User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Skanderbeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston. The

One admin fully protected the article for three days. It would be good if after it expires a semi-protection is applied. Have a look there and decide what you think is better. Cheers,

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 22:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, one newbie has created their sandbox as an article [1]. It should moved from "article" to "user" format.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 23:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like people are disputing whether

WP:RFC on the talk page. If it turns out that nobody on the talk page has the patience for proper discussion, the article may be put under long-term full protection. We could then wait for edit requests if any changes are needed. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a RfC is a good idea, and I will open one in the few coming hours. The origin of Skanderbeg's mother is a matter of dispute between academics, with theories existing on a possible Albanian, Serbian or Bulgarian origin. A RfC could help by attracting more opinions on the matter. Also, the

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 17:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not make a proposal at the bottom of Talk:Albania–Greece relations for how to proceed after the protection expires. Some people have laid out a lot of proposals there but there is no voting section. Maybe there should be one. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for comments by those editors involved in the dispute who have not responded to the current proposals yet. After that, I will try to formulate a version which could satisfy all involved editors.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi EdJohnston! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Monica Seles article

• Monica Seles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scf1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, please do something, on the article Scf1985 harmed the 3RR...you could say why I don't compose a WP:AN3 report, but this user seems very-very newbie, first he commented on my userpage, without signature and only the second time he managed to put his comments in my talk page, but still did not even sign any comment if his...he started to discuss his modifications in my talk page, although I told to him more times he should seek consensus on the article's talk page...

Though by his recent edit [2] I don't know he is really so much beginner or there is something else behind...

Please handle the case somehow...

Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

I left a note for the editor. If there is no willingness to negotiate I think that they should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions under

WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Now the case seem to be calmed down. Just for curiosity, why would this better be a "Yugoslavia" isse rather than a simple "Sport nationality" issue as in WP in the top the sport nationality (like by footballers the FIFA natinoality) is identified? My second question is that why this would belong to ARBMAC as it deals with Macedonia, a country this whole case is not connected? (don't misunderstand me, not filibustering, but you know me already and my precisity, as well the sought to properly understand everything) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

If you look at the

WP:ARBMAC page you'll see reference to the "entire range of articles concerning the Balkans". I'm not sure what you mean by 'sport nationality'. It is common to see people disputing about what country should be credited with the accomplishments of wonderful person X. (For example, Nikola Tesla). These are essentially national disputes, so it is fair to invoke the remedies we use for nationalism. EdJohnston (talk

) 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. I mean there is a consensus that sportpeople are identified by the sport nationality (= the country officially they represent). By footballers it is the FIFA nationality (country of birth, other citizenships may be mentioned, but he/she will be "X" footballer where X is the national team he officially plays for. I did not say it is not fair to invoke other remedies, I meant this would be not a classic issue of nationality dispute like Tesla or others, because it is a clear fact which country sportpeople represent. Thank You for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

We can easily tell what country Monica Seles has chosen to play for in international competition, but the dispute was over how to decribe her personal nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that nationaliy you refer in the lead is per consensus the sport nationality I was talking about. It was set before American and Yugoslav, because in sport he represented these two countries (Hungarian was not but, though having Hungarian citizenship and ethnicity, but she never represented Hungary). Though you are right in a way that by retired sportspersons not necessarily, just and only the sport nationality may be in the lead, like by Kevin Kurányi. Now everything is clear I think. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

Can you point to a guideline page or a thread where the concept of 'sport nationality' is explained? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not...but during the years I assessed i.e. many football player article debates, especially those who were born a different country or having on the whole or partially different ehtnicities than the country they represented (although by FIFA, having the citizenship (= nationality) of the country represented is an obligation) and always this was the outcome and and the argument and everybody accepted it. Or in case they could not agree or it was not a highlighted article, they ignored it and added which national team the person represented (X competes for Y country). I did not dig into it much as these cases have been always resolved like this. Though you are right something would be needed in order to refer in the future to this in case...what is sure I've met multiple times the phrase "football players are identified by their FIFA nationality".

Famous examples where surely the thread should contain such:

Miroslav Klose, Lukas Podolski (version A; X is a Y footballer where Y is the FIFA nationality)

Diego Costa (version B; X play for Y)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

Hi, sorry for bothering you again, but the user left a clear and serious personal attack in my talk page [3] (after reading it I noticed in the article he again tried to do changes that was reverted already by someone else), can you handle this or should I file an ANI for the civility issue? Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC))

I have blocked Scf1985 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for the personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Enjoy the sounds of the season. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello EdJohnston, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

To EdJohnston:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are.

Or not!

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to this page Athaenara! I remember you from 2006. The good old days of COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi EdJohnston, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hopeful2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ran on to this editor disruptively changing Byzantine/Greek to Roman throughout numerous articles. And, judging from their continued editing, it has now expanded into calling Odoacer an Italian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• 82.13.82.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed. You recently reblocked this IP due to persistent disruptive editing. He continues to make the same disruptive edits ever since his block has ended.

• Added Category:Indian Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[12]
• Added Category:Indian Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[13]
• Added Category:Iraqi people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[14]
• Added Category:Indian people of Iranian descent / Category:Pakistani people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[15]
• Added Category:Iranian emigrants to Vietnam. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[16]
• Added Category:Iraqi people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[17]
• Added Category:Pakistani Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.[18]

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a note to warn the IP. I hope they are willing to stop and discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope so too. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since they kept right on going while making no response, I've blocked for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Holidays btw! Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello EdJohnston, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly collaboration for us. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• List of largest cruise ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnson! I noticed you recently helped out at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. Would you mind taking a look a "List of largest cruise ships"? Madrenergic is attempting to enforce the criterion of the page from a subjective view, whereas I view "largest" as its objective dictionary definition (Oxford). All I am interested in is the facts, and as a long-time admin it would be great to get a clear and definitive answer from you to settle this discussion. Merry Christmas. 75.28.18.138 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The List of largest cruise ships has now been fully protected by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this editor has

Both changes to sourced information, include some broken "later becoming" nonsense, which I believe proves this editor is using google translate(or something) to add their interpretation from sources they clearly(as I said on Talk:Antioch), can not understand.

You can check Shahanshah5's talk page where I highlighted more of their issues, "They can look at your edits on the talk page of Bahmanyar(which include battleground comments(Azerbaijanophobia=calling someone a racist), your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at Safavid dynasty, your inability to read and comprehend English, etc, etc.", in response to Shahanshah5's threat to "take this to an Admin". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :) Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

About Antioch I can say that I have no knowledge about Antioch. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? It is my fault

exercise in not being here to construct an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk

) 20:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The

WP:REFUND. The article contains material copied from the .mil domain. It turns out that the .mil suffix is specifically mentioned to have the same status as .gov at Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ed, I am here to report that the dispute has come to a natural end: We ended with a paragraph that cites 3 parties to the issue: 1) The Albanian, 2) The Greek, and 3) human right organizations / third party countries. This way, the paragraph covers all viewpoints and is ready for inclusion to the article, per Wikipedia's rules. From the 6 editors, only particular 2 editors are objecting to this outcome of the discussion. I have explained to them what their options are on this: [20] They can take it to the RS, or the NPOV noticeboards, or call for mediation. From my part, I am done, there is nothing else I can do to convince them. I hope they will cease with this disruptive attitude of theirs and realize that covering all different viewpoints on the issue is the most balanced solution and is beneficial for both the readers and the article. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Most editors had indeed agreed to a set paragraph and then you moved the bar yourself by insisting on a merger [21] and then other content [22]. Other editors then brought up issues about content and its relevance to the article. Its what happens. You can't expect that some editors after much discussion and compromise accept something sprung out of the blue to the article. You will likewise get similar comments with content as well.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"then you moved the bar yourself by insisting on a merger" As you can see, the Greek Minority is an ongoing issue (aka, new information will have to be added in the future to it - it is not a static or frozen or resolved issue for us to avoid the need for a Merger proposal.

I don't know about you, but the article has to be ready for expansion and inclusion to it of future developments (or past events). You may fail to understand this, but like I said again and again: this is not possible if the article is not structured accordingly. Currently it is merely a summary of the issue and NOTHING else - and if my memory does not fail me, some of you the editors have basically insisted that nothing changes on the paragraph once it is added to the article. Am I right?

Resnjari, you may not care about the article's future development, but I do. And the best way to do this is to expand the content. not limit it forever to this difficult-to-agree-on paragraph. You may agree or disagree with the Merger proposal, but you haven't made a counter proposal on this. It was only Calthinus who took the time to offer us better proposals than this. Please I don't understand why are you turning this report of mine to the admin, into another discussion or battlefield. I won't respond to you anymore here, spare Admin Ed from multiple notifications and instead discuss your disagreements with the Merger proposal or your overall disagreements with me on the appropriate talk page, not here. This report here is meant for Ed, not you. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I do care about the article's development. When editors agreed to get involved in the article it was on the premise that it was about the Greek minority of Albania, not a merger etc. As things went along, the bar kept getting shifted to a merger etc. Indeed the section is a summary so as to have something in the article and its important that the page does not become a one sided

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS article. In the end the scope of the article is about bilateral relations, its history of past and current positions/events of both countries in their interactions etc.Resnjari (talk

) 16:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears these matters are being worked out at Talk:Albania–Greece relations#RfC. The RfC itself appears to be well organized and certainly it's a better way to handle the issues than edit warring. Let me know if there is anything that still calls for admin action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, why did you delete my comment?

Not that I am offended, but the instructions on archive page 5 said to bring it to the current talk page if I wanted to respond to it.

Shentino (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't delete your comment. This was not my edit. I think your complaint (if valid) should be referred to User:Bbb23. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got confused. You were just the author of the latest revision, the one I replied to. Looks like sinebot got in the middle of it too.Shentino (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• 75.182.115.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, I have a quick question. What do you think of this edit summary? [23] It was made by the IP I had reported earlier in the year for edit warring. I didn't notice this until recently and it looks like a personal attack to me. I followed Wiki protocol and left that template, I can't imagine why they'd need be so hostile. Coincidentally it looks like they're warring on multiple pages with an experienced editor(See their user history), and are harrassing that person with templates. Any chance you could spend a few minutes taking a quick look at this IP users conduct?. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP seems to be going out of their way to annoy people. That probably can't continue indefinitely. They get into edit wars but are careful to stop at three reverts. They were recently at AN3 but claimed to be insisting that WP:V policy be followed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as it appears that I first misread the second bullet yet I stand by my prior comments relating to the somewhat biased remarks that did not offer such guidance. Please state who it is who is the arbitrator of such a proposal. Uncledonmc (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No one person decides.

