairly directed/used across the board and applied equally to similar subject matter (( cross referencing articles of similar subject matter (ie. neighboring municipalities, educational districts, schools, historical data, source/citation requests of info) illustrate this overall bias) To my knowledge, 1 or 2 users contributing material to these articles did so without the adequate knowledge of the rules / policies (ie. copyright/image use) and their respective edits, or edits to admin edits, unfortunately reflect an equal ignorance of operational procedures and basic counter-productivity. Otherwise, the majority of the other user contributions do not show ill-willed intentions or reflect attempts to add content that is anything but relevant and applicable. The claim that one user is purposefully seeking to avert blocks to control article content is being substantiated by the testimony of select admins (most of whom are the same 'biased'<?> admins discussed earlier) . . . each new user/ip addy that contributes similar 'targeted' (but innocent) edits are added to existing claims or made into new claims by the same handful of questionable admins. The fact remains that separate individuals are attempting to make good-faith contribs to the pages yet are being faced with this frustrating admin/authority dynamic. ((on a deeper level, the subject matter (on the city of New Rochelle + the community) is often misrepresented in the media, print, ref. sources etc. due to racial/economic issues within Westchester County, New York metro area. . . similar to unwarranted attention of users/admins)). If 3 or 4 'admin' users can control an article in an unfair manner, multiple users should rightly be able to build a consensus for adding info/content that is factual and relevant. Again, my apologies for my inability to convey these thghts all too clearly. It is my sole intention to bring a fair and reasonable level of accountability to the deserving parties. I appreciate your objectivity and attention to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.2.137 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 May, 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your contribution here, which does make sense. If you are willing to express your views on the relevant Talk pages I trust that your views will be taken seriously. I *am* concerned that there appears to be recent vandalism from the same IP as you are using now. Is it possible you are editing from a shared IP, and this other person is not you? If you are at risk of sockpuppet investigation, anything you can do to make your WP identity more 'regular' will help. For instance, if you will use a regular logged-in account that would help. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your response. I personally do not have a particular interest in this site itself and have never contributed to its content. This particular issue has caught my attention because a)I know at least 5 people who have expressed frustration/concern over it and b)I handle employee/managment disputes (ie. abuse of power claims, unfair labor practice disputes, discrimination suits and union arbitrations), for a corp. of 250,000+ employees. There truly does seem to be a dynamic in place in which 'admins' are controlling articles for individual /personal reasons, . . .justifying such actions through the misuse of wiki-rules/policy. Most recently, user (orlady) has added four new individuals to her sockpuppet crusade against Jvolkblum (Orlady happens to be one of the admins whose actions are strange and suspect to say the least). ((( her recent claim reads: Supporting evidence: These newly registered users each have only a few article edits (mostly today), but their editing patterns and interests are similar to those of Jvolkblum and blocked sockpuppets of Jvolkblum. This includes immediate creation of user pages that consist of links to various Wikipedia editing resources (three of the four users did this; BronxBEAT also created a user page immediately after registering, but in a different style), inserting an image (recently uploaded to Commons by a user with the name 15ParkRow, same as the name of a blocked sockpuppet of Jvolkblum) in the New Rochelle article that is identical to one removed earlier for copyvio (see this diff from BingBingBingNBing), showing a committed interest in locating the Execution Rocks Lighthouse in New Rochelle (compare this diff by BronxBEAT with this earlier diff by Pongo101), and embellishing the New Rochelle article with more unsourced names of famous residents (this diff from Wingsolid). Additionally, in this diff, KatieGrinn removed apparently valid content from an article about a nearby suburb. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) )))) . . . addressing this example in particular, Orlady is intent on monitoring all edits made to these articles, all users contributing or editing these articles and the users backgrounds/historiesand personal prefs. Orladys propensity towards such 'assumed authority' over all is disconcerting. She is fully confident in all of her personal assertions of ill-will and user intent (ie: neg. references to contributed info as 'embellishments' or 'unsourced additions'/ criticism of personal prefs of users ) - - yet the bulk of these assertions fail to yield any proof to their claims. Notable residents added to the New Rochelle page appear valid + legitimate (and are being noted precisely because they are FAMOUS + not as Orlady phrases it as.... embellishing article by adding 'unsourced famous residents'). A case in point exmpl. is in regards to (Execution Lighthouse) which Orlady criticized another user 'showing a commited in locating the Exec.Rocks Lighthouse in New Rochelle', following it with a reference to a similar edit from aa previous user. I can only see one main reason why any of that is even a problem or issue to begin with, that reason being user:Orlady ( more specifically, Orlady reverted several edits of others who listed New Rochelle as the location of the lighthouse, even ignoring references to documented material substantiating New Roch. as the true location of the lighthouse. Orladys 'opinion' was that the lighthouse was in the 'middle of the sound' (which geographically it is) and showed her commitment to ignoring wiki-policy, removing cited'fact' and rationalizing that if the lighthouse was indeed in New Rochelle then that was just a 'technicality'. How that serves to justify her actions is beyond me, but it does serve as another example of this questionable admin/user behavior I am conveying to you. {when dealing with labor issues, 'unfair' behavior by an employee which unfairly + negatively impacts another or others is classified as 'creation of a hostile work environment' ( or management vs. employees) ]. The four newest users mentioned by Orlady have made valid edits to articles relating to places within a similar geographical area (that being Westchester county, New York in metro NYC). It seems understandable that such a populous and popular region could have multiple users editing the same info at once. Multiple users editing 'false' data, or attempting to correct the unproductive edits of others just as understandable an occurance. While no-one is perefect, and no user is free from mistakes/lapses in judgement, the apparent abuses of some at the expense of others (as well as at the expense the site overall) needs to be fairly addressed. I would just like to reiterate that it was the discussions of others that initially directed my attention to Wikipedia + to this particular dilemma. Reading through the info and reviewing the relevant data etc. is what has held my attention + motivated me to attempt these discussions. This is the extent of my 'contributions' to the site since I have not extended interest in the site the site or being a registered member/user. I do appreciate your attention to my 'ramblings' for I believe they truly have merit. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.2.134 (talk • contribs) 01:51,3 May 2008(UTC) } user Orlady displayed her tendency to aggressively target the New rochelle/ New rochelle related articles by editing through list of notable NRHS alumni and notable New Rochelle individuals almost immediately after contributions were made by another user ( user happens to also have been labeled as a sockpuppet acct. by Orlady yet the justification for that claim is questionable). (((orlady edit history detail: 14:29, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle, New York‎ (→Notable residents: remove some of the redlink entries on list) (top) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle High School‎ (→Notable alumni: remove another w/o an article -- see http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=496960 for info on him) (top) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle High School‎ (→Notable alumni: remove names without articles) 14:17, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle High School‎ (→Notable alumni: removed Newbery Award (nobody except the NRHS alumni list thinks Vail ever won it)) 14:12, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle High School‎ (cleaned up references to NRHS alumni list) )) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.139.186.210 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 May 2008 It is not uncommon to see red-linked names removed from lists of notable alumni. The obvious answer is to go ahead and create an article on the person and then it will be a blue link. Since you can't create an article yourself as an IP, you can submit the information at WP:AFC and a logged-in user will check that the material is suitable. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Response from Orlady Wow. Where to begin? First, let it be recorded that I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Secondly, I actually don't care one way or the other about New Rochelle, but I feel that I've squandered a lot of time and energy in trying to help clean up and/or maintain the integrity of articles and images related to the place. I first got involved with New Rochelle articles in early January when I encountered Hyde Park Central Schools‎ and The City School District of New Rochelle in new pages patrol, and I patrolled both articles. (Many of my edits are in U.S. geographic categories and educational topics, so on the infrequent occasions when I visit new pages patrol, I often select articles like those to patrol.) Both articles were greatly in need of wikification/cleanup, so I made some changes to both, but did not undertake a thorough fix of either. At the time, I was already aware of the New Rochelle High School article, but I don't remember why or when I had previously interacted with it. As a result of my minor edits to those various articles, they all ended up on my watchlist. Some time later, I noticed a flurry of editing activity in the New Rochelle school articles (mostly to City School District of New Rochelle and mostly by a new contributor named FlanneryFamily), peeked at the articles to see what was happening, and ended up doing a bunch of edits to clear up a variety of glitches, notably a situation wherein the References list consisted almost entirely of error messages. I was dismayed when FlanneryFamily promptly reverted my improvements to the article, and on March 9th I posted some peeved but friendly advice on FlanneryFamily's talk page. After seeing that any changes I made the articles were being rapidly and repeatedly overtaken by FlanneryFamily's rapid-fire edits, I figured my energy would be more productively spent on other tasks, and largely withdrew from involvement with New Rochelle articles, but User:FlanneryFamily and several of the articles remained on my watchlist. My interest in these articles was rekindled when the words "Sockpuppetry case" appeared next to FlanneryFamily's name on my watchlist. I was surprised. I had thought of FlanneryFamily as simply a good-faith, but somewhat misguided, contributor with a strong focus on publishing positive information about New Rochelle. After seeing the sockpuppetry accusation, though, I delved into the history of the various accounts associated with User:Jvolkblum and User:DJvac, and I concluded that there was merit in the accusations. I cannot guess at the motives, but I perceive that one or more persons from New Rochelle (either sockpuppets or meatpuppets) are engaged in a campaign to disrupt Wikipedia. Many of their edits are good contributions, but the good contributions are commingled with a variety of negatives: chronic disregard for WP:MOS (including reverting edits by others who attempt to copy edit articles), persistent efforts to insert copyvio images (including extensive flickr-washing at Commons) that could easily be replaced by any local resident who owns a digital camera, chronic deliberate falsification of references (notably, repeatedly misrepresenting a New Rochelle Schools brochure as a Wall St. Journal article), and a general attitude that New Rochelle must at all times be portrayed as the hub of the universe. As for Execution Rocks Light, the article history shows that the lead section said it was "in Long Island Sound, north of Sands Point" until fairly recently when an IP user associated with the New Rochelle group moved it to "in the middle of Long Island Sound, just south of Davids' Island in New Rochelle." Examination of a map indicates that this rock that has a lighthouse on it is indeed in the middle of Long Island Sound, on the county line separating Westchester and Nassau counties, not "just south of David's Island" and not particularly near Sands Point. Looking at this from a distance and not being partial to either nearby landmass, it seemed clear to me that the best resolution was to name both locations in the lead section, with emphasis on "in the middle of Long Island Sound." If this uninhabited rock is indeed legally within the New Rochelle city limits, that information may be included in the article, but it should not be the main item of geographic information provided in either the infobox or the article lead section. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I am in complete agreement regarding the questionable actions of this user by name Orlady. She has been trailing each of my contributions, often "correcting" aspects of my work which arent wrong. This information was of no interest to Orlady at any time prior to my attention towards them. She has also listed me as conspiring with other users. There is definite + significant hostility from this user, most pronounced dealing with the EXECUTION ROCKS LIGHT and its location issue. I see no fault in any of my actions but have been made by this user to explain myself at every turn. {???} I have only recently read the article, thus explaining why i have only recently corrected the loc.info. Following the rules, I have cited sources. to validate the info i provided + justified its presence in the article. In an attempt to compromise I intentionally left Orladys favored locational text in place in the main article, editing only the infobox to reflect my changes. It is unfair that Orlady still feels her personal views supercede all else. Please advise. Thank You. signed - user, Bronxbeat.--BronxBEAT (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I would like add one more point if i may: Orlady has a history and connection with the aforementioned articles which spans an extended period of time. (Orlady shares theis history and its details above) Her actions to date are directly tied to these personal, deeper ties to the material. Wikipedia policy advises against these sorts of personal ties to material and discusses how it can lead to attempts to control articles. Thank You. signed - user, Bronxbeat --BronxBEAT (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC) BronxBEAT, I believe your statement that I have "listed [you] as conspiring with other users" is a reference to my request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Jvolkblum, which asks for an administrator to check whether your account and several others are being used by Jvolkblum to evade a block. Considering that at least 13 user accounts and several IPs have been blocked in the last two months after it was determined that Jvolkblum was using them to bypass a block, it unfortunately has become reasonable to ask whether new users who edit in the same unorthodox ways (in the same articles or related articles) are additional sock- or meat-puppets of Jvolkblum. As I have stated, I have no "deep personal ties" to this material. I admit that (1) I have travelled through New Rochelle by road and train, and that I used to watch the Dick Van Dyke Show, (2) I have been to the Bronx Zoo, and (3) I have known people who lived in Westchester County and The Bronx (but not in New Rochelle, Larchmont, Eastchester or other locales), but that is the extent of my personal involvement with these topics, and I assure you that I am indifferent to the crosstown rivalries that apparently motivate much of the editing of those articles. My editing in these articles is done for the "greater good," which is the very same reason why I revert vandalism and attempt to improve articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I have no interest in knowing the users background or details relating to the users life. I dont care about town rivalries either. I stand firmly behind my assertions that Orladys energies have been unfairly directed towards me on various levels. I specifically believe that I have made an acceptable edit to the Execution Rocks lighthouse article and it should rightfully remain. Most recently user Bluazur (whom Orlady is aquainted with) reverted my edit for no reason other than vandalism. Thank You - signed. User:BronxBEAT --BronxBEAT (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum resulted in a finding of "confirmed" for the four users listed. --Orlady (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC) good evening mr.johnston - I am including this dialogue to follow up on the issue relating to user:Orlady which has been discussed with you. I am now being told i am a sockpuppet. I am not sure what the outcome is or will be but i am voicing my additional concern over what multiple users have made mention of ~ the actions of user Orlady. The following is just my response to the claim against me ((( Supposedly the claims above have been proven true. . . yet no substantiating info ('proof') has been provided. Again, I am not sure of the reasoning behind your rush to make these claims but i will adress them here: I introduced myself on my user page which i believe is exactly what you are supposed to do on it. I am equally confused by the mention of my creating it 'immediately after registering' ??? The first place i clicked on after registering was my 'name' in the heading on the top of the page, whereupon i saw intructions advising me to create a 'user page'. If my contributions on the Execution Rocks light article were similar to another users one might look at the logical connection (most specifically the availability of a discussion page and edit history log on every article which is where I saw the 'location debate'). I made changes just like that of a prior editor which I believed accurate (specifically: putting the name of the city in the location desciption in the info. box). My edits were to make sure there was accuracy of information. The final edit to the page was my clear attempt to be cordial and to show understanding of user Orladys point of view, personally suggesting a compromise to the situation and personally making the changes to follow through with the compromise. It is confusing to see these acceptable actions as part of 'supporting evidence' of wrongdoing. I have noticed that the claims above are from user Orlady. I have read several discussions relating to Orlady, specifically the questionable nature of her actions & judgement when dealing with certain users + certain material on the site. These discussions can be found on the talk page of user:EdJohnston and 'Executionrocks'. All i can say is that other users have made mention of similar issues with this user Orlady and due to my experiences I would have to agree with them as well. It is strange. In reviewing what was said above about other users, adding notable residents to an article about a specific locality appears to be a standard practice among users. The ones that you referenced in New Rochelle all look like they are cited properly (The list is probably the most thoroughly cited one you can find~ cross referencing to other communities will show that). I do not see how this is anything but a valid, helpful contribution to the article and the site. ??? The last user mentioned, Katiegrin, didnt remove information from the article as you have stated. I read the edit link you provided and it shows the content was moved to a different section and it does not show any evidence of information being deleted. This page is an entirely different community, albeit a neighboring one to the earlier mentioned New Rochelle article, which further begs the question of why this user too is being named as a disturbance to the site. ?? Thank you again for your time. --BronxBEAT (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)))) Hello. I wrote two or three entries onto your talk page a week or two ago, in reference to issues over user Jvolkblum "sockpuppet" claims + admins such as user Orlandy. I am writing once more to make mention of the Orladys continued hostility in dealing with the same specified subject matter (ie:New rochelle related articles/westchester). Her personal focus on policing these articles is evident when viewing her edit history. She explained that her initial interest was due to unproductive edits/'vandalism' and the desire to correct them. These disruptive edits do not seem to be occurring with any real frequency as they did in the past, however Orlady clearly feels it necessary to police the pages and go after the users who contribute + all edits/changes that are made. (There is certainly a much stronger personal connection between the user+the material than she would like to admit) Again, the users edit-history clearly illustrates the validity of my claim. Her edits related to New Rochelle show an overwhelming focus on 'correcting' minute article details (nitpicking) possibly due to the lack more serious issues. Orlady has also expanded her area of 'focus' from New Rochelle to the greater Westchester/New York Metro region, tracking all contributing users & their edits/histories. This pattern of 'policing' the site is quite hostile and unfair. This is both my personal opinion and also the opinion of others who have blogged their concerns online. I would hope that this issue can be addressed so that all parties involved could move-on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.104.219.203 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) user Bluazur (who has also been referenced earlier in these discussions) displays similar qualities to Orlady. However, user Bluazur assumes it is within his/her authority to engage in unproductive, vandalous edits of articles or material previously edited by users he/she deemed "socks". The most recent edits in Bluazurs history illustrate this questionable behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.221.227 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Undid my "personal attack" at WP:COIN(??)