Consensus of editors decides what should be done. Though I know nothing about this dispute, since Constantine the Great is part of the history of Christianity I can imagine that people might prefer the BC/AD system for recording dates within his article. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is not listed under that heading of 'Christianity' even though it has a good deal of information relating to that topic. It also has an equal or greater amount of information relating to his military campaigns and imperial rule so that does not seem to be a valid point. Regarding this 'consensus of editors' that does not appear to be an objective system but one based primarily on whatever subjective views are the first on the scene. Additionally this also indicates that the vox populi is of overriding concern rather than what actually conforms to current academic, scientific and historical standards. Uncledonmc (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to edit here, you are expected to follow

Wikipedia's policies. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

{{You've got mail}}

Hello SilentResident. I suggest that you write to the Arbitration committee at [email protected]. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Manboobies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• On the Jewish Question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there anything that can be done about the user I reported for 3RR being harassing? He’s following me to talk pages for communications with others, which is stalking. Is there a PM function on wiki? He won’t leave me alone. I think I will have to leave Wikipedia if this cannot be dealt withManboobies (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't yet see this. Anyone may view your contributions. Others may notice if you continue a discussion at more than one place. If you think this attention is solely conducted to annoy you, it might be different. If you want to contact another editor privately ('PM') see Special:EmailUser. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, it has come to my attention that you protected the article for the Western World against sockpuppeting by user that went either as Johnston1111 or as random IP's located either in Italy or in Greece, I welcome the effort. However in doing so you actually left the sockpuppet's last edit as in force, with the removed sources and other forms of vandalism extant. Could you please revert the article to the second-to-last edition before protecting the article? Otherwise it kinda feels like the sockpuppet is the one who won. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not request the edit on the talk page. You could use the {{edit extended-protected}} template and an experienced editor can evaluate it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing that but wouldn't you consider it for yourself? I am sure that your action comes as well-intentioned but seems like a questionable practice to protect an article while simultaneously leaving the vandalizing edition as the page's source; which is exactly what you did. I just want for the introductory image, the cited sources and the quotes by Huntington that the sock puppet deleted to be brought back into the article. If you disagree (which I don't really see any reason not to, but you could have your motives and that would be absolutely valid) I would have to use the template you describe. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As an admin I prefer not to edit an article I have protected unless the vandalism is quite obvious, so I can safely write 'Rvv' as my edit summary. It seems there are enough regular editors active so somebody else can take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Blocked the IP who could have caused more disruption on January 2019 lunar eclipse! 2600:1700:DFD1:1A40:99EE:CE91:6DAD:C0B6 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please resolve the edit warring issue at Rimac Automobili regarding sourcing? Here is the talk page starting from 21 jan below: Talk:Rimac_Automobili#Lies, damned lies, since you participated in a previous editing dispute? Thanks in advance. Kiksam (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that

WP:Original research. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you deserve a barnstar if you can sort this out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. What do you think with the edits war in the page First Italo-Ethiopian War. I only corrected the number of casualties (all the sources indicate 17,000) and added an information (the second invasion) previously removed, yet they continue to be removed and I am called a vandal... I tried to discuss, but nothing DavideVeloria88 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions on my previous edits on the page? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to check the casualty numbers against the sources, but had some trouble. Some of the edit warring was changing these casualty numbers. It would be helpful if someone would do a calculation and show how they came up with numbers. As to the immediate future, why not open a discusion at Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War and give the case for your version? EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just did it, if you want to go read it. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi EdJohnston. Although FkpCascais is currently topic banned from Balkan articles, he is editing articles related to Serbia. In the past few weeks he was blocked several times for breaching the topic ban. Can you have a look at this?

Why are you so affraid of me so you have nothing better to do then obsessively following me after months already? Do your stuff, a Senegalese footballer has nothing to do with your area of editing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not "affraid" of you. I just placed a comment on this talk page, as you are editing Serbia-related articles breaching your topic ban.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to be taken to AE for more community attention?

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

An admin blocked FkpCascais for two weeks. Cheers,

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 16:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is now a thread at User talk:Sandstein which led to this result. Particularly of note is FkpCascais' edit summary which states he is reverting a Serb nationalist, while insisting that his own patrolling 'consists of no nationalism'. He also asserts Romania is not part of the Balkans, a claim which is open to question. Arbcom is currently spending its valuable time on a tweak of this whole area, but FkpCascais has violated his topic ban regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You are condemning him wrongly like you also are condemning me, Ed. Look, I don't know if he is any nationalist, but Romania only has 2 counties out of 41 in the Balkans (Constanta and Tulcea). Romania is often included in international organisations though. But if we are exact, we are Carpathian (Carpathian Mountains). Regarding me, you are proposing a TBAN for what? How am I a nationalist if I have edited handball for 1 year? Can't you stay neutral? The user's reasons are crazy, I had comments but I never went against as actions against the general consensuses. Christina (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ed,

Need your help on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nizam_of_Hyderabad

Also consider what is mentioned about user: Pinkbeast on the below page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_2_(Born2Cycle)

Ready to accept your opinion on this on the Talk:Nizam_of_Hyderabad page

Kind Regards, Sakura Sakura6977 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sakura6977, remember the advice I put in the closure of the last AN3 report. I hope you will think about discussing those three topics on the talk page:

Question 1: Which sources about the life of the last Nizam should be considered reliable? Question 2: How should we report on the various rumors as to his number of children? Question 3: What is the best way to summarize the Hindu vs. Muslim differences which affected the government? If necessary RfCs could be opened for these questions.

–EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I faced with three users (

The three articles you mentioned about the activists have all been nominated for deletion at AfD, and it appears there will be consensus to keep them. The larger issue is now being discussed at

WP:ANI#Iranian opposition articles. I don't think you meant to say 'awesome'. EdJohnston (talk

) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Well, User:BrendonTheWizard obsessively keeps removing the information about the phenotypes of the Tatars, even though the termins are still used in academia, particularly in the area of biological anthropology, forensic science, and also ethnological studies, including in the society where Tatar homeland is located, Russia, so it is indeed even culturally relevant in the article about Tatars. There is nothing to be disputed about this information.Vaultralph (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus on Wikipedia, that when we are speaking in Wikipedia's voice we don't use terms like 'Mongoloid' for describing people's appearance. A brief discussion appears at Talk:Tatars#Uncitated racism.

"[Mongoloid] is one of the outdated three races proposed by Georges Cuvier in the 18th century, the other two groups being Caucasoid and Negroid. ... It is today not widely used by anthropologists as its validity and usefulness in classification is considered highly questionable."

If you are determined to use this terminology in the Tatars article, post at Talk:Tatars and see if you can find others to support your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. If that is the case, then for now I will avoid using these termins on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help with this.Vaultralph (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to know, in this case I am the victim. You are doing a really big injustice regarding me and because of the subjectivity of a user who is harrassing me and is destroying my clean Wikipedia CV. Imagine, Ed, I am on Wikipedia since some time ago, every user including you had loads of comments. I have no idea what's with him, understand I had no work with him. He wasn't on my pages, he came out from nowhere. Please don't treat superficially this matter, what if he's connected with some of the extremists on the page of Romania. At least stay neutral. I am trying to see the reason, but maybe he's just misogynist or with some problems. For me a TBAN counts, I never wish you would be in my place, because you also have some sections which you love. Christina (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please make your arguments in the currently-open thread at

WP:AE#Cristina neagu. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 18:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Odiyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protection of this page automatically removed by a technical problem during a history merge. Can you resume the protection ?--Let There Be Sunshine 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You talked about consensus editing...but no one is talking on that page's talk page. I included information about test scores which is similar to Loyola's Sister school Regis High School and other Jesuit and non-Jesuit high schools. But two editors have edited the page since my previous edit without discussing changes on the talk page. I suspect The Banner has something to do with this but if Wikipedia is a fair place where verifiable information can be sought, why will information on test scores be included in many school's pages and removed from anothers? This question has not been answered and undermines the credibility of the editors and wikipedia as a whole. Policies should be standard across the baord. Hypernerd387 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no substitute for getting consensus. You may be blocked if you won't wait for agreement, even in a situation where you believe others are not behaving as they should. If you are not satisified with others' response, layers of appeal are possible, if you use them correctly and are patient. I have no interest in helping you further unless you first respond to my question at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why this template needs to be template-protected: it only has 81 tranclusions and is the stylesheet of a page that is only semi-protected. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Pppery. I looked at the protection levels of similar templates. Also I found this advice in Wikipedia:TemplateStyles: "The protection level of style pages should match that of their associated template."

So I'd like to make the following changes in protection:

• Template:Afd-merge from – semi, with indef move protection
• Template:Afd-merge to – semi, with indef move protection
• Template:Afd-merge to/styles.css – semi, with indef move protection

Do these changes look OK to you? EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally think that the template needs to be semi-protected, but I nevertheless would support that. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Template:Afd-merge-from was indefinitely semiprotected by User:Primefac on 10 January 2018 (citing 'recent template-space vandalism'). If we defer to that judgment, we can then observe that everything in the above list would most naturally be kept at the same protection level. This would imply semiprotection. These templates are literally not used very often (mostly by AfD closers) but it is also hard to imagine IPs having the knowledge to edit them correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. OK, just set the level of them all to semi-protection. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Done for all. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

EdJohnston, in June of last year you protected the Gurbaksh Chahal article on account of persistent, disruptive editing. These disruptive edits resumed about a week ago. Chahal was convicted of committing domestic violence. For some time now new editors have tried to remove coverage of Chahal's crimes from his Wikipedia article. Would you consider protecting the article again? Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There seemed to be some whitewashing of Gurbaksh Chahal by new registered users with fewer than 100 edits. So I've applied a period of extended confirmed protection. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Chisme (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

[25] and as I said to billinghurst - [26] it is like watching a repetitive gif of a car accident... JarrahTree 10:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Triune Kingdom of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

I ask your attention and your help. In the subject and the recent edits, you may check the events...after asking the very inexperienced seem user to comply with certain rules (WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:DR), still he/she continued - though in the talk things have been already started - and harmed the clear frame of edit warring, which I was warning him/her in his talk page (blanked out quickly though)...I offered him/her two days waiting to reconsider consensus bulding and draw the attention of the problems he/she commits, but instead, a very uncivil answer I've got with multiple harsh accusations (mostly repeats already he/she commited before in the talk and the edit logs), and he/she put a "report" (?) in the talk page that seems weird, becuase the user linked my name as a "vandal", that I think is crossing any good faith or civility, since I don't have to explain to you addressing anyone as a "vandal" improperly is a quite harsh commitment...I kindly ask your intervention (per good faith I don't raise an incident yet hoping you'll handle things properly in time), Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC))

Hello KIENGIR. I assume you are referring to edits by Ban kavalir (talk · contribs), so I've listed their name at the head of this report and I've notified them of the discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Well, two almost identical reactions came to different places after I answered the last time in the article's talk (one there, and one at your private discussion with him). I chose no further reaction wisely, because it is useless...I learned that I did not receive any personal attack, but I did it with my edit warring notice, the word "sabotage" was again pursued 5 times if not more, the rest accusations were the same already I received and answered multiple times...btw. I checked the word "rant" = "declamation", that means "a strong statement or an occasion when you express something with a lot of feeling", or "speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way", so I don't how could it be "insults of personal nature"...but what is really awesome:

"sabotages like the one done by User:KIENGIR are promoted and supported by the administration"...