>Rsradford, I undid your latest edit at the noticeboard. You realize that administators patrol that noticeboard, right? You and Jack can both be blocked if you continue in that tone. Rephrase whatever you wanted to say without commenting on the character of the editor. If needed I will remove the other guy's personal attacks as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)>

I am honestly at a loss to understand this. "Jack's" confederate and fellow Rydberg cultist CarlaO'Harris attacked me on that forum in the most personal terms imaginable, to which I did not respond at all. Instead, I set out three verifiable facts concerning the direct financial conflict of interest that underlies all of "Jack's" edits to the Rydberg article. If that response is unacceptable, so be it -- but would it be asking too much for you also to delete the completely unfounded personal attack on me by CarlaO'Harris? Rsradford (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "Rydberg cultist" and I consider application of that term slanderous. Change your language, Mr. Radford. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi EdJohnston - thank you for helping with the revert warrior at Komotini. I especially appreciate your taking the time to read the talkpage and see what was going on. Single-purpose nationalist editors like this can be very tenacious and difficult to deal with, in my experience. Can you offer me any advice on how to deal with them in the future? Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's always good when you can point to a consistent naming scheme that's applied across a range of articles, and uniformly to all ethnic or language groups. (This happened in your case, and there was also the Gdansk compromise). I've worked on Northern Cyprus and it never really settles down; you just have to keep explaining things all over again when new editors arrive. See WP:RESTRICT for a few examples where nationalist editors were given topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - Please accept my overdue thanks for protecting the page. It's been a big help. Thanks also for the advice and links. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being reasonable during my sockpuppetry trial. I'll work hard to improve Wikipedia. Sgt. bender (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New suspected sock puppet case for Koov

Hi. In case it's of any interest, I've opened Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Koov_(3rd). Ha! (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kjngjkn reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Not that it really means much now but the duplicate entry that you removed[6] wasn't a duplicate. They were two separate reports of 3RR breaches by that user, one at Mac OS X and the other at List of sexual slurs. Sadly, I expect there will be more breaches as the puppetmaster keeps creating edit-warring socks. So far there have been 3 in the past few hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being over-hasty. Since he is now blocked I guess I won't bother to undo my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Okay, I made a SSP case page for Sumerophile per your advice. I also see (s)he is back as TwinkelTwinkleLittleStar, edit warring the same old tired reverts once again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Block ofBtC

Ed, please review the block at [7]. First check the talk page for the article -- you seem to have blocked one side of the dispute only. I suggest you shorten it to time served. DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Jpgordon's unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message - apologies for the delay in replying. There are a number of reasons (I think) although I'm not completely clear with all the ramifications. Firstly, the autoblock is automatically disabled for some dynamic IP ranges - this is done by the software even if the blocking admin checks the "autoblock any IPs used" box when blocking. That would mean another registered account could take up the attack from the same IP, or the IP would be open to register a new account. The other possibility is that open proxies are being used - the IP gets blocked, but the user simply logs out of the proxy, gets a new one, and comes straight back in. Hope that helps answer your question. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New Rochelle, New York

For the record, BlueAzure and I both believe that the user who requested full protection for this page earlier today is one of Jvolkblum's newest sockpuppets -- see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). Much, but not all, of the anonymous-IP editing in that article appears to be by Jvolkblum. Many of the IPs are registered outside the United States and are presumably open proxies (for example, 203.158.221.227, who posted a message on this page in the sockpuppet discussion above, allegedly is in Thailand), and the edit records are similar to portions of the records of past Jvolkblum accounts. Many of the Jvolkblum edits are seemingly minor and productive (some actually are improvements to the articles). There seems to be a concerted effort to create clean-looking records for the new sock accounts. However, many of those minor and seemingly productive edits turn out to be small and unnecessary article rearrangements (making it hard to read the edit history), removal of article-improvement templates from New Rochelle and addition of similar templates to rival towns, and addition of image-size specifications on thumbnail images, all of which have the net effect of being annoying. The most damaging activity recently has been the sneaky addition of bogus references, such as in the recent Revision history of Larchmont, New York (see the edits and reversions by 203.158.221.227 and BlueAzure). Semi-protection on New Rochelle might help reduce the amount of article repair needed, but to be truly effective it would also be necessary to semi-protect related articles such as Wykagyl, New York (a neighborhood of New Rochelle), New Rochelle High School, Larchmont, Southern Westchester, and Wykagyl Golf Club. Additionally, there are a few articles such as New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York that probably should be deleted, but it's gotten hard to maintain a sensible enough perspective to evaluate them. --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information, 203.158.221.227 is now a confirmed blocked open proxy.[8] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent comments on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). I didn't see the 7 World Trade Center edit until after my post there, and I wasn't thinking about user-talk-page warnings at that particular time. I've gone back and left a level 1. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently there has been a flurry of "annoyance" edits, from a diverse array of international IPs, that I believe represent Jvolkblum editing from open proxies. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits. (I'm a bit embarrassed for the impact on the people whose hometown articles got festooned with "citation needed" templates as a result of the fact that I had logged edits in those articles.) --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User edits - help!

Good day. I saw your name associated with discussions about New Rochelle, Wykagyl, Westchester and I believe you are an impartial observer to the issues surrounding those articles. II feel it is important to recognize the apparent vandalism and policy violations being made by several users. Bluazur, Orlady, and to some extent HMishkoff work diligently to create a seemigly endless compilation of wiki-abusers and alleged violations, tracking every edit to specified articles and every user that makes one. The user intentions are deemed negative and the users are blocked. This structure enables the 3specificied users to 'justify' blindly reverting edits which, upon closer investigation, are acceptable, accurate and applicable. Such edits do not have issues of conflict with wiki-policies but rather, issues with the above named users themselves. There are multiple examples to support my statements to you, they merely require an objective mind to review all the facts at hand. Most recently Bluazur can be seen going targeting as many asscoiated & linked articles as possible (related to the above mentioned topics) editing info in ways he apparently favors; and working further to disect and break apart as much of these articles as he possibly can. Orlady can be seen monitoring and extraneously editing the same articles, as well as many additional articles found within the same categories. Her history shows a focus on editing articles abt towns within Westchester, for example, which she had shown no prior interest in, but which all show recent contributions from other users immediately before her first edits. Hmishkoff has a limited history but focused scope of interest against specific articles and topics, to which his edits are often to 'correct' user edits that appear to alter the information he favors. The three users show the most limited desire to contribuite to the specified articles.-210.2.128.106 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)$Insertformulahere$

Re. COI report on Naked short selling about Patrick Byrne

No, I'm quite happy for the report to be closed, at least until this comes up again. Thanks for checking up on things. John Nevard (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My ANI nomination

Sorry but I have to dispute my ANI nomination. I have already addressed my points on the article's talk page on why the article fails WP:ORG, and noted the article probation of Falun Gong articles at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong regarding SPAs involved. I did not blanked the article Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong as claimed, but incorporated into the article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China and redirected it there. The nominator Ave Caesar has a history of changing his identities (Nonexistant User) and I suspect is a bad faith nomination.--PCPP (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that one of the FLG SPAs redirected Sujiatun_Hospital[9] to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, so I find it quite hypocritical for them to accuse me of anything.--PCPP (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

Just fyi. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

Hi, I think there might be two socks of a single user at User:Rajat nda and User:RajTheGladiator. What do you think? I'm not even 75 % sure, but I strongly suspect ... both are essentially SPA's who have edited UST Global. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Even peculiar users sometimes agree with one another. It is possible they are company employees just trying to be helpful. I would look for nastier behavior, a little deception, at least some reverts, before leaving a {{socksuspectnotice}}. I agree that 'Raj' is suggestive, though in India it might be the equivalent of 'Bill.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

10RR report

When a SINGLE user has made about 10 reverts (he made another one since the last report), it is quite obvious who is destabilizing the article. I don't see anything that would merit ANI or anything but a few days for him to cool down (he has had 5 blocks this year, this should also tell you something, as well as that he only intensified his revert warring after we granted him unblock after the last 3RR report for this page...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR counting automation?

Hi - in response to your comments on my talk page Since so often people dispute whether they have really made XX many reverts, it might be valuable (partly for self-defence of the admins who close those issues) to have a mechanical revert-counter. I think it could be done, though it's not trivial. If we can't do that, maybe a set of examples could be created so people are aware that reverts of unrelated material during the same 24 hours are still reverts. Yes However I find that if the diffs are properly set out one can quickly see with popups the effect of the edit, check the edit history to confirm and there shouldn't be any issues. The issues come when it isn't 4 identical reverts in < 24 hours. Counting automation won't help with edit warring against the spirit of the rule.

I think some of the issue is that editors like Kossack4Truth (thanks for responding to him while I was off-line) can be legalistic to a fault. Gaming the system whether intentionally or not or Wikilawyering. That has certainly been my experience as I have ventured into the world of 3RR enforcement over the last few days. They don't get that, while obviously it is very easy when there are 4 reverts, at least one having followed a warning, of exactly the same material within 24 hours it is too easy but if it is still disruptive and against the spirit of our policy on edit warring they may still be blocked. I can't think Kossack4Truth could hold his hand over his heart and say he wasn't. In my note accompanying the block I stated while you may not have technically violated the rule with more than 3 reversions within 24 hours, you have been edit warring against the spirit of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, ignoring the consensus on the talk page - what more does he want - an apology when I had already explained my rationale? Kossack4Truth isn't the only editor trying to be legalistic as I am sure you have found too. I also was less than totally impressed with User:Black Kite who stated (even after Jayron had reviewed my block) I disagree with this, and was about to unblock but got edit-conflicted. My take; Edit 11 was re-adding a ref tag. Edit 10 was removing a non-free image that failed policy (WP:NFCC). Edit 8 re-added the ref tag. (Revert 1). Edit 5 re-added the ref tag (Revert 2) but also removed the violating image. Edit 2 added fact tags and is irrelevant to the others. One could argue that a slight edit-war was occurring on the ref tag, but even then Wednesday Next only made 2 actual reverts as far as I can see, and was also editing in line with policy at the same time by removing the image. This despite two other users, one of whom was sympathetic with the editors stance, thought the editor concerned was edit warring.

The issue to me then is are we going to have a strictly legalistic interpretation of the 3RR always or are we going to have (as well as the lovely black and white version) Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. which I had already quoted to Wednesday Next before Black Kite went in and unblocked him. Regards --Matilda ^talk 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SSP case (and a RFCU) needs attention..