"due to the same reason for administrations support of sabotage of articles, unacademic and unprofessional behavior":::

So practically you, administrators are my "rogue saboteur" colleagues...pfff..enough for today...I am sorry for this user...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

If it does not seem there is any forward motion, I might just protect

WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would try to repair neutrality by extending only one sentence and adding sources, without removing any recent improvement, and see what's hapenning, since more days it was untouched, I don't see protection would solve anything right now, since not any fast "edit-warring" is going on. Though because of this user we should not really ignore the usual policies of WP (you generously did not block him yet although he did not follow your condition but made it worse, though he has to learn that in WP bold additions may be challenged if lacking neutrality, anyway he reacted very aggressively even to any minor challenges or repairs regarding any user, if you check his edit history...([27]), ([28]). Thus, I'd wait a bit more, do that one minor correction, and if he again reacts similary, then either you act or I will (regarding civility). Regarding the content issue, in case of further challenge, I would first turn to the Wikiprojects (Hungary & Croatia), that have a traditional good relation.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

At present the article's sources are only in Croatian and German. My guess is that there must also be sources in English. Possibly you know of some. The dispute that I am aware of concerns Lajos Kossuth. It seems possible that one or more sources from our Kossuth article might contain usable information about the Triune Kingdom. Or at least, about Kossuth's attitude to the non-Hungarian nationalities and about his policy of Magyarization. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have English language sources as I recall...will look on it and follow the way described here, please keep on looking the events. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Done. ([29])(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Hi, I will be off now a little bit, but shortly some info (I did not touch the article):

This was his first reaction ([30]), factually if you read, you see the whole argumentation is nonsense, since if the subject would not be related to Croatia, than why we discuss 1848 Revolution, Kossuth and the Hungarian Government? On the other hand, there is not any connection to the subject what was Croatia's status then, but if so, then why he cited and wrote more sentences of Kossuth and the Hungarian Govenrment? (Anyway, the case is not just about Slovaks...).

In this diff he again made a bunch of personal insults towards me, but also legal threats were imposed (as far as I know, there is no place for such in WP), so please do something about it finally, it is by far...he made again a rally against me since then ([31]), partially changing his former edit (of course, what he claims here was to be awaited to clarify, the question I raised to the Wikiprojects earlier, 4 days ago ([32]), ([33])...)

Meanwhile I realized he got into an edit warring in the Central Europe article, have been warned by two users already and were put under discretionary sanctions...(KIENGIR (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

ANSERIt seems that user KIENGIR continues to accuse others by fabrication texts, the user stated; ...made a bunch of personal insults towards me, but also legal threats were imposed. There were no personal insults made from my side, nor were there any legal threats to that user. The only thing there was mentioned is that if the moderators will it, then I will stop with further work on the Wikipedia project in general, and after years of work as well pull all media from the Wikipedia, which by Croatian (and European) laws for authors and intellectual rights if are changed in a ways that changes their purpose (for example to be used for bias or nationalist viewpoints counter to their reason of being created or counter to the authors original views) they will be pulled from Wikipedia. Second which the user KIENGIR didn't mention, and you can see it in the TALK section, that he was once again caught fabricating text to make it more bias!!! He changed the text stating that after 1849 the new territory was not recognized by no authority, denying earlier texts on basis of historic evidence he fabricated (a map from 1894 which he presented relevant to the period of 1848-1849). After this fabrication of history, I referenced two sources which not only confirm that the territory stated for the next ears to come, but were recognized (by Royal diploma of the Monarch and the Ministers council) in 1850 which makes the claim in the text written by KIENGIR a fabrication. I would like to ask the moderator to see the original fabrication made by the user and take it into account with the ones mentioned before. It seems that the user who didn't contribute to the article, only changed a part which makes the article itself bias. Which not only is unprofessional and unacademic but also an insult to other people who are working on the article, which he is changing the result of it to make it more bias to nationalist claims. SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Once a gain the user KIENGIR is trying to trash the image of other editors. There is no editor war, I put a text with sources and references done by researchers specialized in that subject. One of the editor pulled it back. I returned it since I stated this text has sources (and far more then usual), while the other one doesn't. It seems that this is a matter of personal view of the editors since his personal view was put before any reference ending up in the loose of two new references, of which one is a professional article that is the first and only one in the World to scientifically research the question of geographical borders of Central Europe and the Balkans. Such moderator behavior is the reason why Wikipedia is forbidden to be used in most academic circles, since on personal view and not scientific methods it decides on its content. But in the end that is the policy which I respect to the limits of Wikipedia. Now the question is why the user KIENGIR would mention this here? And why would the same user not contribute to the article which he did not create, but change part of the text which resulted in the whole article turning to a more bias and nationalist viewpoint? SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

- First of all, do not comment in other user's comments

- Secondly, if the nth time you do not undestand that there was a confusion regarding another article and I put the question to the relevant Wikiprojects, only has to do only with appropriate behavior and after resolution there won't be a problem, if anyone made a mistake (and yes, I mentioned it, if you would carefully read the details...)

- Thirdly, if you deny the insults I receive continously, that means you don't know the civility rules in our community. First of all, your misfortune is that WP is an incremental transparent platform, if you deny something, or excuse me lying, it may be easily revealed. I.e. trash the image you now accuse me is exactly what you are doing with me, with continous harassment and accusations, casting aspersion, personal attacks. As you also qualify administrators, like also now "Such moderator behavior is the reason why Wikipedia is forbidden to be used in most academic circles". Better, prepare for the consequences, because they will come soon (you were warned and given a last chance by EdJohnston, since then the 4th time you did not care about it, but continued).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

• Ban kavalir, there is an edit war. You seem to think you are right, and therefore you can revert at will. This is not the case. Moreover, any time you click "publish changes", you agree to our Terms of Use, meaning you no longer "own" your content in any meaningful way. I have looked at many of your talk page comments, and I find them very hard to understand given the sometimes deficient grammar. This goes for your opponent as well, but you seem to stake everything on your professional expertise--if you cannot get that expertise across (and the talk page discussion is not going your way), then you will not make progress on Wikipedia. I urge you, as others have before, to drop any personal insults. Beside that, carefully check your writing, break it up into smaller paragraphs, and organize your comments well--and point to reliable sources, rather than claiming you know things that others don't. Ed, sorry to drop all this on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed. It just came to my attention that recently you warned Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Based on that, I am asking for your assistance regarding Ban kavalir's recent edit-warring at Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where he has resumed the edit-warring s/he had started since last August. In short, s/he is trying to relocate Croatia to Central Europe and will not take no for an answer from multiple editors. Dr. K. 07:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now blocked Ban kavalir for continued personal attacks, after my original warning at 17:25 on 13 March. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your action and your block rationale as you communicated it to that editor on his talkpage. It was excellent. Dr. K. 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser.
Message added 13:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CalOtter (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Carnivourous123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Carnivourous123 is now blocked 72 hours for continuation of the war. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think we should remove the extended confirmed protection and use semi-protection for Pakistan article now as it very difficult to make any edits to this article and none or not many edits originate from extended users for Pakistan article. It has been 7 months since you added extended confirmed protection. Do you think it is the time to now move to semi-protection. Thank you very much Karachi01 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, this article is a disruption magnet, you can still make edit requests. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

According to

WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• 177.98.180.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, we're having problems with a stubborn IP editor who's ignoring consensus and continually edit-warring against editors who revert his unexplained and undiscussed addition to the article. He's already reverted 6 times today; I've reverted him 3 times,and 3 other editors have reverted him. And he's just reverted me again. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

IP is now blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Let's hope he mends his ways. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, Ed. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the issue raised here and here. --Sundostund (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would leave the user's talk page alone, even though they are indef blocked. So far as I know,

WP:AN. Reopening old matters hardly seems worth it unless there is some reason for concern. Did anything happen recently to draw your attention to this? EdJohnston (talk

) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My only thought about this issue is whether user pages of editors who are indef blocked should be left permanently open. It is not related to the particular case of TIAYN in any way, I have the same thought about any other editor in that situation. Of course, after consulting five administrators about this, I am satisfied and I see no reason for opening a thread at

WP:AN. This issue certainly isn't so important to me that I make such a move... User:Jpgordon is right – "Indefinite isn't infinite". BUT, as far as I saw here since 2010, in most cases indefinite turns out to be infinite. I still remember the case of once well-respected User:Evlekis and its outcome. There are few indefinitely blocked editors who got unblocked and resumed a successful WP career afterwards. --Sundostund (talk

) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Evlekis and TIAYN are not the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They are not, but their current status here is pretty much the same (with some variations)... I myself would like that to change – both of them seemed as valuable and important members of the community. But I truly doubt it would happen. --Sundostund (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I recomed talk to Taichi because he closed a resolution in favor to Wikiedro and not to Pob3eque. Obiously he would say you different versions of the real situtation in the Spanish Wikipedia case, because he lost it. Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)

• White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Wikiedro#Edit warring at White Latin Americans
• AN3 closure about Wikiedro
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive

Hello, it's me again, this time I write to you to inform you that the IP editor who participated in the White Latin Americans edit war and also in the Edit Warring Noticeboard case is leaving personal attacks on my talk page in the English Wikipedia [42] and also the Spanish Wikipedia [43] (in this one he insults you as well). This is not the first time he does this, as in early 2018 he wrote this in my talk page [44], I must point out that this IP is from the same location that the IP who left the attacks today is, and that I included it as a sockpuppet of Wikiedro on my SPI [45], to which I, as time passes, incorporate new evidence (for example, compare the writing style of the edit summaries and the content removed on this two diffs [46] & [47].

• In the SPI, you are listing Guatemalan IPs though Wikiedro claims to be from Chile. The named accounts in your SPI are not recently active.