Due to my usual goto admin being personally involved with a suspected sockpuppet I've decided upon a raffle system to pick another admin to handle week old issues. You were drawn, sorry. The cases in question are for Greg Jungwirth, prolific if only in being incredibly annoying, generally abusive to me and another editor because we did something about him so is a bit bitter over it. Anyway, enough banter, the SSP is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Greg Jungwirth (2nd) and a RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. The IPs for the RFCU are probably stale by now but that's what a lack of active admins do to things like this. treelo _talk 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you filled in the SSP and the CU reports properly. Now we should just wait for checkuser, unless there is some current harassment that needs immediate attention. I don't see what could go stale here; you should be able to get an answer from checkuser if they agree to take the case. Your evidence that Gregory E. Miller should be included in the case looks a bit weak. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was some attacks from the vandal on a new IP address shortly after you posting that, most likely as a result of them stalking me. The IP has since been added to both reports and blocked for 48 hours. I'm worried about staleness for the older IP addresses as this goes back to early this year for this round of reports at least. Anyway, I know the evidence for Gregory E. Miller is weak hence why he's on the RFCU, want to try and exclude them as he seems OK and don't want be screaming about him being a vandal before knowing it. Any good CU I could try and get the attention of? treelo _talk 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand checkuser that well, but I don't see how an IP address can go stale. Registered accounts go stale because they don't keep the logs forever. I notice that Thatcher just checked some of the accounts on your RFCU. If you have more questions, User:Rlevse can answer them better than I. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's me who doesn't understand checkuser that well, you're spot on with what it means for an account to go stale. I'll ask Rlvese if I get any more inklings seeing as he's no longer directly involved. As an aside, do you think if we're not going to block User:Miller killa (which completely follows Greg's MO of making sleeper accounts for attacking previous sockpuppets usually with a direct indicator to his target) can the account have ACB so at least if it does turn out to be a GJ sleeper account we can block that one and prevent any more? treelo _talk 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:IP sock block template question

If the IP is not exactly CU confirmed than the variations of {{IPsock}} should work\...none of them let you add a time value though. Somehow my brain is functionally coherently enough at the moment to remember the other possible templates, sorry :P. Glad Thatcher was able to flush some possible ones out though.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome 2

Hello Jc37. FYI, I have blocked this editor one week for removing cut-and-paste move warnings from other editors' Talk pages. I mention this because you have him on some kind of 60-day probation regarding moves, so this information could possibly be of interest. The details are under the block notice on his Talk page. Removal of the messages on others' Talk was also noted at the time of his previous 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. In looking things over, I'm also concerned about the possibilities of socking here. Please feel free to continue to keep me informed. Thanks again : ) - jc37 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GNU Unifont

I've responded to your entry on the GNU Unifont discussion page. --Ph9000 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally a tasteful Thankspam! Good luck in your new role. Let me know if I can suggest any tedious but useful tasks for you to perform. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't do fancy thankspam because a)I'm not that design-oriented and b)image overload used to kill my old laptop. I have a new one now but I still feel for those who don't. I'm happy for suggestions on things I can do to help. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you should follow your interests, and try a number of things. WP:AIV is good for offering questions that improve your admin judgment. WP:3RR, where I often participate, is thought to be straightforward but offers many subtle issues. Closing simple AfDs is easy and is almost a clerical task. Closing hard AfDs requires some subtlety. I haven't gone there yet. WP:SSP is often backlogged, but that takes a fair amount of patience with technical stuff. WP:CSD is good practice but I don't see it backlogged very often. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed this before I went on holiday, thanks for the suggestions. I poked a bit at the low hanging fruit at WP:CSD but haven't been too brave outside new admin school yet. I've 'read' 3RR and COIN for some time, plan to continue doing so and learn how to help there. Thanks again _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinda busy

Well, I'm planning to try to keep up with the voluminous discussion at Chiropractic for the next few weeks, besides spending less time on Wikipedia and more on RL (at least in theory), so I may not have much time for 3RR. We'll see. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....

for your support on my RFA. I appreciated all the votes of confidence and hope not too goof up toooo quickly! --Slp1 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking - thanks for the note on the request for checkuser

I can't figure out how to fix my mistake either...--Gregalton (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this appears to be fixed now, your help is much appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit protected on Sahaja Yoga page

Hi Ed, you recently assisted us on the International Sahaja Public School page and I was wondering if you could turn your attention a related article, the Sahaja Yoga page. This article has been frozen for quite some time and I have made three edit protected requests which I feel should have been addressed by now. Cheers Freelion (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Palkey

I am sorry, but I don't know why my page is getting deleted everytime. This is a personal project, and I wish to enlist on wikipedia, because of my university's requirement in this project. I am not advertising. I simply need thay of any user searches for it, he/she may know what is this. Please help me in this regard. I really need to get this done asap. Thanks. Mshabaz —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia records what the world at large has taken notice of. Student projects are usually undertaken for the benefit of the student, and they seldom gain the general attention from published media that makes them important for Wikipedia readers. If you can add reliable sources, e.g. books and magazines that have commented on the project, then we'll listen. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Respected Administrator, I am going to add reliable sources. Kindly unprotect the article. And I assure that I won't recreate until properly discussed with you. Please help me in this regard. Thank you once again. --Mshabaz (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mshabaz. Have you discovered any reliable sources that comment on the Palkey search engine? We need to know that outside publications have commented on the importance of Palkey. If you can list some of the sources here, I'll consider your request. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, I am really glad that you are helping me out. Thank you so much. Yes, I have the following resources that are reliable. Palkey on Sourceforge, Listing and description on WikidWeb, and there is a review on Squidoo too. Please now allow me to enlist, this is one my project essential requirements. Please! --Mshabaz (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid these don't count as reliable sources for our purposes. Almost any open source project (that wants to) can be hosted on Sourceforge, so that is not a distinction. The material at WikidWeb looks to be self-published, so it doesn't reflect the views of the outside world about the value of Palkey. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops.. But any open source project cannot be listed on SourceForge. There is a panel of judges who interview why to enlist on sourceforge. And it is a hectic procedure. They investigate, looks at the code, confirm its existence and everything. So, this sourceforge source won't help? Other students' projects has only one link of sourceforge as external, and their projects are here on wikipedia for years. I am stuck again. --Mshabaz (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it may not be trivial to get into Sourceforge. But I think you'll notice from other articles that being on Sourceforge isn't accepted as deserving a Wikipedia article. Do you have any named users? Have they published anything about their usage of Palkey in recognized publications? EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have but all of them are simply online in blogs and other sites. Please add my request, I will be really grateful. If I fail to do so, I will loss my project, and a great deal of effort will go waste. Please add my article w.r.t. the Ranking of Palkey reference.--Mshabaz (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Reply.... :( --121.52.146.78 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the question's been answered already. Wikipedia is diligent against being used by people who have promotional agendas, even those that believe they are serving a good cause. We have our article standards and we choose to follow them. Once your project has obtained general notice, as verified through publications that write about it, it will deserve an article here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez article at 3RR

Hello Stifle. I believe there is strong evidence that Wtcsurvivor is a sock of Jrandi, enough to justify an indef block. Can I add this result to your closure of the 3RR issue, or would you prefer for me to enter it elsewhere, e.g. at SSP? EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Template protection

I'm not sure what the normal course is, but I've definitely seen the little locks on a fair number of templates. Actually, not that many templates are protected--only on templates used on tons and tons of articles, or on templates where there has been a lot of vandalism. Mangostar (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell: 3RR

Hello. You declined to act on the 3RR I reported here: [10]. (I left a comment there.) Since then, Marksell has reverted 2 more times. [11] [12] He's now reverted this one-sentence addition of mine 6 times in 48 hours, each time with no discussion. I gave my reasons for the edit in Talk here [13]. If you don't want to block him, can you at least warn him? He belittled my 3RR warning on the grounds that I'm "not an admin." [14] Maybe an admin reminding him of the need to work with others would help. (He did give a brief explanation after I filed a 3RR, but that's not what working with an editor means. I can't file a 3RR every time we need to discuss the article.) Thank you. Life.temp (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Protecting was probably best. I can work in sandbox, without the heat. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some new eyes would be helpful here

After noting your action in Anti-Americanism, I was wondering if some perspective might be helpful in Anti-Iranian sentiment. I am not suggesting protection, as the edit-warring and exchanges appear to be less vitriolic than at the article you protected, but the discussion appears to indicate the presence of folk with something of a grudge (or at the very least, speaking from a personal experience of the subject matter) are editing from the gut and not necessarily with an eye on keeping in line with policy and guidelines. This isn't a request for an admn; this is a request for some neutral eyes.
Otherwise, I hope you are having a splendid day, Ed. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An update - I am encountering a bit of resistance from one of the contributors to the article; the fellow has his own agenda, and isn't really keen to discuss it with the rest of us in discussion. Maybe you could take a gander at the edit history and give me your take on how to proceed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All these culture-war articles have enough in common to warrant documenting some general guidelines, maybe even policies. An example of a sound policy would be: An anti-[national sentiment] label should follow the guideline for naming (identity) and self-indentification}. See also, words that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Some sort of clear guideline would a small start toward a solution beyond admins playing edit war whack-a-mole.Life.temp (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, something like that would be helpful indeed, were it not for how some of the folk contributing to these articles would react to being categorized thusly. Is there a discussion occurring in regards to this topic? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no gift whatsoever for resolving ethnic disputes on articles. But take a look at WP:WGR if you have not seen this before. At Talk:Gdansk/Vote you will find an agreement on how to name certain places in Eastern Europe. Since Arcayne was talking about self-identification above, which is a naming issue, you might see some commonality. Here are a few examples of individual ethnic disputes where people have created WikiProjects to make solutions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any specific discussion of anti-[national sentiment] terminology. I tried to start something at the Village Pump [15], but it didn't go anywhere. If you are interested, I hope you initiate something. Maybe more attention will produce results. There is a general discussion of culture wars on Wikipedia, but nothing so specific as a guideline for how to use certain terms. Life.temp (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for GKOS_keyboard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GKOS_keyboard. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tiptyper (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks

Thanks Ed, a vote of confidence for adminship is better than a dozen barnstars. I appreciate the endorsement of my conduct on wikipedia and it means very much coming from someone I respect as much as you. Gracias!

Incidentally, perhaps I might cave in one day. Or perhaps I'm just seeking a semi-regular infusion of flattery on my talk page. We may never know... WLU (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot

Anna polly might have hit a 46-sock jackpot, but that's nothing compared with this other jackpot that Anna just couldn't resist to join in. :-) Regards, Húsönd 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why User:Anna polly was such a new account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Allstarecho

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking, and there's been some back-and-forth on their talk page; any comment or insight from you regarding the discussion would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Luna. The specific change that bothered me was this one. I can't see that the word insinuated is justified under our policies, since there is no third party making that interpretation. The editor who was cited for 3RR wants Wikipedia to make that claim, based solely on one of the organization's own documents. The actual words of the AFA should speak for themselves, in a situation like that. We shouldn't be the ones to say what they are insinuating. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing adjudication board

Replied on my talkpage. Avruch ^T 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

As an editor of orthomolecular psychiatry, you might have a useful perspective on this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for pointing me to the ArbCom discussion of sources, which resulted in my subsequent discovery of he reliable sources noticeboard which may be a solution for most of my problems. Somehow missed it before--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dory Manor

Ed, in counting up the votes for deleting Dory Manor, I think you missed something important: The Keeps were citing Hebrew-language web pages, the Deletes seemed to focus on the absence of English-language reference. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Yudel (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This case was puzzling, because the guy sounds like he *might* be notable. He could be more important than we can tell from the very limited sources provided in the article. I will userfy the article for you if you think you can do something with it. Hebrew-language sources might be convincing if we had editors with language skill standing by to explain them for us in considerable detail. We'd probably need a sentence or two translated into English from each one, and include that in each citation. Sources must not merely exist, they should assert the importance of the person who is the subject. When there is a language barrier, weighing up the sources is not so easy. Would you be able to assist with this? EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Close call

I don't know if referencing allegations of bias falls under libelous or contentious material, if anything it's a close call either way. I don't think that experienced editors should be allowed to edit war over a 2+ day span, most especially when the margins are this close and there are plenty of other options for redress. I respect your decision but I really don't think it's the right one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is right for an editor that has never made a single edit or comment to file a 3RR violation when it is clear that the motivation is because of previous history with me. Seriously Blaxthos I have lost any respect for you that I had regained over the past few weeks. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Few people would object to having a criticism section in that article if it were well-sourced. I don't perceive that whoever put the criticism section together was doing much research. It sounded initially like WP:WEASEL, and then it gradually got better. As a bad example, consider this version, which has two references in the criticism section, neither of which mentions Carlson at all. It seems that Arzel has now taken a hand himself and has rewritten the criticism section to be more clear. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have no objection if you take further action, I just did what I believed would be the most preventative to further disruption. If you believe further steps are needed as well, please take them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Full Protection

I don't see where on WP:RFPP there is a request for unprotection, but if you feel the protection no longer serves a purpose, feel free to unprotect. But right now I don't see where the request is. Thanks for giving me notice though! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes I didn't look down there. And no problem, thanks for letting me know about it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Arcayne has previously contacted you asking for assistance in content disputes with me [16]. I don't think it's appropriate for you to make an admin judgment on Arcayne's obvious breaking of 3RR when the user in question has a such a cosy relationship with you. also, the issue is not about where her parents where originally from, but rather where they moved from prior to combining to Tehran, here is a source [17] : "Googoosh's father is an Azerbaijani from Sarab, South Azerbaijan [in Iran], a town located between Tabriz and Ardabil". So based on your prior history with Arcayne, please recuse yourself, and allow other admins to review the report. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your time would have been better spent in actually discussing this matter in the article discussion page, instead of seeking to silence dissent to your viewpoint. I will await your addition of this citation to the article discussion page, and we will determine the reliability of an Azerbaijani news source claiming an ethnic connection to the most popular Iranian singer in modern history, which directly contradicts her own website. It seems inadvisable to argue an article point on a page that isn't the article discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurdo777, if you are trying to locate admins who will not enforce WP:BLP, please continue your search. If you have further comments to make, please make them at WP:AN3 or on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the concern here is truly about BLP, how come you didn't noticed that in the same reverts Arcyane was also restoring unsourced information claiming Googoosh is married to Kimiaei? what is worse, saying she is married to someone, she may not be married to, with certainty, or saying where she is from? Saying she is from Iranian Azerbaijan is not against BLP anyways< when there are sources supporting it. Fact remains that you have a relationship with Arcayne, and your intervention in this case was probably canvassed and therefore unethical considering your prior history with Arcayne. I may take this issue all the way to the ArbCom --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You were asked to bring your discussion to the article discussion page. Please continue this discussion (which is frankly more than you have ever offered in two articles) in the article discussion. That would be the best place to raise your concerns, wouldn't you agree? I'd also point out that if yiuhad taken the time to discuss this in the article discussion, I could have advised you on where to find info about Googoosh' marriage to Masud Kimlai. Per your charge here, I have added it. Why you couldn't have done that is beyond me. Discussion helps. It really does.

As well, i should point out that Ed and I are not pals. With the exception of one very specific situation, I've never really dealt with him before.

...That is, if you ignore the fact that we are part of the same covert alien invasion force. Fnord :) . - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You specifically asked ED for help in another dispute you had with me only a few days ago. I find it hard to believe that this is just a coincidence. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You mean, another dispute where you refused to discuss your edits and were edit-warring? Take your time in responding; removing one's foot from one's mouth can be a tricky affair. Now, head on over to the article discussion and make your points, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your source is from 2000, there is no evidence that she's still married to Kimiaei who has never left Iran during the last 8 years. You're still violating WP:BLP by speculating about the current martial status of a living person by an outdated source. Lets see what EdJohnston has to say about this. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently you weren't paying attention when Ed suggested that this needs to be discussed in article discussion. As for the dating on the citation, it is actually reinforced by Googoosh's own website, which I presume is updated rather regularly, considering the addition of concert dates and whatnot. If you have information that she is divorced from the feller, you should feel free to present a citable reference that says such. Otherwise, I am perplexed as to why you are reticent to discuss these issues in the articles pertinent to the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this conversation could be moved to Talk:Googoosh, since this is the sort of discussion that belongs there. Either way, I am not utilizing Ed's page anymore for article discussion, and more personally, I apologize that to Ed that his neutrality was unfairly questioned by my requesting a neutral view from an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thought I would bring you up to speed: CIreland (talk · contribs) went through and did a major purge of the article, scrubbing it clean of all the wacky nonsense that I had only addressed in part. Whilst Kurdo might still hate me, its a hate I think I can live with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR message

Hi Ed, thanks your message. I didn't know about BLP being more important until now actually. But it's pretty subjective to decide what's bad and what isn't. For starters on that 3RR report they were bringing the dispute to the noticeboard which is a no-no. Someone should've moved it or at least ended the discussion right away. I think Gio. did "bait" the other guy (My memory fails me on username's), but he should've known better. I know nothing of the oversight business. I guess this highlights the problems that the Wiki is facing. I think we should write a 3RR Noticeboard guide for admins if there isn't one already; How to deal with reports, what's stale and what isn't (like that discussion we had before, did consensus come out of that?), BLP taking precendence like you said etc. etc. I think it could really be advantageous if we had something like that, would you agree? Thanks again for your message. Take care, Pat. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go. Take a look and tell me what you think! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! May I suggest a link somewhere to WP:3RR#Exceptions. It is interesting that the Gdansk vote is one of them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for looking at it. Should it be moved to WP space? And where should it be linked on 3RRN? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably offer it for review at or at least at WT:3RR and WT:AN3, and perhaps at WP:VPP also. Before you make your final decision, check to be sure you haven't created too many 'entitlements.' Like for the wikilawyers who obviously know about 3RR but claim that they weren't notified wih an official message in exactly the right place. Such people may read the administrator's guide and use it to argue from. So I might take out 'in exceptional circumstances' from your point #2 in 'How to deal with reports.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3

I'd be grateful to have your support on this MfD.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that five days have elapsed since my userspace User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 was MfD nominated, please close the discussion here.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have now added my opinion to the MfD, some other admin will have to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have commented below your opinion on the MfD page as follows: "What I added to the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#1983–1987 and Margaret Thatcher#South African controversy was the actual image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988. I accept that my adding references to the Thatcher articles could be seen as a COI activity (these were removed by John Nevard) but fail to see how inserting the image which illustrates the existing text of the article can be construed in this way. I should be obliged if you would reconsider your vote."

I think you may have been led astray by the preceding comment by Socrates2008 who never seems to portray me in a good light.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of UtherSRG

Editor you blocked for edit warring has requested an unblock on his talk page - I'd be inclined to go for it (and would happily keep a very close eye on his contribs with regards the condition provided). Would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Alex Muller 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to unblock UtherSRG, please unblock User:Cazique as well. I assume you'll take care that the edit war doesn't continue. There is a very active Talk thread about how to resolve the matter properly but people were reverting anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do both of them now. And if either of them go near 3RR or that article for a little while, the block button might get a click or two. Thanks, Alex Muller 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please keep an eye on Uther though, because to me it doesn't even sound like he is willing to stop with the edit warring. He said this "It's a damned redirect we're fighting over. I'm going to get blocked for this? Ridiculous". And then he said this in his unblock request "I'll refrain from editting that redirect for the duration of the block. Please allow me to resume other edits", because the redirect is the way he wants and he does not need to edit it. I have just wanted him to discuss the issues raise but he seems more interested in keeping articles his way. You can also see this in his edits to the page Marsupial Lion where he reverted my improvement to the article without even taking the time to read my edit summary or see my edit. He just did it because I made the edits and then when I had to repeat myself he left it alone. I don't think editors in general should behave this way let alone admins. Cazique (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And now you can see he has violated the condition to his unblocking and has reverted the page back to his version. Why was he made an admin? Cazique (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since admin Alex.muller did the unblock, he now owns the issue :-). Consider writing to him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Astroturfing

I'm glad people are starting to take notice that there is a huge problem with the Falun Gong family of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be interesting where relevant to explore this side of Falun Gong practitioners' public relations strategy, on wikipedia. I have a few sources on this, I think it would be a good section for the overseas page--all the websites and orgs practitioners have set up, and how different ones have different targets and are 'marketed' differently, i.e. the appeals to support of authority figures, the demonstrations of grassroots support, etc.. I think these are just strategies for arousing attention and getting the message out, and they themselves should be part of these articles. I am not sure this is an endemic problem on the wikipedia articles associated with the subject is it?--Asdfg12345 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean that the wikipedia articles should critically evaluate how Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in these strategies, rather than be a vehicle for them. It is a simple principle. Has the latter happened somewhere?--Asdfg12345 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

HES

Hi Ed, I had placed an refimprove tag on the article - not an NPOV tag. The IP removed it then i explained what the refimprove tag was for since the IP requested that I tag each claim needing citation with a cn tag. The IP then updated the article references and removed the refimprove tag which I didn't revert because I was satisfied with the references s/he added. The discussion occurred on our talk pages rather than the article talk page itself but has long since been resolved. Thanks for paying attention to the article! --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, it wasn't an IP, it was Bbriggs1 (talk · contribs). --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you've been able to come to an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

what is the point of reporting?

Lengthy discussion of Galatasaray S.K. that probably belongs on that article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[18] Thanks Icykip2005 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for ignoring my all explainations about who started the reverts. And thanks for forgiving the user that violated 3rr twice... Now he thinks that he was right about all those reverts... This fact will be very helpful for the dispute resolution. --Icykip2005 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Problem on the Galatasaray page Hi Ed The user Icykip2005 is keeping out info of my revert version I told him to revert the section he wants to change in the original edit but he keeps on reverting his own idea's me and some other users did our bests to put info on that page but he keeps reverting it to his own head if he wants to change something, he should change the section he wants to change and not the whole page. Redman19 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

in [[19]] Please add International Turkish Language Olympics. --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They each have boxes and I don't know how to do that. But I'll try later. --Kosova2008 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CENT conclusions

I've stumbled upon Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions, and my first thought was to make it {{historical}}. But, I've noticed you are a single person still updating it, so I would like to ask: why? Conclusions will be always looked upon on the original talk pages anyway, nobody will search in a such well-hidden place. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page is there more with the intention of having a link to the old pages that have been taken off {{cent}}. It doesn't particularly need to include conclusions, but if someone wants to make a new centralized discussion topic and can see that a previous discussion of the same topic failed, they might be able to save their time. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea the Conclusions page existed. It seems like a good idea! EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that when anyone adds anything to WP:CENT they first should check the Talk page and archives, it is unlikely that they look at Conclusions page because (a) hard to find (b) the conclusions can be safely assumed as outdated, because no synchronization is kept with the primary source. If you insist on keeping it for archival reasons, I would suggest naming it Archive instead of Conclusions. This would be the obvious name. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just my personal observation, but the postings on CENT often appear to be well-intentioned but a waste of time, since these discussions are often long and inconclusive. Having a 'scoresheet' that shows that some of them have a good outcome might be a positive thing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, Ed. Kubanczyk, feel free to move the page or nominate it for MFD. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth names

Please consider making a comment here. Thanks David in DC (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Liz Wilde dup AfD

Sorry about that, when the template didn't show up the first time I tried to AfD it, I assumed it had failed entirely due to the protection on the page, and did it again after you removed the protection. Looks as though I may have misunderstood the notability threshold though from the first 2 'keeps'. I know it isn't temporary, but I'm not convinced it was ever there, but I know I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia as flubbing this AfD shows. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of AfD templates! I don't think you misunderstand the notability threshold. The question is still open, in my view. Radio people need a serious discussion to see if they are notable; it's not enough just to have a show. I wish I had the patience to trawl through radio-related AfDs to look for more precedents. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd AFD

I figured as much, but didn't want to act before giving someone associated with the original AFD a chance to comment. Dppowell (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could do me a favor? I recently created Cross-Cultural Dance Resources. I'm not a member of the organization, but I am related to the organization's vice-president, so there's a potential for COI. I'm pretty sure I have it properly sourced, but I'd like if someone else could review it and "signoff" that it's okay. If you have a moment, could you please take a look, and maybe leave a note on the talkpage? And of course, if you see anything inappropriate, feel free to make changes as needed. Thanks, Elonka 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and yes, I can definitely provide more sources. Also, did you notice that the CCDR is already listed in the Thomson Gale Associations directory? --Elonka 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed - Elonka also asked me to look at the article. I've added a reference from the Dance Research Journal announcing the CCDR's establishment and describing its resources. I'm not sure merging the article with Gertrude Kurath would be appropriate, since the collection also includes the papers of other major researchers in this (admittedly small) field. Joann W. Kealiinohomoku, in particular, seems to have written numerous articles and books; she's a pretty big name in dance ethnology, from what I've read. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have further expanded the article, and also fleshed out some of the other related articles (such as for Eleanor King and Joann Kealiinohomoku (man will I be glad when I don't have to type that one anymore!) Could you please take another look at your convenience? Thanks, Elonka 07:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Request AWB permission for Hindi wiki.

Hi EdJohnston, I am a regular user /editor also of Hindi Wikipedia. Regarding the same I came to know about the use of AWB (Auto Wiki Browser). Then I requested the permission for its use, but I do not have enough of my contributions (seems) to have a permission. Regarding the Hindi AWB permission, Rodhullandemu has referred me to talk & request you. I hereby request the permission for the use of AWB for hi.wikipedia.org. You can very well see my contributions at hi:सदस्य:आशीष भटनागर ऽ सदस्य योगदान --Ashish Bhatnagar (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are already authorized to use AWB on the English Wikipedia. Have you tried it out yet? If so, why not just start trying to use it on the Hindi Wikipedia. It's possible they don't have any approval process. Since I can't read the Hindi page names I can't check. Admins on en.wiki have no power on other wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NYC

Thanks Ed, I just found your comment on NYC in my sub-page. I may ask you to delete the page after I'm done to hide my shame of loopholing policies :) WLU (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not have any loopholes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

re "expectations of privacy regarding contacting Wikipedians by email"

Funky title, eh? Seeing as much of WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, do you wish to commence a debate on what the current understanding in respect of the above is - with a view to producing a guideline/policy? I'm all for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello LH. It sounds like you are winning the argument in that particular thread (regarding your own practices), so maybe you should just declare victory! The past debates on message privacy did not lead to a consensus. But since you took the initiative to tell people about your caveat, perhaps you have a desire for a new WP policy. If I were to create a new caveat of my own, I'd probably say 'By writing to me you're giving permission for me to share your message with any other Wikipedia administrators who I think should know about this.' Then we could allow everybody to have their own policy on how they handle email, which could make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented there that I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). I suggest that making special rules of this private sort is destructive of confidence. We admins seem tp get little enough trust from users as it is. DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why LessHeard developed his email caveat, but I do have my own puzzlement. I see a paradox in the confidentiality of email. If the guy says 'Please unblock me,' and the admin who gets the message wants to discuss that on the wiki, how can he do so? Is he supposed to keep it secret that the guy wants to be unblocked? Or, does confidentiality prevent him from forwarding that mail to another admin to get a second opinion?