• It is possible that the Guatemalan IP, 186.151.62.200 (talk · contribs), is just a person who supports the same view of Mexican demography as Wikiedro. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"mitomano acomplejado" translates to something akin to "complexed liar", and while the IPs seemingly are from different locations, a subscription-based proxy service can be used to achieve that effect, which have been seen on SPIs before (back when I filled in my investigation I recall another case involved an spammer that used a proxy service for example). I doubt that they're not the same person because their behavior is way too similar, from edit summaries, changes they push aswell as the way they edit discussion pages (doing several edits at once instead of only a well redacted one), they also tend to be dormant.

Pob3qu3 (talk

) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It would actually be somewhat logical if the Guatemalan IP 186.151.62.200 (talk · contribs) was ELreydeEspana (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive. They share an interest in German Guatemalan and irreligion. It would take a lot of study of that SPI before I'd sign on to that hypothesis, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Could be, uncivil users that abuse multiple accounts are likely to share behavorial traits albeit similarities in this case (specially among registered accounts) are rather extreme. Though as you say, it would require much research as I don't know if that sockmaster ever shown an interest on Mexico.

Pob3qu3 (talk

) 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is this edit by a sock of ELrey which makes reference to White Latin Americans. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@

Pob3qu3: do you have some time to look at this list of Spanish socks made by User:Taichi? Especially look at the behavioral description of ELreydeEspana at the top of the page. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor fits the profile for yet another sockpuppet of that editor, not sure about the registered accounts, do you think I have to gather more evidence on the other ones and keep you posted on it?.

Pob3qu3 (talk

) 05:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you have time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

But, if you decide to file at SPI again, remember that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive is not the way to do it. It has to be short and punchy and contain real evidence. Your posting there just looked like a continuation of a content dispute.EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Avengers: Endgame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:Adamstom.97_reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: No action)

Well, I tried to take your advice, but as I suspected (it's pretty common with this editor) it hasn't been working. I really don't want to put up with trying to "discuss" a content dispute with an editor who refuses to actually read my comments and instead responds to bogus strawmen. When I asked him to please respond to what I actually wrote rather than what he claims I wrote, he comes back with a nonsense remark about how I'm "lollygagging" and "silly sidetracks or self-victimisation", in which every declarative sentence ends with an explanation mark. Where's there to go now? Should I just revert again (now that it's become clear that Adam is not willing to use the talk page) and if he reverts again file another ANEW report? I'm really struggling to decide how to resolve this at this point. (FWIW, I contacted Swarm (talk · contribs) separately about a loosely related incident that took place on Adam's talk page. I don't blame Swarm at all for not wanting to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but someone really should.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of people editing at

WP:RfC. Or, if that seems like too much trouble, make a concrete proposal for the wording and ask people to say if they support or oppose it. The diff of the revert is this one. You could put that up for a vote. If a new AN3 is filed, admins should consider blocking both sides. On the bright side, nobody has actually reverted since the AN3 closed. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So how can we do this the correct way as you put it? We already try to solve the dispute on the talk page but nobody else seem to not care. Why can't you just be happy with the ones already on there, they been there for a good while now and isn't causing any problems. It seem pretty stupid to get both of us blocked just because of a lack of consensus. Please, show me the correct way to solve this. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion continued at User talk:Vauxford#AN3 dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your approved disruptive editors, Amaury and IJBall , are at it again. Amuary revert my SOURCED edits on A Cinderella Story (film series) due to WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Since, that its a content issue, I just request that he make those edit and leave the source information alone. He then demands BRD and ONUS. The IJBall adds back some info that I added. I revert indicating BRD, etc. They will not discuss the content and just make GAMING the system type excuses (claiming I am POINTY for WP:3RRNO action) for their action or attack me instead of discussing the content. You block me and made it clear you would not act fairly. You are green lighting this. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please work this out at

WP:Request for comment and need any assistance, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk

) 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Es un artículo altamente censurado y controvertido, pero no posee ninguna plantilla de discutido: Template:Disputed, lo cual es engañoso para el visitante ocasional, que puede creer que el artículo goza de consensos que no existen, y que están largamente evidenciados en la página de discusión del mismo. Por ello, y como administrador, le pido la inclusión de esta plantilla en la cabezal del artículo. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedro (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think that {{Disputed}} is appropriate, why don't you make that suggestion on the article talk page. Per WP:SPEAKENGLISH, if you intend to spend a lot of time editing this article, you are advised to write your talk comments and edit summaries in English. In fact, the next time you *revert* the article using an edit summary that's in Spanish I think you are risking a block. You are placing an unreasonable burden on other editors who may have a need to negotiate with you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For numerous occasions when you blocked users for edit warring, notified them on their talk page and said at the end of the message that the full report related to the block was at the edit warring noticeboard, thank you (bold text here is where you would link the report on the user's talk page). I think it's being civil and potentially giving blocked editors another chance by letting them easily access the report for useful information in requesting an unblock. I myself as a different IP (211.27.126.189) had this added to my message when I was blocked. Interesting to note that the section this kind of message you send in is called edit warring at whatever article the user was edit warring at rather than the month and year of the block, so thank you.111.220.164.171 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have over 500 non-automated edits now. Can I reapply for AWB? My old request is still up, not sure for how long. Thank you —Amiodarone ^talk 10:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Now done, see your talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please, I need some kind of help. Some kind of neutral "expert" or administrator needs to supervise his edits. He has gone on an insane spree on all 19th century Croatia articles. Very transparently pushing old Croatian nationalist ideas and "narratives", especially regarding the Triune Kingdom. Some sources given even include 19th century Croatian authors who were members of the nationalist groups explicitly mentioned having their primary focus as pushing for the legitimacy of the "Triune Kingdom"...

The

You are suggesting that this editor is influenced by nationalistic feelings and is going against the good sources. If this were fully documented, it might justify some action under

Triune Kingdom of Croatia are trying to cover the same thing! EdJohnston (talk

) 02:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User is now blocked for two weeks due to a complaint at AN3. This outcome is not a complete surprise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can link to a dicussion relating to this which I guess covers some major points: User_talk:Dr.K.#Reports_of_edit_wars_and_fabricating_texts_to_make_them_more_bias --Havsjö (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I been having problems with U1Quattro. They are still being stubborn when it comes to dispute with a edit. I even told them to take it to the talkpage and not make anymore edits until we reach a consensus but they refuse to corporate and I don't want to get myself into another edit wars. I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Dissociative identity disorder, I'm the one who pushed towards discussing this on the talk page, time and again. But the IP get's implicated, because, well, it's the IP -- nobody ever suspects the bad behaviour is on the admin's side. Have a look at how this guy treats IP edits in the medical section on a regular basis. Great. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Content matters are hard, but it's easy to spot

fluctuating IPs engaging in a lot of reverts. If your cause is good, you can probably think of a better way of pursuing it. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

All those reverts were in favour of having a discussion and demanding references and having had technical issues isn't what makes me the culprit. Humour me for a second: Ignore I'm unregistered and my IP changed often during the past two days, and look at the actual behaviour. I don't even care you blocked the article for some time, I care about being called the one who stirs trouble, when I clearly tried to do this properly, and clearly did tons of sensible edits the past two days, too. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To be cynical: Is it hard to spot an admin engaging in a lot of reverts? If he spots an IP edit in a medical article, he'd rather revert and discard large edits with potentially hours of work in them, all properly sourced, sensible content, instead of applying a minor correction, like moving one sentence a bit or fixing a typo. It's maddening to watch, yet stay calm and collected. And be sure, you'll get called an edit warrior, if you revert his vandalism, and ask for the courtesy of a reason for his action -- because you won't know it's just been a minor issue, and he could just as well fix it instead of vandalise your work. That guy. I'm out. Whatever. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at October 2017 of Oxcarbazepine, it took ages to get the article cleaned up and built up all those references. He effed it up for the sake of argument, because he wanted /one particular sentence/ to be in the first paragraph -- by the time he had the sense to say this, he started a full-blown edit war, instead of just discussing it, or, even better, just correcting it with some sensible, explanatory comments added to his edits. Apparently, it /is/ harder to see an admin misbehaving, as opposed to an IP. It's called bias and prejudice. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. That's another two days of my life wasted by, coincidentally, you, and, particularly, James. Same as last time. It's see if I try this again in 2021. I would seriously appreciate you to have an honest look at what /actually/ happened in both these instances. It's what keeps good people away from here, and I actually care. I'd love this hobby, if it wasn't for the likes of this. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. These steps are occasionally tedious, but they work. Are you the same person as the one who left this comment in 2017? If so, my 2017 comment may still apply:

The IP is trying to prove that IPs should be respected but by methods that are unlikely to work: being very aggressive, using lots of personal attacks, making charges of 'vandalism', and suggesting that the other party should be banned. "Bugger off, I get it. Registered idiots can jam whatever sensible edits, don't need to explain their reverts, don't need to comment their vandalism, as IPs are 2nd class editors. Same old, same old." EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding green text, I don't see how this applies to me. I did ask to stop EWing and discuss. I did ask straight away, repeatedly, and stressed it increasingly. How else should I have done that? Sincerely asking that. Regarding DR procedures: Bombing my talk page with threats of being banned doesn't illuminate those for me. The respectful thing would have been to acknowledge I am the one who actually tries to perform proper DR by raising it as vandalism, thereby calling it to 3rd party attention that improper behaviour is taking place. Then, to tell me that raising it as vandalism wasn't the right way to ring the bell, and please read up on WP:Dispute resolution. The way it was handled, however: I try to stop the madness, just try to stop it somehow wrong (didn't read up, yet), and get even more madness in return, with complete ignorance towards the actual problematic behaviour, which I tried to point to. "Tedious" doesn't even begin to describe this. Again, it just feels like it's virtually impossible to prevail, if you're an IP (a detail I add because it's better if your registered) up against someone who knows how to work the system that is WP governance. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- Link to last WP:AN/3 one week ago [48] - Current Communism history [49] - Communism talk page section [50] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning for User:Sourcerery against further reverts at Communism unless they first get consensus. It is not clear that he has any support on the talk page, as yet. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I have consensus on talk page it is clear in communism on political spectrum section.Sourcerery (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you name anyone who has commented on the talk page in support of keeping the 'Missing information' template? Since 30 March you have added that banner to the article four times; three times it has been removed by others. Banner templates require consensus to stay in the article, just like any other article content. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie92, O3000 were in favor adding content in question (communism on political spectrum). There was disagreement on sources and wording, even user who was reverting my edits at first and tag once, agreed that article lacks communism on political spectrum in article - Aquillion. I compromised and instead added tag so people know it's something article is lacking, and other editors can fix it. Now I don't like pointing fingers and arguing and blaming people, but I suspect Aquillion and Somedifferentstuff are same person.Sourcerery (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion and User:Somedifferentstuff together have 26,000 edits. I don't believe they are socks of each other. Neither of them supports the 'missing information' banner. I don't notice any cases where User:Objective3000 has agreed with you, though he did warn you once for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm suspicious and would like someone to check them, they were doing same reverts with very similar wording. Only more aggressive on Somedifferentstuff and I noticed they don't ever edit in same time. O3000 - Agree with Aquillion and others. Political and economic philosophies are complex and come in many flavors. And most of the commonly used words are overused in simplistic manners by politicians and wannabe economists. Let’s not trivialize them. Find good sources - Like I said, this confirms everyone was agreeing that Communism on political spectrum was good addition, contention was on wording and sources. So instead of arguing and edit warring I just added tag, but then user Aquillion moved goalpost disregarding everything he said previously and that is when Somedifferentstuff joined, being completely absent previously. Please have them checked, I'm 100% positive they are same person.Sourcerery (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you withdraw these charges per

WP:ASPERSIONS. You are risking an indefinite block. You could be reinstated at whatever moment you succeed in proving that Aquillion and Somedifferentstuff are the same person. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But I can't prove anything? I just have, in my opinion, reasonable doubts. That's why I'm asking you or someone with experience and tools, I don't know how that works, to look into this issue. If they/you after investigation tell me I was wrong, I will accept it and won't ever bring it up.Sourcerery (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery, you can't get away with making ridiculous charges. If you tried filing it at

WP:SPI, the chances it would be accepted are zero. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

God damn, I tried to make that but was struggling with linking diffs, I'll figure it out. Thank you for your time.Sourcerery (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a sock and the fact that you've been able to edit-war for this amount of time is disheartening. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Your last edit at Communism should be reverted and you blocked but I'm not willing to risk my own account on your behalf. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I will take your word for it because sock would tell "Yeah I'm edit warring, abusing other accounts and I'm in massive breach of multiple rules".Sourcerery (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, please tell me what my next move should be. This user doesn't have consensus but keeps reverting at Communism. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He seems to want a banner saying there is missing information. The banner itself is subject to consensus, so consider trying to tally up who on the talk page is supporting or opposing the banner. (In his edit summary, he is claiming there is consensus for the banner). Other possibilities for how to proceed are described at WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The tally is no consensus. Do I need to file another report to stop the reverting? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

How many are in favor and how many against? Or are there complex opinions? EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

1 in favor, 2 against, 2 no opinion (and no longer involved on talk) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider opening an

WP:RFC on the banner that Sourcerery wants. This may seem tedious, but otherwise there is a risk that some admin will put the whole article under full protection for a long time. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Having been here for years like yourself I understand when an editor is not interested in respectively building an encyclopedia. I've never seen an Admin fully protect an article when someone doesn't respect consensus, hopefully that won't be the outcome. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hot Sugar (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Immediately after a two-month protection (Special:Diff/882515746) expired, the same BLP-violating content has been repeatedly added to the article by User:Path slopu. Could you block the user or protect the article again? Thanks, 153.203.141.172 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider reporting this at

WP:3RR. There is some prior discussion at Talk:Hot Sugar (musician). Whatever the truth of the misconduct allegations, isn't it correct to say he was dropped by his record label due to the allegations? EdJohnston (talk

) 13:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• First Italo-Ethiopian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wizeone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War#Edit war: wrong casualties and Second Italo-Ethiopian War
• User talk:Wizeone2#Edit warring at First Italo-Ethiopian War

Hi, do you remember me? We still have problems with the page First Italo-Ethiopian War. If you look into the history, 17,000 Ethiopians and 9,000 Italians would be reported before being changed by another anonymous user without explanation. I restored it with sources but Wizeone2 still undid my revisions and the "page needed" issue [51]. Also here [52] the source at page 203 (if it doesn't load on the cell look on pc or ipad) clearly says “Total Italian, Eritrean and Somali deaths, including those from disease, were estimated to be 9,000" .. and that 10,000 Ethiopians were wounded, but Wizeone does not want to reason and prefers to keep his version. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have notified Wizeone2 and suggested that they follow dispute resolution. If the two of you can't negotiate I would consider full-protecting the article. If you open a

WT:MILHIST might help. You do get some credit for opening the discussion on the article talk page on 26 January, and it is actually hard to understand Wizeone2's response. The use of personal attacks on a talk page might cause admins to take action, so I hope he will keep a good temper this time around. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

• DVIssac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joythommi13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi There. You were involved in one of my report on administrator noticeboard.I am not able to see the report now.Is it removed? As adviced by you the other day,i had opened a new talk page. Joythommi13 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been archived. You may be thinking of

Ezharappallikal, Hope this is what you wanted. If you want to make statements as to which is the oldest church, you should provide WP:Reliable sources for your claim. Church web sites may not be sufficient. Scholars are better. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

HI again.Thnaks for replying.

This guy DVIssac is again edit warring without any proof.Nor does he come for discussion in Talk page of said wiki article. Kindly advice. BTW,i have edited the wiki talk comment with addition of link to books by authors. Mr Thomas whitehouse visited bith churches and reinforces the claim of palyoor as church established by St Thomas. Kindly go through and advise whether i should report the same agin on wiki noticeboard Joythommi13 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I left a message for DVIssac and asked them to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi- I have added comments on the talk page of article. Seven and a half Churches established by St. Thomas is a claim by Nasrani people of kerala. Claim is Thomas the Apostle visited kerala in AD 52 and have established Seven and half Churches, converting Nambudiri brahmins at than time to Christians. Historically Brahmins descended to south India (including Kerala)in later centuries of Christian Era. With the claim and belief, with no historical proofs from early centuries of CE( first or second centuary AD) - information on beliefs and history coined later is used for these claims by the Chrches. While wikipedia stays as a source of free information, it is better to make sure all informations on claims and beliefs of this small set of Christians (Saint Thomas Christians) is available to users, unless the claim is proved wrong on the basis of historic evidence from the early Christian Era (AD 52 - AD 110).

DVIssac (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@

Ezharappallikal. You are edit warring, and you are adding unsourced information. It is not up to others to refute what you add (if it's wrong); it is up to you to find WP:Reliable sources the first time. Speculative history doesn't belong in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Removed the claims by Arthat Church ,Malayatoor Church and Aruvithara St. Thomas Church. Recommending Joythommi13 to add more historical evidences and refrences for the claims by 8 other churches which remain in the article as it is said as Speculative history by many of the indian Historians including M. G. S. Narayanan.

@

St. Mary's Cathedral, Arthat ,St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Malayattoor and St. George's Syro-Malabar Catholic Forane Church, Aruvithura as these are claims with out WP:Reliable sources

and as Speculative history doesn't belong in Wikipedia - need to be done to make sure that wikipedia is providing similar information accross different pages on the same suject.

DVIssac (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi

• Draft:Operating Systems Design and Implementation

I'm very disappointed that you restored OSDI into Draft, creating more

It's a bit strong for you to critize RHaworth when the page was already headed for deletion via

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfDs are handled one at a time, and the quality of articles can vary without that becoming a concern for AfD voters or closers. If you can find any substantive references for the conference, not just list rankings, it would improve its chances. Stepping outside the letter of policy for a moment, how does the present draft serve as a testimonial for the conference? It is such a poor article. Better to change it into a redirect to USENIX. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Joshi punekar needs to be indeffed. Check his last edit at Deshastha Brahmin, which is textbook case of long term edit warring and re-introduced the very stuff, that was deemed by 2 other discussants over the t/p, to not belong at the article. And, the mania 'bout veg/non-veg and fishes continue. ∯WBG^converse 18:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a last chance warning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked per an explanation on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, colleague. Can you look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman. Two years ago there was a discussion with me involved. Several other involved users put forward their arguments, but then I left the English Wikipedia for a long time. Now, I have returned and put forward (or rather reinstated my older ones) my arguments, and these are without any answer for several weeks. What should be done, according to the protocol of mediation. Can I already call for 3O or what? John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Dear Sir, Please correct Jorhat City information. Some mischievous guys are repeatedly misusing Jorhat City page and we’re unable to edit. Pls solve our problem. We are providing you the Indian government proofs claiming Jorhat as the 2nd most developed city of Assam. Indian government links saying Jorhat as the 2nd City of Assam. Pls check. ✅ Niti Aayog, Government of India. http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Assam-reports.pdf

Read page 18

THIS LINK IS TO NITI Aayog, Govt of India and FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Government of Assam. GOVERNMENT ELECTION WEBSITE

✅ http://www.elections.in/assam/parliamentary-constituencies/jorhat.html

✅ https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i1/MDIwMTM3MTc=.pdf

This link is by the professor of Dibrugarh university a phd holder and READ 4th PARAGRAPH WHERE ITS CLEARLY MENTIONED JORHAT IS THE 2ND LARGEST URBAN AREA OF ASSAM.

Assam government link http://www.assaminfo.com/districts/13/jorhat.htm

Jorhat is the 2nd most developed city of Assam. Please help us and Thank you. God bless you always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.76.100 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please make your request at

Talk:Jorhat City. Be aware that you are risking a block if you keep on calling other people 'stupid' and 'assholes' in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You should remove the semi-protection in the article

There has been socking on this article so the semiprotection appears justified. Please make your arguments at Talk:Ezdiki language and consider logging in to your account to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, in this ANI report, you blocked the range Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E/44 for a month. Unfortunately, now that the block is expired, the vandal is back at it, making a bunch of unsourced/false changes to statistics in Secularism in Israel. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PS I also found that they've been editing from IPV4 numbers, most recently Special:Contributions/94.69.122.73, for example falsifying statistics in Religion in Kenya: [55] (I checked the source). Prior to that, and during the IPV6 block, they were editing from several (but not all) IPs in the range Special:Contributions/94.69.229.0/24. --IamNotU (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you're away, but they're now on a new IP, Special:Contributions/94.69.63.239. --IamNotU (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The vandal is also User:Scgonzalez. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DuncanHill, thanks. Not sure though because the geolocation is different, Spain vs. Greece, though from a quick look at the edits they appear similar. @Ponyo: maybe you could take a look? Seems EdJohnston has been away for a while and isn't answering. I got a 12-hour block on Special:Contributions/94.69.63.239 through AIV, but they're back at it again today. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reblocked both ranges.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, an aggressive IP, address 66.58.240.81, is edit-warring at No true Scotsman and has declared that No true Scotsman "is not a real thing and I will keep editing this forever #cantstopwontstop LOLOL". 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstak (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected No true Scotsman. The same disruption was coming from more than one IP. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting this editor know that I opened an ANI thread after I forgot to notify him or her! ElKevbo (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection at MNIST database. That particular editing campaign has been particularly relentless. It has covered maybe 50 insertions of the exact same material into approx 15 articles in that field, mostly by single-edit IP's. The IP's are geographically scattered, although there has been some clustering in Russian and India locations. Maybe they have a lot of proxy servers. They often say that reversions of their insertions are by fake accounts of Wiki admin "David Eppstein" (??) to stifle them. They won't discuss except to make such accusations. I've been trying to track it at the "I'm watching these articles" section at my talk page, though I've done a spotty job. Mostly an FYI; I think the best thing is to do what you did. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your warning on this user's talk page ... after they received multiple warnings for their disruptive editing in the Descendants articles. They are continuing with it - I just reverted their most recent edit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And now they're attacking my user page [56]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please change somi Wikipedia picture to a proper formal picture and nice picture than current one. Smilee111 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Smilee111. If you can find a picture of Jeon So-mi that has a license compatible with Wikipedia you can add it to the article yourself. Though I am not sure why you don't like the current picture. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Aqooni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dilla Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