I suppose there is no perfect way to fix this without a written policy, and that would be instruction creep. Individual admins could create their own caveats. I hope they don't pick the version chosen by LessHeard because we should be able to be more sympathetic than that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that my caveat does not say, "I'm going to publish what you wrote, so don't write me" but rather, "do not expect me not to publish on the grounds of "privacy" if you inform me of something that I feel needs to be brought to the communities attention" - i.e. admissions of serious breaches of policy. My caveat is to stop anyone declaring I breached confidentiality if I make public such information. If, to take the example above, someone contacts me requesting unblock, and I feel I cannot review the matter and decide on my own then I would write back and ask if polling other admins is okay - I would still request permission, not just do it. I still act, I hope, with due regard to privacy and confidentiality; I just have a get out clause when I feel I have a duty to disclose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR (contd.)

User:The_C_of_E is at it again. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He edited Carefree (chant) just once on June 5. That was four days ago. If the pattern resumes, then admin action should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Luigi 28 SSP case

Hi Ed, I've seen your note at AN regarding the SSP case. Your suggestion is a good idea. I'm off to work now, but I'll post a brief summary of the evidence this evening when I get home. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast

The keyboard hadn't even cooled off from filing the 3RR. You are on fire tonight! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RRN languages

Hej hej! I wrote in Svenska originally, and then Spartaz wrote in Danska on min (my) wall. So, ja, if du (you) wrote in German too on the board we could have an ecclectic mix of Europe! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)

Oops, I misread the block log. You are absolutely right.

I closed the case since both master and sock are blocked. Thank you for pointing out my error. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama ANI

Would appreciate it if you could look through this again and give your thoughts once more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't mind either proposal - so I've given Scarian's proposal my support. Right now, we just need prompt preventative action that's effective for some time at least. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • As this is a special BLP article (along with all other related pages), I'm more inclined towards it being against everyone so that we don't encounter the same problems with a new bunch of editors. I've restated our updated suggestions separately in a new header for input by all those who are not involved (in any way) on that set of pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dcshoes

Could you please review my comment and close this? Thanks in advance. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution at Sheylanli

EdJohnston, I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard in order to resolve the dispute over reliable sources at the article Sheylanli. I have placed a tag at this article in order to attract the reader to this discussion and get a broader input. I believe the tag is important. In the past, user:Gulmammad has reverted all tags in this article no matter how reasonable they were. I ask that you use your admin judgement in terms of this tag and prevent a good faith attempt of dispute resolution from failing due to the reverting of this tag. Let me know if you need anything from me. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave explanation for all of your recent actions here. Regarding tags that you claims removed by Gulmammad, here is the warning for your edits

[20], [21], [22], and [23] where the last one shows that you added mentioned tags. As I told before, please do some useful edits instead of wasting your time on attacking articles. I observe that attacking articles (that you personally don't like) in different ways apparently has become your hobby in recent days as immediate one could be this to mention, which has been declined by 12 and supported only by one editor. Gülməmməd ^Talk 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, it looks somewhat like you are following me around (some might say stalking) when you follow every edit that I make including an obscure AFD for an obscure article that is about a subject that you don't edit. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just friendly I am asking, is there a way of reporting this to somewhere as well? I guess that would be your N^th report about me :)
P.S. Don't worry, I am not following you, while hanging around I saw your AfD that I mentioned above Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you're following me around just to be friendly? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter L. Hurd

I note that User:Jon Hobynx (a sock of an editor I did not get along with) incorporated most/all my suggestions for Peter L. Hurd quite some time ago. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind words in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with national varieties of English

Thank you for the warning. Frankly, this is the first I have heard of variants of English spelling, I am mildly bothered that someone would call it a crusade. Another note, I have been adding information to various pages for over 2 years. If this accident ( it must be, as again, I was not aware one English was different then another) is worthy of being seriously looked at, please seriously look at the edits of the IP who reported me to 3RR. Multiple vandalisms, extremely crude and offensive edit comments(I have been called a "Yank" and a "Douche Bag"), etc, to me seem like a much more serious issue. A good example, is the recent vandalism on my own page, which I have left there for you're viewing. I would hope vandalism is much more seriously looked at, then variants of English depending on the thoughts of ones born country and not based on fact as far as I can tell. (Majin Takeru (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

I have warned the IP editor 24.76.20.115 (talk · contribs). His Talk page already has vandal warnings. He can be blocked if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK in all seriousness, I just have to say, for one that purports to be "well-travelled," how can one not know that a sizeable proportion (likely a majority) of the world's English speakers do not spell using US English? A perusal of a london or sydney or toronto or New Delhi newspaper would quickly confirm that fact. and that doesn't even require you to travel there. Just go to thetimes website or theglobeandmail.com astounding ignorance. just astounding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.20.115 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Aksis 3rr block

Hi Ed. You recently blocked Aksis for 3rr. He/she has now agreed to stop edit-warring. Can we unblock him/her?--chaser - t 09:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Chaser. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rex071404

The formatting is quite useful to me, actually: blocked users in one group, active users in another group. Anyway, I have commented on the case, and if you'd like to offer your opinion, it would be constructive. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

IP EDITS

Hi Ed, Yes i believe that was me... for some reason, i get logged off without knowing and only when i hit save do i realize that i wasnt logged in properly.

Also I am deleting 3 sentences from the Guterman article based on Wbpl: Harm

Please take a look at my notes on the discussion page and let me know if you think I'm correct in my reasoning.

Thanks!

NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, thanks for looking into ban circumvent and the AN3 entry. Now listed at suspected sock puppets and a checkuser for another account I found. I already told User:Luna Santin on IRC to just ban them all (6 hours ago!!), but she wouldn't respond. Species8473 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually she is nice though and helps me with all my newby questions. Species8473 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

4RR by Tymek on Friedrich Scherfke

Excuse me, but what is this? You approve of Tymek breaking 3RR, and show extremely bad faith towards me, accusing me of "would-be-breaking 3RR" and of sockpuppetry. I ask you to alter your statement. Besides, the whole Scherfke article is unsourced, for crying out loud, and it contains sentences like "Rumors claim that he was a driver for the Gestapo". The similar case of his team mate Ernst Willimowski is better documented as he was younger and thus could play for and in Germany, so Tymek on Talk concedes that "he was not allowed to return", but still claims "expulsion has nothing to do with it". And you call this "a certain logic"? -- Matthead  Discuß   22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Scherfke is that there are very few sources, I wish I could improve it, but it has been impossible so far. Matthead, if you can find sourced and relevant information, help out. Please do not add the much more famous Wilimowski here, his story is completely different. He was not allowed to return to Poland because he played for the national team of Nazi Germany, and was regarded a traitor because of that. Look at Ewald Dytko, Gerard Wodarz or Erwin Nyc - they all returned. BTW I have a question to user EdJohnston. How do you check IPs? There have been a few cases in which some anons emerged from nowhere to back Matthead in his editing. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to consider Matthead responsible for the mystery IPs. It happens that issues start to get considered as 'trigger' issues in national disputes and other people (some of them IPs with no track record) arrive to revert on themes that they recognize. I've seen it happen with Macedonia and with Cyprus. If possible, it's always good to work on an individual page in detail as you are proposing above. I've got no idea whether the Scherfke article is appropriately balanced at the moment, but starting a discussion at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke could lead to better results. If a consensus for a change in the article was found there, lifting the protection might be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the feedback on the SSP case on CumulusClouds. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean Start...

• Would it best serve for me to discontinue all use of MichaelQSchmidt and request a reinstatement as Mqschmidt? To whom would I make such request? Or would it better serve for me to ask an Admin to approve a clean start as MichaelQSchmidt rather than for to simply claim to have made one? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the consensus of the people responding to your SSP. It could be reasonable for you to ask for User:Mqschmidt to be unblocked to clear your name. Then you would not be under any cloud of block evasion any more, and you could keep on editing with User:MichaelQSchmidt, which (in my opinion) has a good record on Wikipedia. As part of the deal, you would agree not to edit any more as Mqschmidt. When the time comes, you could ask any sympathetic admin to propose at WP:AN that Mqschmidt be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:12, 12 June 2008

Ed, I made a small edit (Revision as of 21:12, 12 June 2008) wherein I added a new feed reader name called Genwi(http://www.genwi.com) to the list of web based feed readers. I agree that Wikipedia is a wonderful place that should not be filled with advertisements and links to every known site on the planet. However, I added Genwi because it has been available from past 2 years and only recently has started to gain popularity. Furthermore, it is the first feed reader that combined social networking (sharing updates with friends). Here are the articles from the blog world that already provided enough advertisement..

Mar 1 2007: http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/03/20/social_media_networking_meets_rss.htm Sep 1 2007 : http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/01/genwi-browse-and-share-syndicated-content/

Note that in the Techcrunch article it was written as even better than Google reader. Hence I thought it is important to list a product that competes and provides more useful and original ideas compared to what is already listed. If not, could you please explain as to what is the criteria for listing this useful service in it's rightful place. I think it is a useful piece of information and not an advertisement. If you could kindly add it or let the edit be, I would appreciate it.

Prabhe (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention the article to which you had added a mention of Genwi. Your only WP edit is to my own Talk page. In general, if Genwi is important enough to deserve mention in a Wikipedia article, it ought to be important enough to deserve a separate Genwi article, which I observe does not exist at this time. You can understand that we resist inclusion of new items whose importance is not certified by reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed:(Your only WP edit is to my own Talk page) I don't understand that.

I was contemplating adding a separate article on Genwi soon. I will wait to make these edits again utill that point. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

However, about reliable sources, I was a member since the inception of Media RSS group in 2004 and have been consulting on the syndication and feed creation for media consumption with major media companies about it. Genwi is the only know web based feed reader that read more than 6 formats of RSS (including MRSS and iTunes RSS tags). Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ before hitting 'Save page.' Your contribution list shows no edits except to my own Talk page; I don't know where else you have added any information, unless you've been using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the diff. The dates and times don't match, but other than that it appears to be an anonymous IP adding an entry for a news aggregator to a list of web based news aggregators. It was never reverted so I can't tell what this comment is about, other than to apparently promote their product to you. This is probably a COI violation and Prabhe is probably on staff at genwi.com. Any new article for Genwi should be closely scrutinized for POV and promotional edits. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Correction: Here is the diff. The title of the section refers to the date and time you left a warning on their talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Prabhe and Cumulus Clouds. Thanks for the pointers. I've removed the entry for Genwi.com from List of feed aggregators. Entries in that list should already have their own Wikipedia articles, to justify inclusion. If it's notable enough to deserve an article, then it can be included. Prabhe, please use your logged-in account when you edit, especially if you plan to work in areas that might be considered promotional. You made the change regarding Genwi using an IP address. If you can find coverage for Genwi from reliable sources, that may be enough to deserve an article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Guterman

Hi Ed, If you have time, please take a look at my edits on the Guterman discussion page and let me know what you think, especially with the edits I cited under WBLP HARM, and my reasons for removal. I would love a second opinion on this. Best Regards, NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently you removed 3,000 bytes from the article, claiming that there was duplication. You might be correct; I haven't checked carefully. But such large changes ought to be discussed on Talk. If there are mostly going to be two of you working on the article for the next while, try to figure out what the other guy's priorities are. If you make even the smallest effort to work out a compromise, it might help to settle down the situation. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the two of you should be reverting headers (such as 'Overview') back and forth with no discussion at all. (That sort of behavior doesn't look good if the article is reviewed later to check for edit warring). Also, please sign your Talk comments with four tildes before hitting 'Save page.' You are, at present, participating on Talk more than the other guy, I see. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks Ed. Yes, the duplicate content was the QE2 part. It was in the EXACT form above so I removed it. Also, based on WBLP Guidlines, potentially harmful or libelous material is supposed to be pulled immediately and then discussed, correct? So I undid the recent changes in hopes that Smilo would discuss each edit, one at a time. Rather than post potentially harmful edits and then say "from now on, no wholesale edits" I believe it should be the other way around based on what I've read of the guidlines... am I correct in this assumption? Thanks Again! NHB5... I still cant figure out the signing thing, sorry :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not an open-and-shut case for BLP. It would be better to present each BLP item first, on the Talk page, for discussion. It was only relative weight rather than defamation, so far as I can see. He was indicted for tax fraud, and the charges later were dropped. This was well-sourced to the NY Times. (The claim that they were 'false charges' is certainly POV, and should never have been included). But we might choose to omit the whole item, per WP:WEIGHT. That certainly does not create any urgency for immediate removal, though. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149

I replied on the case page. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IfD Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg

Following the blanking of Richard Norton-Taylor's article from the image (which Arthur Rubin stipulated), are you minded to change your vote from "delete" to "keep"?PJHaseldine (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Socrates2008 has voted to keep the image, yours is the sole "delete" vote.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the IfD discussion was keep.PJHaseldine (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your vote

Hi Ed, please review WebTrain, the article is improving, references are better than previous (click on them to view), and I've got some good ones in the works. Also, since you voted, when I post changes to the article, may I post a notice to this thread requesting your re-consideration? GaryECampbell (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many claims made in the article that are still marked 'citation needed.' There are still no reviews in mainstream publications, so I am not inclined to change my vote. I don't mind you telling me here that you have made an update. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, citations are required, am working on that. The PCMag reference (as newly written) works well since it is date context relevant. I have requested input from ziffdavis and cnet as you suggested, will probably get a response back in a day or two, unsure when tho. Also please see my comments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WebTrain regarding the Robin Good review. Cheers GaryECampbell (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added another 3rd party reference from Society for Technical Communication. Their technical committee published a Webinar Maxtrix comparison which included WebTrain, comparing the product to public (non-private) mainstream vendors. The maxtrix is fairly detailed, it was indexed on Yahoo (not google, go figure). With the major 3rd party reverse takeover references, major 3rd party CEO references, major 3rd party matrix comparison (stc.org), major 3rd party PC Magazine reference, and some very notable 2nd party references (BC Minister, Dean of U of Regina, Sask Govt, BCTIA, etc), I am hopeful the article is improving to a point to pass criteria. comments? GaryECampbell (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD passed. I was not aware the vote was taking place today. I posted an extensive list of categorized references on my talk page that were not previously disclosed (so have a peek). Regardless of your vote, if you need assistance with a technical article, give me a shout, I'm an expert developer with more than 2 decades of PC hardware, software development (6 languages), networks and protocols (right down to the ethernet frame), sockets, web stuff, security, SQL, load balancing, etc. I would be pretty good at assisting with such if asked. cheers GaryECampbell (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Versace11

Thanks for your help and pointing me to the right projects with this case. =Species8473= ^(talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Guterman yeah

Hi Ed, Yes, good words. My objection, was to a string of anonymous editors up to mischief and reverts without a peep. I think it's all one person, now called NetHIstorybuff5, who seems to revert any hint of balance in the article. I've been trying to talk with him/her on his/her user page. The lack of WP protocol is a bit frustrating. To my eyes s/he's clearly personally motivated to paint a rosy picture of Guterman, and uninterested in WP. ANyway, that's where I'm coming from. I appreciate your participation and thoughts. Smilo Don (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Russavia

As per advice in discussion I have moved debate about Russavia to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Russavia. Please provide your views there, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks! Kransky (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's better to request category deletion over at WP:CFD. When there is a disagreement, it is easier to get other editors to help solve a technical matter than an inter-personal matter. In an RFC/U, you are trying to collect testimonials to show that the named editor is a terrible person. That's not a good way to begin negotiations if there are alternatives available. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's better for editors to read and familiarise themselves with WP:CAT, WP:NCCAT, and then Category:Categories by country to see exactly how categories can and do work. --Россавиа ^Диалог 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision RM

Thank you for closing the discussion and your comments. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I believe you miscounted the number of non-anonymous votes (I count 8 oppose to 7 support), and I would like your comment amended to reflect that. Also your comment ignores the fundamental debate over neutrality, and over ambiguity, improperly focussing on a vague desire to have "circumcision" be an article rather than a redirect, and ignoring the current contents of that article, the ambiguity present in the title, and the non-neutrality of the article's title given its contents. It also ignores the fact that at least four of the oppose votes were based on claims that "female circumcision" is a "recent coinage" or "neologism," claims which were unsupported by any sources, and categorically shown false by reliable sources in the ensuing discussion. The falsehood of these claims was never addressed and and the evidence never rebutted. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be about the same number of supporters and opponents. Is this correct?

Support: Beejaypi, Garycompugeek, Blackworm, Jookieapc, Fyslee, Nigelj, Jamesxeno

Oppose: Jakew, Septemtrionalis, Coppertwig, Atomaton, Avi, Andrewa and Nsaum75.

EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's Groggy Dice's oppose, making 8-7. Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also, from Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. You counted all arguments I perceive to be based on assumptions shown false by reliable sources, as I point out above. The arguments were countered with facts, and not rebutted. You stated a vote count that was incorrect, stated a reason for discounting an anonymous IP vote in support (you apparently believe that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith (ibid.), and yet have no position on the votes based on "facts" proven false. You have no comment on the policy issues debated, i.e., neutrality and ambiguity in titles, which could also have been grounds to discount votes. That is why I say I don't believe this will be resolved outside arbitration -- too many people around who hold on to misinterpretations of policy, and opinions based on beliefs ("neologism", "not standard English") that are provably false. Blackworm (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider re-running the move debate sometime in the future. If you are unhappy with my close, you could always raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning, but someone has modified your closing statement, with edit summary "correction", changing the vote totals to 7 in favour, 8 against. Thanks, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And well it should be corrected. See above. I do not recall ever seeing anyone have so far off a count in closing an RM. Clearly it doesn't change the results, but the count does need to be corrected, and reverting a correction is more than odd. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic, especially with all the other irregularities, that the vote count downplayed the magnitude of the dispute, when I continually argue that those opposing the measure downplay the magnitude of the dispute. Blackworm (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR as an advanced edit warring tool

Just I am wondering to know, how many users have been blocked according Poco's report on violation of 3RR. One of them is me, another I just saw, and wonder to know how many else have been trapped in this way? To me this 3RR policy is becoming a tool for some users to get others blocked because they have been disagree on some topics. It is very easy to get blocked someone in this way. Here are the steps: if you don't like someone, you start or get started some disruptive edit on the article that he has been working hard and naturally that user reverts it. Then you team up with a bunch of IP's or sock puppets to force that user make more than 3 reverts. In this step you report him on violation of 3RR! Then horray! The trick worked!
I think we should take this into account and work out some better mechanism instead of 3RR or just remember above facts when taking action for violation of 3RR. I believe this 3RR is not fair for many users because personally I have experienced this situation. Gülməmməd ^Talk 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to go over three reverts. It just takes an unusual amount of self-control not to get carried away, in a contentious dispute. Can you think of any way besides 3RR for handling edit wars? Would you just do article protection all the time? EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand you as you have to decide about the situation in very short time. But if we have a look at the history of situation closely, we will see a lot that shows the user who is blamed on violation of simply 3RR is very productive rather than one who spends his time in Wikipedia for keeping such productive users busy by organizing edit war situation and then doing such reports because they have been having disagreements on some topics. This last block shows that 3RR can be violated even by experienced user unintentionally who has already have block on violation of 3RR. Now let us think of situation of a user like me who even didn't know 3RR when was blocked for violating 3RR by the above trick.
Taking all these facts into account, I believe, no-one needs to search for better way besides 3RR for handling edit wars, however, I found semi-protection of such articles helps a lot at least to stop anons. I am a witness of a lot of useful edits by IP's but when we come to such disputed articles, anons are just catalyst for edit wars. Gülməmməd ^Talk 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, don't misrepresent the events surrounding your block or the events surrounding Kober's block. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia policy, especially 3RR, is that it treats each editor as an individual, and ignores all forms of cooperation except obvious sockpuppeteering with a "bunch of IP's or sock puppets". Wikipedia is completely helpless when several established editors cooperate to push an agenda well beyond NPOV. But there is now at least one admin who distinguished himself by approving 4RR of a single editor against several others. We'll have to keep an eye on this. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is of editors that simply sit back and hit revert with no regard for your take on what information the sources give or whether the sources are reliable. They simply leave it completely up to you to try to go through the dispute resolution process whilst they just hit the revert key. Sure, it's better in theory to take the high road and continue with the dispute resolution process but to what end when they are not entering the dispute resolution process in good faith? For an example, see my dispute resolution attempt here and notice Gulmammad's repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT's. I am trying to keep the topic on reliable sources and he keeps moving the topic towards other completely unrelated articles or AFD's that have ended in "no consensus" or pictures of people that lived 100 years ago or pictures of Toronto. This dispute resolution started because of Gulmammad's use of unreliable sources such as pictures he's taken himself that push a certain position and web forums and blogs as reliable sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Poco, please don't wast the time of people. Here is the 1% of your similar attempts: [ 1 ] [ 2] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]. With the time and energy that I lost both here and here I could have done a lot of useful edits. Still I feel sorry for my time that I lost there. You shouldn't mention a term reliable sources after above facts. Judge from point of view of wider auditorium not yourself as this one! BTW, I know Kober from there, he was one who rescued the article from your AfD attack. I, or others, don't have to waste their times to defend articles from your attacks. May you just check your edit history to see how many useful edits, if any, you have done? Show your work, list the articles that you have created or significantly contributed, except disputed topics. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And also, above by saying "I am trying to keep the topic on reliable sources and he keeps moving the topic towards other completely unrelated articles or AFD's that have ended in "no consensus" or pictures of people that lived 100 years ago or pictures of Toronto" you are attempting to confuse people. Trough out the resolution you have many times changed the topic to unrelated and unrealistic claims. You started with reliable sources and then started claiming that the village even didn't exist! or about images or distance from the capital city and lots of many other frustrating questions. At the end you nominated the article for deletion and it survived! Please don't write propaganda conclusion about our dispute resolution discussion. Gülməmməd ^Talk 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, for the upteenth time what exactly is your point with the AFDs? Nominating an article for AFD that ends in "no consensus" or "keep" is not disruptive. It does show however that you've been going through my edit history with a fine toothed comb. Also, nominating for deletion is a natural progression after reliable sources can't be found. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry to jump in here, but I've been actively looking for a "tag team" situation so that I can gather data for the Working Group. Might I ask which article is being discussed here? Thanks, Elonka 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See above for a case in which I believe to have been pronounced a tag teamer. See also this report about a case [24] in which an otherwise unrelated editor showed up to continue reverting for an editor who tried to topple consensus. I openly stated that I'm exceeding 3RR to counter that, but of course this was futile, the issue was not discussed. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

People don't realize that most 3RR closures are mechanical, based on a count of reverts, except in a few cases where there is very obvious misbehavior going on. Do you suppose that the 3RR closer is going to make a complete study of the Digwuren ruling, including its log of blocks and bans, before closing each 3RR regarding Eastern Europe? And try to figure out which editors usually support each other? That's a discussion for some place other than the 3RR board. I suppose the alternative is to completely give up trying to do 3RR blocks in nationalist cases and always do article protection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've learned that 3RR closures are mostly mechanical, but in the Tymek 4RR case, it was you who made an exception, a very unsatisfying one. You could have given him a compassionate short block, and semiprotect to take the IPs out, for example. If an admin is not sure what to do, there is always the option to let somebody else do it, unless tasks are alloted to admins in a workload sharing procedure I'm ignorant about. So in any closed case I assume that the admin acted with firm conviction. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, not sure if this is the example you are looking for but a possible meatpuppetry situation is here. I would be interested in your thoughts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I don't see any action items for me in the above thread. I plan to box up this discussion soon. If you have examples of 'tag team' disputes for Elonka to consider, please write to her directly. Or, a volunteer could offer his or her own Talk page to continue this discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

re. User:Generalmesse

re. User:Historyneverrepeats "a bona-fide long-time contributor" 14 edits in a year??? and in his last edit he says that he was: "usando el nombre "generalmesse"" - using the name "generalmesse" to edit the articles: Siege of Tobruk and Operation Husky. re. User:Topmalohouse "a regular editor" with just 6 (!!!) edits??? in his last 2 edits (a whooping 33% of his total!) he complains that he can not add his imagination (or disillusion) of a (never happened) "gran victoria terrestre italiana" (great Italian victory) and that I'm not letting him add his stuff - well his stuff is fabricated exaggerations and/or blatant lies that were broadcast by Radio Rome or Radio Berlin during WWII and he wants to add them because those two are very neutral and reputable sources (for him)... Sorry, User:EdJohnston but you did a less than stellar work checking up on this two "users". --noclador (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that these two editors were doing anything useful. In a sock report, we are trying to determine who is a sock, and that's not been shown in their case. The phrase 'usando el nombre generalmesse' has no clear subject; I don't see he's describing himself there. The section header porfavor DagosNavy ayudanos--nosotros de sangre italiana-- en la pagina de la Primera Batalla de Alamein *does* sound like nationalistic POV-warring (by Argentinians of Italian descent?) which could deserve a warning if it continues. I don't think these two guys ought not to be grouped with an obvious destructive sock like Ronpillao. Somebody who makes 14 edits in a year is easily reverted, so I don't see what the big deal is. The other guy is a named published author, which should be a clue to his identity, which is of interest in sock inquiries. On Talk, he *does* try to defend the theory of a big Italian success at the First Battle of El Alamein, but in his entire WP history he has only made one article edit. That doesn't sound very dangerous. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Topmalohouse says: "Me dicen que estoy cometiendo vandalismo pero si ves mis contribuciones,..." "No se porque un tal Noclador ha decido hacer la guerra contra mi en cuanto a mis ediciones sobre las fuerzas terrestres alemanas en norte africa y en el frente ruso." Me, I do, my, me, my - this are his words - but were are his edits??? Topmalohouse has done not a single edit in articles about "norte africa" or "el frente ruso" but Ronpillao, Flylikeadodo RadioBerlin Generalmesse Steyr2007 MedagliaD'Oro Drunkgeneral Regione have... Topmalohouse = sock! and that without a doubt!

Historyneverrepeats - a published author?? Come on, he can say any name he wants... I doubt that a published author of books will resort to massive socket puppetry to manipulate wikipedia. Anyway: Want proof that Historyneverrepeats is a sock of the above? Here it comes:

Topmalohouse leaves his comments on DagosNavy talkpage at:

• 10:27, 28 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:DagosNavy‎
• 10:20, 28 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:DagosNavy

Historyneverrepeats comes back to life after a 6 month hiatus and his first edit is:

• 11:11, 28 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Operativo Independencia with this edit comment:‎ "I hope this book helps, it's me David, please read my request for your help at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DagosNavy " oh he calls himself David - just like Topmalohouse. and interesting: which comment on DagosNavy's page does he mean?? Historyneverrepeats hasn't written one... but Topmalohouse has... So is it now also clear to you that these two are part of a sock circus??? --noclador (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• On further thought and after looking at your data, I've blocked Topmalohouse and Historyneverrepeats as socks of Generalmesse. Details at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hi,

Thanks for closing the 3rr charge. I also want to say that I still do not believe that my material was disputed as it was 100% referenced. I saw that most political partis did not have anything controvercial on their page so I shouldn't be pushing for the same as it creates controversy and a lot of energy gets wasted. There are better ways where I can still contribute. Thanks again Sindhian (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam - Comparison Matrix Gibberish

Comparison of web conferencing software - this article is unreferenced. It is heresay and slanted, the purpose of the matrix is to advertise.

When they added a new subject to Web Conferencing to link to their matrix, in doing so, references and contributions from others were deleted.

The comparison is incomplete, it does not include relevant vendors that have Wiki articles, nor does it include major vendors that Wainhouse, IDC, Frost and Sullivan have included in their publicated research. Both PictureTalk and WebHuddle are included articles are non-referenced stubs (spam), and I suspect the matrix is COI (prepared by PictureTalk).