I was wondering if you could have a look at this report [57]. The report has been open for a few days now with no response from admins. I am getting in touch as this is a user that you have had history dealing with for disruptive editing [58] [59] [60] [61], and continues the same disregard for 3RR as noted in the report in addition to canvassing other users [62] [63] in what appears to be

Battle of Dilla. This led to a week of full protection on the article and indefinite move protection. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mark Bourrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding your Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If a user is banned (or twice indefed in this case), can they use the talk page of the article about them while editing as an IP, to suggest edits? Generally I'd have assume banned is banned, but perhaps there's a BLP exception I'm not aware of? Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Somehow he is being allowed to participate at BLPN. I won't block his IP but someone else might. We seem to have the archaic notion that the BLP subject should be allowed to comment so long as we are keeping an article on them. The EC protection on the article should deter any more sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It should protect the article, but how much time will be wasted - they've been at this for over 13 years already. If they were working co-operatively ... maybe. But their instant reaction is to assume bad faith, and accuse me of malice and some kind of revenge related to things I'm not even aware of. I can understand a blind eye might be turned, but I don't think we should be telling editors we know to be blocked (and banned per an Arbcom decision) to be making IP edits on talk pages. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that Mark Bourrie is mentioned in WP:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Can you draw any inferences from that decision that apply to the present situation? It appears that the person editing as User:Arthur Ellis is restricted to one account, and is limited as to what he can edit. There is a ban notice at User:Arthur Ellis but I am unclear if it was placed by an administrator. Ellis is under an indefinite block but it appears to be self-requested. If you see a likelihood of further time being wasted, will a block of the IP prevent that? EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Restricted to one account, but given how frequently this was violated (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis), after that self-requested block, then presumably it's still indefinite despite being self-requested. Looks like the final 100% confirmation was in the 15th request in 2008. Later on they were also banned for a month as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden which remained logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans - which is probably moot at this point. To make a long-story short, the "self-requested" seems to be a red herring at this point! Nothing simple in this one.

Let's see how this plays out ... there's no question that the article has been a battle-ground for a triad of Ontario political bloggers who all seem to hate each other for reasons that I don't think most people care about or understand ...! It's part of the reason I thinned the article down so much ... it really needs to be improved by those who are neutral. I'd had hoped that past editors would have stayed out ... but perhaps if we can show some good faith by making some improvements that make sense, we can (after 13 years?) walk him off the ledge. But an IP block of the talk page might ultimately be necessary. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let me know if that point is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ~ for your help ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston.

Bring back Daz Sampson only edits infrequently (apparently only on the weekends). The recent discussion they are referring to is

I see you unblocked Tvx1. That's fine and I am ready to move on from that. I was typing my above post while Tvx1 was being unblocked. If you think it's best to move on from that as well, then I can do that too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add that I wasn't involved in the adding of

WP:NFC#UUI17 to the NFC guidelines. I wasn't the first to start a NFCR/FFD discussion about a file based upon it. I'm not the only editor to ever !vote in a FFD/NFCR discussion that a file should be removed from an article based upon it. I'm not the admins closing discussions which have led to files being removed; if they disagreed with its application, they could've !voted instead of closing. As recently as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/June#Washington University Bears football, an admin (who works a lot at FFD and with files in general) cited UUI#17 as the reason why a file shouldn't be used in a particular article. So, I'd appreciate it if Bring back Daz Sampson would stop trying to portray me as the person behind all of the problems associated it with it and its application. If he/she really has issues with my behavior and think the time has come for something to be done, then perhaps someone other than myself should advise him to do so at ANI. If he/she thinks that the close of NFCR/FFD with respect to a particular file was wrong or that UUI#17 in general needs a complete review, then perhaps someone else could suggest what to do in those cases as well. If Bring back Daz Sampson thinks that nothing is going to change even if he/she follows any of those suggestions so why bother in the first place, then they should perhaps be advised to simply drop the stick and move on instead of showing up on weekends and trying to re-argue these things in various other discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There might be a real issue here, but the dispute would have to be documented better. If an admin can't understand what the dispute is about without reading 1000 words of text, they may not want to look into it. For this reason, simply going to ANI is unlikely to get the result you want. You would have to produce some material that is better focussed.

While saying this, I do observe that some valid points were made in the archived ANI at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#User:Bring back Daz Sampson: NPA and ASPERSIONS.

While there could be some lurking behavior issues in this domain, the center of the dispute seems to be interpretation of the

WP:Non free content criteria. So it's a question of how to interpret the policy. This kind of a problem can benefit from an RfC, if there is disagreement. The alternative of handling it as a behavior issue is likely to consume more time. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Personnel_section_changes_again,_North_Italy_IPs, you reported that you blocked this range back in April: Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21. FYI, they're back at it. Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-blocked for another three months. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, hope all is well. You blocked this IP on two occassions for persistent disruptive editing (unsourced category adding without edit summary). He's at it once again.[64]-[65]-[66]-[67]-[68] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for another two years. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for dealing with the disruption. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ed, it looks like we block-conflicted. Sorry about that. My block was harsher than yours, but despite it being their first block, I felt a longer block was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Some kind of action was obviously needed and there is a case for a longer block.. It seems that in some months AN3 goes a long time with no admins and then other times we all come at once. Maybe it's the holidays! EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

While I am trying to resolve the neutrality issue of the Women's rights in Iran 's article, HistoryofIran accuses me to do pov-pushing IRI edits 2 times! In another hand, when I issued the lack of source for some key sentences in the lede, he said "Are you honestly saying women in Iran have just as much rights compared to other countries? The article makes it quite clear that that is not the case" ... or " The whole article pretty much highlights the lack of women rights in Iran, yet you're still putting a citation need tag"... everyone knows that Wikipedia articles are not RS! I just want to improve Women's rights in Iran article and you can check my edits in that article, but by such suffering from HistoryofIran (blocked multiple times), the editing is not that easy.

I'm not asking you to block him or so, I just felt like asking for admin suggestion for dealing with his serial accusations and harassments. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Accusations that can easily be backed up (heck, even a neutral random user had the same suspicions about you from the get-go [69]). It's no secret that you have been strongly warned in the past for pov-pushing [70]. Also, you keep making pro-IRI edits, [71] ("gender appropriate")? You have already tried to censor the lack of women rights in Iran [72] and now you're trying once again. Also, what has the amount of times I've been blocked to do with anything? I've made contribitions to this site 100x more than you if we're gonna talk about stats. Also, keep the harassment accusations for yourself, thanks. Keep this up and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would encourage Saff V. to keep in mind the warning left by User:Vanamonde93 after a discussion at ANI last March. The question asked at RSN seems like it refers to an action for which documentation would easily be found elsewhere. It is asking what decision was announced in November 2018 by the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee. The source text of this resolution can apparently be found at this UN link and you should be able to figure out from mainstream sources whether the resolution was adopted or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm of course trying to abide by the rules. I have started talk page discussions and asked other to comment on sources at RSN, so your reminding of the warning without commenting on his accusations probably encourages him to keep on using such a destructive language.Saff V. (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Exophthalmus vittatus. Since you had some involvement with the Exophthalmus vittatus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Taketa (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to support deletion of the redirect, for reasons I'll explain there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Rump state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed in User: Matt Smith that he had some problems with Taiwan's political status (back in '17). I am currently working in the Rump state article, and he has reverted back in that Taiwan is a disputed rump state.
It's a single edit, and he is using the discussion page, but because he chose to revert and then discuss, I thought I should offer a heads up to the admin who blocked him for activity very similar to this. Could I trouble you to add it to your watchlist for a few days? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The previous problem ('Edit warring about the history of Taiwan', from January 2017) was reported at this link. There was a complaint at AN3 which I closed with a warning. At that time I told Matt Smith that "You are risking a block if you make any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page". EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that, Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have, more than once, offered you an 'out', Matt. No one can help you if you choose to instead fight about it. No one wins a revert war; in fact, everyone loses, including the article. I'd say that you should use the discussion page, but you've already disregarded my advice and I was forced to report you. You have only yourself to blame. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to admit that you disregarded WP:Consensus and kept removing the long-time content without getting a consensus, I cannot help you. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Matt, please understand that I am not here asking for your help. I am hoping you are not too far down the rabbit hole to miss that.