Here's an example of a properly researched article (copyrighted material) - http://www.e-education.ch/presentations/27.10/Mayrhofer_Back_E-education2.pdf Note this article includes 39 vendors and hundreds of matrix comparison points. Compare the PictureTalk article to this study. Do you think unreferneced heresay such as this should be on Wikipedia ?

Also note this is the second attempt by the user to post the matrix, the previous posting ALSO deleted pertinent article content that was in place for a long time.

Ed, over the past month, I have become familiar with some of Wikipedia policies, I have much to learn. But I am trying to make contributions relative to this space because I am an expert in this space. I added IETF source reference, I added a patent reference to Eric Korb, adjusted the non-proven statement to reflect fact, changed incorrect abandoned statement as per trademark assignment 2 factual reference, I added reference for one way statment and for collallaborative statement for Webinar using the PC Magazine Encyclopedia reference, and confirmed "Other typical features of a web conference include" by citing a Frost and Sullivan reference. These references and changes were removed by User:Diegotorquemada. I added these facts because the article requested that references be provided, so having them removed and being replaced by spam, well, it seems like abuse of policy. Feel free to review my activies and compare article revisions which show these statements are true.

I am a person that has learned that when wearing a different hat, wear only one hat. When I contribute to this space, it will be as an expert.

In summary, I believe the matrix and links to the matrix are a COI, biased, slanted non-referenced heresay posted soley for advertising, and when the article was posted, they deleted other peoples contributions including mine. I will leave this in your hands to report, correct or ignore as you are a person with experience in such matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryECampbell (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oops - sorry, I forgot to sign my post. GaryECampbell (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• See 206.80.0.98 contributions, this turkey is spamming everywhere. I suspect User:Diegotorquemada is 206.80.0.98 (based upon timely edits) GaryECampbell (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Contribs: 206.80.0.98 and Diegotorquemada.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, EdJohnston, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Are you aware of the User:Davkal situation? If not, make yourself aware. Your comments on Jossi's page evinced incredible ignorance of the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your comment about EdJohnston's very reasonable observation: have you ever read the Wikipedia:Civility policy? — Athaenara ✉ 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse

Ed, your whole quagmire on the General - it's Bruno. Ask for an RFCU. I'll bet you (given our discussions about Luigi) a nice large beer that the whole lot converges on Broomfield, Colorado. With plenty of 4.231 IP numbers. -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alasdair. I know that Brunodam has some confirmed history of socking. But he has never edited any article related to Argentina or the Falklands, so far as I know. I don't see him taking much specific interest in El Alamein, either. His weblog is hosted in Italy, not Colorado. There is a CU request already submitted, which might resolve the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand Bruno seems to be a Italian-Venezuelan (as he speaks Spanish and Italian and has written articles about unwavering fascists that fled to Venezuela Pompeo D'Ambrosio) A connection to South America does also exist. --noclador (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick technical clarification, if I may. The article on Pompeo D'Ambrosio - Bruno's full name is Bruno D'Ambrosio [25] - was actually created by one of Bruno's socks. Bruno's first contribution to that article (under his own account) was to add a family photo [26]. He also created Italo-Venezuelans, so yes, noclador is right, there is a connection to South America. Not that this proves anything, other than some South American interest. Ed, you are right that Bruno hasn't edited anything regarding the Falklands War, but he is very definitely based in Broomfield, Colorado. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and Bruno d'Ambrosio was a user on the Italian wiki and there he has been blocked since March 22nd, 2007 it:utente:Bruno d'ambrosio. Btw. the "article" - or better the glorifying garbage Pompeo D'Ambrosio states about Pompeo: "During WWII he was Lieutenant of the Italian Army in North Africa (Libya and Egypt), where was wounded and made POW in the Battle of El Alamein receiving a military Medal of Honor." or in Italian a Medaglia d'Oro and that is exactly the name of one of Generalmesse socks. Also Pompeo "In 1946 co-founded in Salerno the local section of the Movimento Sociale Italiano," I added to this that the MSI is the fascist Italian Party. Also Brunodam (in the guise of Pannonicus) refers to Allied POW camps as "Concentration camps" already as he starts the article, and who else does so: some of the socks of Generalmesse: an example from an article one of these socks created. Mere coincidences??? --noclador (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

btw. Bruno d'Ambrosio was banned on the Italian wiki for threatening legal action: and one of the myriad of socks just posted this in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd "I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved." (diff link)... So has Brunodam now moved to Australia??? --noclador (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

above mentioned "user" Romaioi claims to be from Australia and to have a PhD in physics and chemistry (see diff link in the post above) and to be from Perth... well: at 7pm Central European time he was still very active - but when it's 7pm in Europe it is 3am in Perth... so he edited today from 4 pm until 3am Perth time... doesn't sound like someone who has "a day job and a family, so as my time is constrained"... --noclador (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Its actually 2.32AM where I am, as I write. Yes, you have wasted an entire day of mine Noclador. I hope you have taken pleasure in that. I have the flu. Would you like a medical certificate? Would you like to examine my bathroom habits too? Perhaps you would like to know how many months old my baby is child too? Perhaps interrogate her? EdJohnston, can you please review all my comments of defense and put a stop to this witch hunt? Do an IP search, EdJohnston, I know you have the software. It will show my IP to come from Nollamara, Perth, Australia. Otherwise, provide me an avenue to contact you, if you are the administrator? Noclador is clutching at straws and his insinuations (now I have just moved from Italy to Asutralia) and getting to be ridiculous. I am also being criticized for taking the time to defend myself. EdJohnston, I have been providing lots of information in good faith and this person is being allowed to manipulate my every word. Romaioi (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: noclador got it wrong! Romaioi was categorically shown to not be a sock.

No acknowledgement of his mistake or apology for his personal attacks on Romaioi were forthcoming from Noclador. Rather, another member apologised to Romaioi. Also, Noclador implied Romaioi to be a "fanatic" for defending himself. Deleting Romaioi's replies to other Wikipedia members at User talk:Noclador, whereby Romaioi was thanking the other member for their apology, and requesting:

Whoever wishes to raise such suspicions against anyone should be more thorough in their examination of all the evidence before stepping over that line. Otherwise, state suspicion and do not just outright accuse.

Romaioi (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed

A user is reverting all my reverts to his own ideas at the Galatasaray page maybe you can take a look? Redman19 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at 151.200.237.53's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)}

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at 151.200.237.53's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)}

Strange IP address editing

Please revisit Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh, Leedryburgh (talk · contribs) and Talk:Signaling System 7. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict at User talk:41.232.182.119:

Ed I was in the process of leaving a block notice at the same time you left the warning.

Normally I'm very slow to block, but given the history of this edit war and the timeline of the last 24 hours' events, it was clear that this IP belonged to one of the participants. It seemed easier to just block that IP than to try to figure out who was using it. The IPs that abused recently and those in the past were Austrian and Egyptian; one of the participants is in Scotland. Both participants are experts on the public switched telephone network and IP networking (one wrote a 700-page book for Cisco), so I figure either party is perfectly capable of somehow conjuring up a sock-IP wherever they want. If this continues with other IPs, then I'm thinking of semi-protecting these articles for a while.

I could blacklist the domain, but based on my experience with WikiProject Spam, I figure there's a chance that it's being Joe jobbed.

If you've got better ideas, I'm very receptive. The whole thing reminds me of an old Star Trek episode I saw years ago, except I'm no Captain Kirk. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely support your action. It sounds to me that the regular editors who've been following this case have been more than patient. We expect that a word to the wise will be sufficient; if it takes ten thousand words, there is less reason to be sympathetic. Regarding a joe job, User:Leedryburgh had the chance to dissociate himself from the IP's action but has not chosen to so far. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do after "no consensus" closure

Re the discussion about renaming Circumcision: Thank you very much for closing this, and I'm sorry to take up your time with a further related issue. I'm wondering whether it was wrong of me to tell Garycompugeek not to bring up again the subject of renaming the page (in response to his comment here). My reasoning was that since the discussion had been closed, we shouldn't waste editors' time re-opening the discussion unless there's new information or new arguments. However, Blackworm seems to think that since it was closed as "no consensus", that discussion should continue until a consensus is found (or something like that). I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there was a majority *against* moving the page, we should expect to see at least some changes of position in previous voters or new participants favoring the move. It is less than a month since the previous debate. I wonder if anyone who opposed the move in June has changed their mind. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I think that answers my question. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Test of substituting the 'resolved' template

Resolved. This is a test; it is only a test. You can't see what happens to the wiki text unless you save the file.

. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Even through I feel it rapes me, I did do a semi-self-revert, by placing the tag on the page, but where it normally goes, below the Reference section, not up high, per precedent with similar articles with similar formatting style.--Bedford ^Pray 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am officially raped, and now the disruptive presence that is Doncram is encouraged to continue his childish ways. It has been reverted to the vandalized version. --Bedford ^Pray 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

note

I emailed you with an explanation of my recent posting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in a dispute with the other user. Obviously you can take it to WP:WQA if you wish. For purposes of WP:COIN, my interest would be in improving the Cherry Wilder article, which seems not too bad at present. Just needs a couple more sources. When people reveal their COI, we tend to be more tolerant, so long as they don't go overboard. For example, I wouldn't complain about this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Also, the other thing was the promotion of the book on his user page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

would appreciate your input on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Probation proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those edit wars

My sincere apologies for my horrible mistake of which I now regret. I should have known that there would be no use in edit warring with Ausonia, and I doubt that I can come to an agreement with her by myself.

Please try to understand that my only aim is to go by the book (ie: reach a consensus) and not to fight with those of whom I might occasionally disagree with. ~ Troy (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I have decided not to continue editing those related articles until a resolution is reached (which, again, is something that I highly doubt for the foreseeable future). ~ Troy (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Hmm. did you see the request for review on the first case among the three? I think that is a clear violation of 3RR. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for Stifle asking if he wants to change his closure. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, also can you also take a look at WP:ANI#Comfort women because of this tendentious J-K warring issue filed by Fut.Perf.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR on John Lydon page

Thanks very much for your swift attention to this case. I hope this will calm the waters surrounding the disputes on this issue. Malljaja (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho

Hi Ed. Please have a look at the updates re GreenEcho's case. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu

Hello, Ed Johnston. I come to seek your opinion on Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s behaviors since you read my thread and concern about meatpuppetings and disruptions by 2channel. I repasted it to AN (I should've done it to ANI, but did inadvertently to AN). My writing tends to be very lengthy, so that's why the post did not get much attention so the problems regarding him and 2channel still continue. In order to comply with his request for implement on the NPOV disputed Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I did it with two reliable Korean sources regardless of his disruptive false accusation like "useless hard worker", "disruptive editor". However, as reverting the article, he not only removed the two valid sources and contents, but also called me of doing "vandalism again"[27] as his habit. This is very offensive personal attacks, but also I could not work with this disruptive editor. He blatantly disregards Wikipedia's core policy like WP:Consensus and No personal attack. You can see our disputes at Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. He does not also admit his personal attacks against me. The problem is that he seems to have continued this kind of behaviors ever since he joined Wikipedia. After the ANI thread was manually archived, he reappears again to attack me. Could you direct him to stop his bad attitude? and If you have an opinion on the bigger picture of 2channel, I would provide more information on it. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pabopa

Hello Stifle. I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. After the IP was blocked at 18:26 on July 25, Pabopa created his account and continued warring on the same material. Since Pabopa has made three reverts on each of three different articles within 24 hours, and the total of the reverts is greater if the IP is included, I think he is inviting a block. Then if he *is* really the IP, that is block evasion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The offence is stale at this point (the purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent further edit warring, and Pabopa isn't editing there any more). However, a few other people are still edit warring so I've protected Taekwondo. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. i appreciate your effort for admin. Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [28]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[29]

210.231.12.98[30] and 210.231.14.222[31]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[32], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.Manacpowers (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Stifle pointing to the 2channel stuff. If this campaign truly exists, some of the affected articles may be reported at 3RR in the future. It might be helpful, if you know of some articles that you believe have been targeted by 2channel, you could make a list of them. Possibly they are already named somewhere at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa. They waste my time a lot. The bigger problem is unrevealed 2channel meat/sockpuppetry within Wikipedai. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Skyring

Noting you blocked Skyring for 12 hours for 3RR violation, since your rationale says there is no BLP issue can you also close the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Howard discussion. Can it include a detailed rationale clarifying why the information isnt a BLP violation. Gnangarra 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note to the BLP/N thread??. If anyone wants to discuss further whether this kind of disputed material falls under the BLP exception to 3RR, they are welcome to continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I just wanted it clear at that discussion that you found the 3RR not a BLP issue hence the block, as such the whole discussion isnt BLP but rather editorial. Gnangarra 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you find my answer at BLPN to be a response. It's not credible that *believing* something is a BLP violation grants an editor immunity from 3RR enforcement. It has to actually *be* a BLP violation by the usual community definition, the thing that admins have to judge all the time whenever they take BLP-related actions, e.g. when protecting articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I think its a blp undue weight rather than blp pov issue, hence no need repetitive removal. Your comment was all I wanted for the BLP notice to show that you had considered the BLP in your blocking of skyring. Gnangarra 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviousours76

Hello Ed--thanks to you, Malljaja and the other editors with the John Lydon issues--I am enjoying to learn the wiki way even when it is painful at times....I thought I would point out that it appears that the blocked user AVIOUSOURS76 continues to edit (from one of his/her separate static ip addresses) although the week has not expired (see below).....I was actually reading Malljaja's documentation to learn about how the intracacies of the block etc. works and saw the edit below.....it doesn't sppear to be controversial--just sneaky....I don't know maybe no big deal-but fyi

21:44, 1 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Dusty Springfield‎ (Undid revision 229284076 by 6afraidof7 (talk)nothing about songwriting/producing in the source) (top) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynote1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Koov

Hi there, I noticed that you were active on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (3rd). Looking at Template:Foreign relations of Russia it seems he is back under the username Fsbi and a range of IPs. He is intent on using the same modus operandi as Koov, but I am unable to work out how to start Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (4th); this problem is now getting way out of hand, with his POV edits and generally being disruptive. Are you able to help out with this? Thanks, --Россавиа ^Диалог 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fsbi's edit-warring to remove Kosovo from Template:Foreign relations of Russia is a Koov trademark. I have indefinitely blocked Fsbi as a sock of Koov. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

So you aren't going to do anything about another user's violation of the three revert rule? Or does it only apply to those using IP address. To hell with this place. You wiki Nazis are welcome to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.215.77 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reported Generalmesses new socks: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Generalmesse (2nd) --noclador (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Gennarous

Do you mind if I email you? It's not a secret, per se, but it would be pushing some WP:BEANS up the old nostrils if a sockpuppeteer happened to notice it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re: tucker max article. mcjeff refuses to post documented criticism.

this is part of what mcjeffs conversation with me.