I guess my concerns were justified, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You of course can have your reasons of editing articles, but when your edits of a long-time content are opposed by other editors (I and User:Dentren, in this case), you should get a consensus with other editors first, not keeping doing what you think is right. Unfortunately, you failed to do that in this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shokatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Hrvatinić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Croatian nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have warned me for edit warring with this user before when I stated I was merely reverting his POV pushing, well guess what? He is at it again...and has now transferred the same dispute (Hrvatinic family) on to the

Have you opened a discussion somewhere on an article talk page to resolve the content issue? In the last six montha you've Santasa99 has received a surprisingly large number of warnings, though they do get credit for keeping them in their archive rather than deleting them. Instead of reverting again, both of you should consider the options presented at WP:Dispute resolution requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have mistaken me with the said user. I am warning you about him as it was you who handled with the last dispute I had with him (as far as I am concerned), not the other way around...and yes, he does have a surprising number of warnings for edit-warring in the last six months and it is even more surprising he is still allowed to carry on with his shenanigans on Wikipedia. As for me, I am not even active enough in the last six months to receive "surprisingly large number of warnings". My only recent warning comes from the close contact with this person i.e. for the reason I've been reverting this persons POV-pushing and blatant removal of content and sources without proper discussion on Hrvatinic article earlier this year, in March. Now I come back again on Wikipedia few months later and find him he is still doing it and carried it over on other articles...few of which I mentioned above. Shouldn't this fall under the

Shokatz (talk

) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I would still like to know where you,

User:Shokatz, have attempted to discuss this on article talk. Neither party should revert again until this is attempted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you are not interested in (article) Talk page discussion, which I started (you asked the user twice, and after the second time, he run, without giving an answer), I have to respond on this one here. If you are (@EdJohnston:) interested in this particular dispute, or with mentioned previous one with this User:Shokatz, than maybe you should check my large number of warnings once again, by taking a bit closer look. I was reported by this editor over dispute on article Hrvatinić, where he resorted to variety of baseless accusations and personal abuses, just like here and on article Talk pageTalk page where I started discussion. You should check his reply there, because if that's what common Wikipedia practice is, than I am a guilty one. Prior to that report and subsequent warning issued by you I have never been reported or warned for anything in my 12+ Wikipedia-years, because I never reached that point in any dispute (another warning was issued in connection to that same dispute as I mistakenly reported him to ArbCom which made some admin quite upset) - unlike this User:Shokatz, whose logs present clear picture of ethno-national POV, for which he was in dispute with just about everyone except like-minded members of that particular ethno-national group. Just like today I either disengaged or made persuasive enough argument to "win" debate, but nobody ever reported me nor drag me into edit-war so persistently enough to reach the point of no return. Besides, you should, maybe, check User:Shokatz loaded language little bit too, in our and his previous disputes and edit-wars (isn't he just called me a "troll", right here on your very own Talk page?!), which are aplenty, it's deliberately designed to provoke reaction - user is obviously well versed in this kind of engagements. I hope you are going to drop by on Croatian nobility Talk page.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We had the discussion about this (regarding Hrvatinic being Croatian nobility as much as Bosnian - these things are well sourced and not mutually exclusive to each other) and the user in question could not prove his points. Now he is carrying this issue on other articles...specifically Croatian nobility article...and from what I can see on few other articles as well. I am not even involved in the other articles and I can see him clearly edit-warring there as well (Turkish Croatia, Donji Kraji, etc. and several others). As for the "discussions" themselves you can actually see with what one is dealing with when engaging in such extreme activity by his reply. Walls of text hiding ad hominem fallacies, offensive language and just pure simple dismissal...I can see when someone is not in the "mood" for consensus but purely and simply pushing their POV and agenda. How long should this person be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia? Three months, six...a year? Two years? I am quite a long time on Wikipedia and I remember users such as PaxEquilibrium (just to give an example), a user I was warning admins about his POV pushing and Wikipedia-abusing methods...only to be dismissed at first, but then I come back a year and a half later to find him banned for the very same thing and even having numerous sockpuppets (proven abuser of Wikipedia policies)...I know a troll and POV-pusher when I see one and this guy is most definitely a prime example of one.

Shokatz (talk

) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't discuss this issue on three different page. If User:EdJohnston is willing to offer further assistance, than user should join conversation on article talk page, so that all current and possible future interested parties could see discussion and maybe take part themselves, if they chose.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, who had a discussion, when and where, with myself unable to prove my point, whether the Hrvatinic and Hrvoje Vukcic in particular is or isn't Croatian as much as Bosnian, to whom, exactly - point at it, at both, a discussion and one who decide(d) that I was unable to prove my point ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello

User:Shokatz. The word count of these complaints is high and the clarity of the issues is low. Can I ask first about this revert that User:Santasa99 made back on 11 March at Hrvatinić? This led to a whole series of back-and-forth reverts that ended on 30 March. Can anyone tell me what points are still in dispute there? Or is it resolved? I remind you that Wikipedia doesn't need to persist in a quest for the ultimate truth on a confusing situation. If reputable historians disagree we can simply report the disagreement and leave it at that. 'Some say the kingdom was called A&B, and Prince C owed allegiance to the King of A. Other historians disagree.' If you can tell me what the issues in the Hrvatinić dispute were, preferably in point form, I may be able to propose an RfC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There are no disagreements nor agreements among reputable historians vis-a-vis this issue - the family and its most prominent member

Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic

is simply referred across the historiographies as a Bosnian - nobleman, duke, grand duke, king-maker, etc. He had episode of some 20+ years in ruling over Split Commune". The most telling fact is that even contemporary reputable Croatian historians refer to Hrvatinic as Bosnian - no one, nowhere, refer to Vukcic-Hrvatinic as both Bosnian and Croatian. Croats at the time didn't have institute that could give and take title, while in ethnic sense there were no Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs at the time. And finally, about my first removal on 11 March: Engel Pál is self-trained historian (I believe this info is included in his own Wkipedia article) with shoddy reputation even in Hungary, whose scholarship, among other themes, is subject of a study "Narratives Unbound: Historical Studies in Post-communist Eastern Europe" in which authors critically describe how post-communist Hungarian academia degraded from left to right ideological spectrum (from communist cosmopolitism to right wing ethno-nationalism) - anyhow, why use self-trained Pal Engel, while having plethora of Croatian and English language reputable historians, like John Fine, on our disposal? (Here's how Gordan Ravančić, director of "Croatian Institute of History" refer to Vukčić-Hrvatinić by title: "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split".

Regarding these that other visible removal in link - vassalage to Subic on the part of the family's early days was short-lived from historical perspective, so it's really beyond point to include that info both in lead and in Infobox. In the body of the article issue is taken care of, with early family members vassalage to Subic described in second paragraph, so there is no need to have it all over the place - it doesn't belong in lead and Infobo per notability, nothing else. You can check my entries on all these articles Talk pages, where I tried to explain myself, and where editors who reverted my edits joined after edit-war already commenced - and even than they contributed little or nothing constructive to TP discussion - just like today and day before.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have one more suggestion - how about we try to get some senior editor with experience and some knowledge in Balkan's medieval history to give us their inputs, while you are here and willing to engage into this problem with us? User:Surtsicna is pretty versed in promoting article on Balkan's medieval history to GA class, such editor must have some credibility.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That edit you linked there shows on what level this user operates. He is in fact "evaluating" linked sources provided for the claims made in the article. Correct me if I am wrong but he (or anyone) on Wikipedia is the last person to do so. He even goes so far to claim incompetence on one of the historians, a claim he now repeats even on this very page. Is this person qualified to do so even? Even mentioned John Fine talks about Hrvatinic (Hrvoje most of all) as a member of Croatian nobility. All in all his "arguments" are laughable and border on complete

Shokatz (talk

) 18:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It is fine to contact regular editors who may have content knowledge about Eastern Europe. But why not first try to phrase some of the questions in single-sentence form, where a question can be answered yes or no. I see why you might want to consult the work of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., one of whose books is linked at this URL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: yes, but not just because that one book, also his entire opus is connected to western Balkan, former Yugoslavia region, and Bosnia on particular, while being something of a "gold-standard" for reference in all articles on region's history. But as I said, he's not the only one - any contemporary Croatian/Croat historian whose reputation hasn't been tainted with ideological and/or ethno-nationalistic undertones is acceptable across the articles on history of Balkan.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@

Shokatz: I am not an "idiot", I do not "trolling", so I am not a "troll" either - I am your peer-editor, kinda. Name Hrvatin is all-Slavic name, not just Croatian, so that's etymological falacy as it doesn't takes root in ethnonym Hrvat (Croat) - Serbs are also named Hrvatin, so Serbian lord Hrvatin^[1] held Rudine near Gacko while his brother of Vojin held Gacko (1327)--౪ Santa ౪^99°

18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Tomović, Gordana (2009). "Oblasni gospodari u 14. veku" (Document). Užice: Grad Užice. {{cite document}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |archivedate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archiveurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |work= ignored (help)

I am not quite sure @EdJohnston: what do you mean about phrasing questions, because I never had any doubts that changing and/or removing of contentious claims and any bits of text from article, especially if they are are both contentious and can't be referenced with reliable sources, and which for days and weeks, or at least through entire duration of a prolonged dispute (or even edit-war) other editor(s) never even tried to validate with any, is grounded in WP:VER ("Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.", and I know that removal should be kinda last measure, but these cases as far as I can tell aren't in that category). In a string of 5 interrelated articles, which above User mentioned in part, User:Shokatz and another editor User:Ceha, with some IP in between, pose as a bulletproof guardians with seemingly identical editing, behavioral (conduct-wise) and rhetorical pattern, while contributing very small quite possibly non of prose and/or references, except that they persistently, across the weeks and months, removing considerable amount of my own edits (and in at least one case someone else's older but valid), references and even tag-messages - not to mention guarding of two articles falling to pass scrutiny per WP:COAT and WP:DUPLICATE, one completely without refs, other with few refs, but so blatantly misinterpreted sourced texts. (Meanwhile, it's not insignificant, User:Ceha started following me around from one of these article to another, removing all my edits. I am sorry that I have crossed the line, that they were successful in pulling me into edit-wars, that's my mistake and responsibility. But if you are a bit curious about this case, you should have noticed by now what kind of exchange is only possible with named editors, who didn't shy away from labeling me "idiot" and "troll" right here on administrator's own Talk page, along with a tirade of threats and insinuations - these five article's Talk pages altogether have dozens maybe more of my entries and discussion initiations with responses, if there was any, resembling above tirades. Although I am inexperienced in dealing with such situations (not to mention report procedures and the rest), and know that I am wearing that inexperience as a badge of honor even if I can call myself a "senior editor" (by the way you miscounted those last six months "warnings" in my archive), I am going to navigate my way through this and bring it across the finish-line, with or without outside help.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, hope all is well. An IP just won't give up and has blanked almost all of the James Dean article 25 times in the last 24 hours. This has really gotten out of hand. Carlstak (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor 74.143.152.203 (talk · contribs) has now been blocked three years by another admin. Let me know if you see him continuing with another identity. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, thanks for your reply. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston, I'm a bit uncomfortable approaching you here but seeing as you unblocked me recently I do hope you could give some advice on how to best deal with an uncomfortable situation which I have ended up in. Over the past few days another user has launched on a personal crusade against me. It all centered on this discussion. I felt it had run its course and that there was a clear support for the proposal and so last week I implemented it in good faith. This was quickly reverted by the other user and they took immense offense to that edit and launched on their crusade against me ever since. Shortly afterwards they started a dispute resolution thread which they, counter to its regular goals, merely used to simply continuously criticize me. They even tried to game the system by directly approaching directly approaching the DRN volunteer to try and poison them against me. Thankfully the DRN volunteer had none of it. Despite repeated request by the volunteer to stop [73][74], the other user continued to post their criticism at the DRN thread, causing it to be closed without success. Following that and seeing that the DRN didn't yield an new agreement with the other user, I decided to reinstate the contested edit in good faith. It was reverted by them again and I focused on the article's talk page since. Unfortunately that turned out not be the end from them. I found out that they approached the specific administrator that recently imposed an indefinite block on me (which cannot be coincidence at all) to further vent their frustrations over me just posting untruth after untruth about me. The editor has not been honest to that administrator about their own behavior so. The originally contributed to wikipedia as Prisonermonkeys during which time they were blocked six times for disruptive behavior. They have painted a false image of me there and most worryingly the administrator (who unfortunately apparently still has an overly negative impression of me) judging by their replies seems to fully believe it. I don't know why this administrator accuses me once again of battleground behavior when all I did in this case are two article edits an couple of talk page edits. This has gotten me extremely worried that I might end up at the receiving end of yet another indefinite block. This I why I reached out to you. I want to defend myself against these false accusations but I'm unsure what's the best way to do so without making things worse. I was hoping you could give me some advice on this.Tvx1 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with your repeated campaigns to exact vengeance on editors you have grudges with is exhausting. Consider yourself warned; you know what happens next if you keeping acting out. -FASTILY 02:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There ought to be a limit on how much admin time