I am new at this but mcjeff will not engage in a discussion on how to revise the article to meet "his" standards. He openly admits that he works for Tucker Max and then refuses to post any sourced comments that are critical of his employer. I am guilty of being new at this so I do need help to document statements from Tucker's own website, new york times, gawker, fox news etc.

could you help me? thanks Aharon42 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ihave read the other discussions that you have had with other editors and mediators. All seem to concur that the ACLU would differ on your approach to the redacting of the Max Tucker article. Please do not wrap your white-washing of Tucker in obfusction. We both know that you are aware of Fox News and their statements. It is not coincidence that the only statements that have made it into tuckers article are all neutral or postiive. I will start by just quoting tucker himself from his fox news, opie, and website.

For instance..

Tucker Max has made several controversial statements and described marginal behavior.... then we can include his own statements from the news shows and his website. .. If you did this I would be satisfied. Aharon42 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McJeff"

Aharon42

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly, but he has just posted an extremely rude response to my welcome message on his talkpage, could you take a look at it? Chafford (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, just seen a blatant legal threat on his tp, taking this to IRC. Chafford (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't read like a blatant legal threat to me. IMO there is a lot of piling on and newbie biting going on here. He's upset, getting more upset as more people pile on the shit and is being extremely rude. OTOH he is a newbie, doesn't have first hand knowledge of our policies, and feels that everyone is against him. Perhaps a little kindness would go a long way? Ed can you read this and consider shortening the block on the condition that he stops editing the article for a bit and only edits the talk page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I have replied over at User talk:Theresa knott#Tucker Max. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Any chance you'd be willing to watchlist Tucker Max for a bit? You already cautioned me about revert warring, and like I mentioned I kinda screwed up a little while ago so I'm trying to tread real carefully. But I'm concerned because the article gets a lot of vandalism and aggressive editors. McJeff (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette La Fayette ....

Hi, I changed it back. I wasn't too sure as all printed material I could find (I'm in the US) said Lafayette, whereas his name is decidedly La Fayette in French. Was rather peculiar, and I wanted to be consistent as both where in use on the article. So, I went with Lafayette (no particular purpose), seeing that you objected I have now changed them all back to La Fayette. If, in the future, the project decides to go with Lafayette, then we can change it again. I have no particular preference, besides seeing it being consistent. Sorry! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall clerking

I've noticed you around as a cool head whose editing doesn't intersect with my own that much. I'd like to list you as a clerk option at User:MBisanz/Recall for people to select from when invoking my recall criteria. Is that ok with you? MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help!

Is there still time to get you to consider less drastic recall criteria? :-). At Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria I like Firsfron's idea. Once the recall is triggered, he would put himself through an RfC/U, and would take the consensus of the RfC as to whether to step down. Though your admin activity is not like Elonka's, if she could let herself be put through a whole new RfA based on the opinion of any six editors in good standing, she'd be (in my view) constantly going through the wringer. She'd have to do this even if the six voters represented a minority of those expressing an opinion on the recall petition. (I've made no careful study of her recall criteria; it just shows a possible pitfall). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, and I leave an RfC/u open as an option, but in my mind if I've gone so far off that path that a number of users would want me to restand RfA, then its probably best for the community that i be put out of my misery quickly. Oddly enough many admins use recall criteria as broad if not broader than mine, and avoid going through the wringer on a regular basis. Thanks though for the advice. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet report on User:Generalmesse

Hi Ed; regarding my new sockpuppet report, it is actually forbidden to block somebody just because they offer a different point of view; but it is a must to block people that use multiple accounts to push their point of view: "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks." (from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry)
The users I listed in my report share a common trait: they were created, they edited Military history of Italy during World War II and/or First Battle of El Alamein‎ - nothing else and they inserted the 1:1 same stuff as the other socks of User:Generalmesse - check their contributions list and it will become obvious that they are socks created to restart Generalmesses POV pushing.
User:Kirrages is making a serious effort to create balance in the First battle of El Alamein article, but the constant interference of the socks make his work unnecessarily difficult. I'm my view there is no doubt that the listed users are indeed socks and as there is a policy to "Block on sight, revert any changes, delete POV forks" if a users is found to abuse multiple accounts routinely (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse for examples). In short: I believe we do not need any further discussions, just block them indef for "Abusing multiple accounts". --noclador (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs showing these editors literally re-introducing the same material as people previously blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

uff, that is a lot of work and I rather spend my time expanding military Order of Battle articles; but ok a few minutes I can spare: the re-introduction that caught my eye and led me to suspect that the three new editors are socks was the following: Radio Berlin Generalmesse Generalmesse Bendiksen63. Further checks of various edits showed that the three new users all use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengos book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source (as did Generalmesse). A book printed in 1966 and never reprinted in English, but widely available in Italian[33] (btw. it:Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo is a good source as he was a battalion commander of the Italian 31st Combat Engineer Battalion in El Alamein and later Chief of Staff of the Lombard Liberation Corps, the partisan command in Lombardy from 1944-45)[34].

Anyway - aside from the source: they are socks. They appear, they edit the 2 favourite Generalmesse articles, try to enhance the Italian fighting prowess and then one of them leaves a long comment on the talkpage of Military history of Italy during World War II attacking me[35]... I beg to question: How come? Well, because they are socks or meatpuppets. New users behave differently!

As for the IP address: it is from South America - the home of Brunodam (or it:Utente:Bruno d'ambrosio). One of his socks created the article Pompeo D'Ambrosio and he himself added the pic - so possibly they are meatpuppets not socks, but nonetheless they share a connection and an agenda. --noclador (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello (3RR rule break)

Hi,

My current request (found at the very bottom) for a 3RR review isn't being dealt with very professionally. Can I trouble you to check for me again? Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question is about East718's close of the 3RR report on Norse colonization of the Americas. If you are not satisfied with how this report was closed, please contact the closer, User:East718. It is hard for me to sympathize with your removal of the tags. Removing tags when the article is contested is the kind of thing for which you should have a Talk page consensus. In this edit you call Erik the Red a 'cold, two-faced heathen', without putting that in quotes. It looks strange. The same edit also introduced spelling mistakes, like 'tracks' for 'tracts', 'led' instead of 'lead', and 'sttlers' instead of 'settlers.' The same edit broke Reference 5, which gives a large red error message in the reference list. It's not surprising that some editors were adding 'Cleanup' tags to the result of your work. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, I see. I guess I made a few mistakes, but the article is a lot (IMO) better. Thanks anyway. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Want you to be aware

Good Afternnon,

Just wanted you to be aware of an update on a block you performed yesterday.[36] user:Tmtoulouse continues to revert to the original version of the article that states that Esther Hicks channels dead people. In your findings, you state "I don't see any BLP defence for Tmtoulouse's reverts", but he seems not care what you have said. Could you please look at the change history? [37] WP:BLP Thanks for your time. --Gacuster (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Update - once again he violated the 3rr Rule --Gacuster (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, you can file a new complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I'd rather not take action on this again; let another admin study the situation. There seem to be some newly-created accounts warring on the article. Though Tmtoulouse may appear stubborn, some of the people on the other side may have a a conflict of interest. Let the next admin solve that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you staying your hand on this one, while I don't think I violated 3rr today I still appreciate declining the users attempt to brow beat me. As well thank you for your input on the COI case. I am still not thrilled about the block yesterday, but that reflects a general feeling that standard "by the books" wiki policy starts to get iffy on the fringes that some of these articles lay on. Still after drilling you on the block yesterday I felt compelled to compliment what I see as helpful and appropriate responses. Take it for what you will. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

rfc/U

Hi,

Who are you?? You endorse the rfc/U yet I have NEVER seen you before. FYI, I'm going to report you as a meat-puppet. InternetHero (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the administrator you recently asked for help (see your own comment above). If you are willing to work cooperatively with the other editors on Norse colonization of the Americas I might change my opinion. I had to look at many of your contributions while I was reviewing the 3RR complaint about that article, and that's how I arrived at my position on the RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

what do you know about history of money?

Are you a history teacher? Protomoney (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Skipsievert and Arthur robin are pushing their POV here. They are trying to convince that money is everything, ever Red oche, and they are advocates of the Technocraty or something movement. I am the neutral point of view here, not them!! Protomoney (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Haven t you seen the references I added? Protomoney (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And where is protomoney term in the article I reverted? You are ignorant of money history, you havent read the article at all. All you know is block people for 24 hours. Congratulations! Protomoney (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats it. I understand. You are ignorant of history of money, you haven't read anything I wrote, but you have the force to ban people. You are like the solder who killed archimedes, ignorant yes, but you gave the sword!!! God bless you, I am not going to continue discussing with you. You can ban me or whoever you wish, you macho man! Protomoney (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Ed, thanks for correcting my oversight in not notifying User:64.119.97.178 about the discussion on AN/I. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks #2

[38]. Grrr! Must've been because I so rarely use the {{uw-coi}} template. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Remon

how may i fix the Pedro Remon page? im not trying to attack him, only neutral facts about him. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimguy (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:Slimguy: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not assume bad faith like that, even if it is warranted. There is no need to insult the editor by saying "This is not a friendly notice." I highly urge you to retract that statement. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have refactored. It is better to use a template, but I'm not familiar with the BLP warning templates. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, may i get a copy of the deleted Pedro Remon page? i would like to improve it, including adding a notable section, thanks. Slimguy (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not interested in attacking Mr. Remon, only providing the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimguy (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not supposed to provide copies of deleted material that violates WP:BLP. You didn't provide reliable sources to show that this man was a notable figure, who deserves coverage in Wikipedia, before you starting giving us his arrest record. I don't see how you can make an acceptable article on that basis. We expect to see reliable sources, for example, coverage in newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Access to deleted pages Pages which have been deleted can no longer be generally viewed, but temporarily remain in the database and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review. Note that these requests are routinely denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.
I would like to fix the pageSlimguy (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) This gentleman is a notable cuban business man in the clearwater area, and he messed up his business, it is a notable business loss in the local community and a terrible loss of a microsoft gold partner. i would like a chance to complete the article, and get as much details as possible, thanks! Slimguy (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm declining to provide a copy of the deleted article because I believe it to be defamation under WP:BLP. Ask another administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort

What exactly does Semi-Protect do with the page? The Anon-IP has been vandalizing the article and making false accusations for an extended period of time now. I'm just hoping that this issue can be resolved. Alyeska (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection prevents IPs from editing the article. I notice that there seem to be unresolved disputes on the page. It would be helpful if someone who knows the issues (like yourself) could summarize what the problems have been for the past few months, and put it on the Talk page. It's rather confusing for outsiders to figure out what the dispute is about. Assuming you might need to call on other editors in the future, if the dispute continues later. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alyeska, Why do continue to assert that the "accusations" are false. We have given cites regarding the reverse stock split scheme which created the hostile takeover, and we have cited articles about the broken implied contract with passholders. We have tried to cite this with the published newspaper articles, but alyeska will not allow this and constantly reverts to the approved company line. Please give us a new editor, alyeska has too many ties to the resort and has had private communications with resort public relations regarding this matter. If alyeska wishes this dispute to be resolved, why does he/she constantly change the article to suit the company?72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello 72.160. This is the first I have heard of any newspaper articles. It might be appropriate to cite them in the article. Please add the references to the Talk page. If there was a reverse-split of the stock, that should have been covered somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong accusations. You have accused me of being in a conspiracy with the management of Big Mountain. You have accused me of breaking the law through editing Wikipedia. You have accused me of being in a conspiracy specificaly with Donnie Clap. You state I have a conflict of interest with the article. Those accusations are the ones you are most commonly tossing about. What is most funny is when you accused me of being in a combined conspiracy with both Wikipedia and the management of Big Mountain to post "lies".Alyeska (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for posting this in your talk page EdJohnston, but getting this Anon to settle down anywhere is difficult. Alyeska (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

+=+=+= Hello edjohnson. We are preparing our response and will post it on the WMR talk page in a few days. Thanks for your civility and respect.72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Edjohnson, Thank you for protecting the page and helping straighten out this arguement. I believe however, that postings and communications by the editor of the page may indicate a bias toward the resort. Private communications and a physical visit to the company one is supposed to be regulating is cause for concern. Is there a way to apply for a new editor to be assigned this article? Thanks again for helping. 72.160.55.167 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the fine print on who is supposed to edit what, when an editor has a real-life connection to the topic. Even conflicted editors are usually allowed to edit if the result of their work is well-sourced and neutral. It's not clear that Alyeska is even conflicted according to Wikipedia's definition. If you think he has put something in the article that is not right, feel free to object to it on the Talk page. We don't usually take any action unless an actual problem with the article is pointed out. Over the last few months, there have been several attempts to add negative information to the article with no reliable sources. That is the kind of thing that draws the attention of admins. From here on, if stuff gets added that is well-sourced, everyone should be happy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)