WP:DRN properly. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this? I'm not at all "trying to extract vengeance" on other users. That's what Mclarenfan17 is trying to do against me. I had and have the patience to use the DRN process properly. I literally stated during that DRN I was fully willing to use it properly instead of it being used to only criticize me (you can ask Robert McClenon if you want a third party stance on that) and I'm even fully willing to use DRN again if it is properly used to try to solve the content dispute. I have no intentions whatsoever to extract revenge on anyone. I can actually prove that all these accusations thrown against me by Mclarenfan17 on Fastily's talk page are false. I have no grudge with anyone whatsoever. I have no threatened to take anyone to ANI over this at all. I have no problem whatsoever to limit myself to contribute constructively and collaboratively to the talk page discussion. I only reached out to you for some general advice on what steps to take next in order to avoid getting into serious trouble. You've completely misunderstood me.Tvx1 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Protecting Gonzaga University has already started a very productive conversation on the start page. Trouble is brewing at Thayne McCulloh. Also, if you look at the talk page for Thayne McCulloh very serious incivility and transparently false allegations have been thrown at me like monkey poo by Dennis Braitland. I can prove all those allegations false with diffs. If you go over the history of the article you will see that I have been working very hard to make it NPOV and just a higher quality article in general. I don't deserve to be verbally abused for working hard on something and doing it well. Thank you. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This IP should have been blocked for unambiguous 3RR violations. Instead the page was protected. This person is waging a whitewash campaign, intent on erasing any mention of embarrassing information related to Gonzaga University or associated people. I posted a final warning on the IPs talk page, and my next step will be seeking a block at ANI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've semiprotected

WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

{{You've got mail}}

And what about the other user? I think hes closer than me to be blocked . He is reverting it continously, I think he should persuade hes table is better than the article used, thanks, I have already told my opinion he only told its "crap" -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The duty to get consensus applies to both of you. See WP:Edit warring if you are not familiar with the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This is about

a dispute that was reported at WP:AN3. See also a thread at User talk:Typ932#Edit warring at Alfa Romeo 166. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So i get blocked if I restore the article? what about the edit warrer? he should also get blocked, I havent done anything more wrong than he has. I have already talked about case so much Im tired, Its not me who needs consensus its the other editor. Warn him also , this isnt right , he has no reason to revert my editings all the time , hes edits is not doing the article any better, he is just causing troubles here for fun - Wikipedia cant work like that , that 1st complainer gets without any pusnishment and its others fault all, just think what you are doing here, you seems not to be neutral admin. If that guy still reverts the article I will also complain him , anyway couple of these cases more and Im off from wikiepdia after 10 years, Im really sick of these kids. This is just horrible fighting weeks after weeks, when people cant read or understand the rules. -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I write to that users talk page very clear message, so it seems that you are again wrong. pls stop that blaiming others or soon you are risk of being blocked by wrong accusations again , it would be whole better if you dont try to teach others if you cant behave yourself. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please link to whatever this is about. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. You recently protected

IPs engaging in unexplained and undiscussed revert-warring of well-sourced material is vandalism. The unexplained revert-warring is self-evident in the page history and there is nothing "abusive" about using rollback in such situations. That you would describe such edits as "good-faith" tests the boundaries of credulity. Good-faith editors use edit summaries, explain their proposed changes on the talk page and engage in discussion. None of the IPs did any of that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, edit warring over a content dispute isn't vandalism; rollback is only for blatant vandalism, and you know it's not that because of the contentious RfC over at the target article, which wouldn't be so contentious if it were so well-sourced. You had no problem with the IP that added "neo-nazi" without explanation in the first place, yet you reverted the next IP that removed it without explanation. Applying protection was inappropriate per "nor should [page protection] be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Deacon Vorbis. The RfC is at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RfC: Neo-Nazi label. Maybe the RfC can be closed somehow. Getting a result might be enough to settle the 'neo-Nazi' question both at Richard B. Spencer and at the DAB page. I wonder if User:Nblund has any ideas for how the RfC could be closed. (He is the person who did the last re-listing). If someone were to close the RfC based on a head-count it is likely to favor 'neo-Nazi'. I take it you favor calling him a white supremacist in the DAB but NOT a neo-Nazi? EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP that added it explained it with an edit summary, and made the disambiguation page consistent with the main article as it is now, which contains the "neo-Nazi" label. IPs then began attempting to revert-war it out of both the main article and disambiguation. If the RFC closes with a consensus to remove the label, then of course it should be removed. But removing it prior to the conclusion of the RFC is entirely improper and prejudges the result in the IP's apparent preferred direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:The Diaz is the person who opened the RfC back in April. Since he didn't express an opinion, maybe he could be considered uninvolved? He might be persuaded to close the RfC himself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Never mind. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the dispute has continued, I'm fully protecting the DAB page at Richard Spencer. Try to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict I have no idea on a close - I think the not-a-votes favor keep, but I also think my views count quadruple, so... In any case: I haven't been following the article closely, but the page is a long-standing target for vandalism, socking and other disruptive behavior, and this doesn't really look like anything different. Nblund ^talk 23:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that a new RfC is running at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RFC 2: The Sequel. Anyone interested can participate there. My full protection of the DAB page at Richard Spencer will expire soon, so it seems unnecessary for me to follow up further on Spencer-related matters. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Macedonians (Greeks) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Macedonian language naming dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed. This is to notify you that brand new account

Your edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_(Greeks)&diff=910302497&oldid=910302391 solidify my allegations. I recommend Ed has a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonians_(Greeks) and sources provided in

talk

) 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears that this issue is adequately dealt with at Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)#False allegations of POV and blatant negationism. I am not planning to participate on these issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Palestinian Museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Journey of Learning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. I was just looking at the talk page of The Palestinian Museum and trying to make sense of the dispute. To me the content added by Journey of Learning looks like a good addition, but I'm not sure why it was reverted. I see it has something to do with the Arbitration Committee, but I don't really understand.

The museum just won a major architecture prize, so the media attention is beginning to ramp up. With that will come a good opportunity to build up the article with new source material. Is that going to break the rules in any way? (And I just made a small edit to the article -- hoping that I'm not breaking any rules!) Your guidance will be much appreciated. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Journey of Learning is too new to be editing The Palestinian Museum directly, but can post on the article talk page. Since you have more than 500 edits, you are free to edit the article. If you agree with the changes proposed by Journey of Learning, you are in a position to add those changes to the article. You should be alert to whether consensus favors the changes, though. Disagreement is common with matter that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply EdJohnston. I see this will have to be managed carefully! I'll broadcast my editing intentions on the article's talk page; hopefully others will do the same and it will reduce the chance of disputes. I don't mind publishing some of what Journey of Learning has written, but I feel badly getting credit for someone else's edits. It looks like they put honest effort into it, and it would be discouraging for a new editor to have that work go unrecognized (and for a very confusing reason). Any suggestions on how we can help keep Journey of Learning feel engaged and positive out of this mess? -- Aylahs ^(talk) 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be enough that you gave Journey of Learning the credit in your edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Matke.j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohsnton. Matke.j is a new editor who is removing the word "Kosovo" from articles or replacing it with either "Serbia" or "Kosovo and Metohia". I reverted some of their edits and placed a message on their talk page [75]. They responded by saying Hi my Albanian friend ! The real name is Kosovo and Metohija , and that territory is a part of the Republic of Serbia by Resolution 1244 of UN . Greetings from Serbia !. What should be done now because they continue the disruption? Not to mention that they are not supposed to assume about other editors' nationality or ethnicity. Cheers,

I've alerted them to the discretionary sanctions under

WP:ANI. So far, the behavior is quite blatant. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk

) 22:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. Similar cases happen very frequently and newbies are more likely to listen to advice if they take it from more than a single editor. If the disruption persists, I will file a report. Would

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 22:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I just notified Matke.j of the discussion here. Perhaps they will respond. Meanwhile I suggest you avoid edit warring with Matke.j. It is likely that consensus will prevail before long. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course, edit warring is never a solution. They have never reverted on any article so it is very likely they will reflect on the issue and decide to gain experience and learn how disputes are settled on Wikipedia before they make more controversial edits on controversial articles. Some Balkan topics are too messy for many newbies.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 22:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Avaya1 reported by User:SuperWikiLover223 (Result: Both warned)

I really don't understand how I was warned on my talk page, when all my edits (and their subsequent edit summaries) directed the user to the talk page on the article in question, where I encouraged further discussion the changes. What would have been a better solution? I seriously want to know.

Unclear why this would be a defence. Edit wars take place when people keep on reverting instead of waiting for the outcome of discussion. Discuss-while-revert isn't a useful pattern when it gets up to a total of six reverts each. If there is a question of sourcing, it may help to refer the matter to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.

talk

) 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I had requested page move protection on

This move is likely to be approved, but WP:RM still has one more day to go. The simplest is to let it expire normally and then I (or some other move closer) can do the honors. The club still uses the old website and the old Facebook page, so some details of the move are not complete. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

After a quick search I found those sources: [76][77][78][79][80]even wikidata. Regarding your site, perhaps they did not update her profile?--

Thanks for finding those mentions. Do you want to add them to the article? It is often worth checking to see what Wikidata says, but it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added two external links.--

User:Tomcat7 (talk

) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I did close the one about

Sovereignty Council of Sudan. The other seems like a harder question. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you are requesting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a change this is Protection this Template on

Now semiprotected, per your request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• John of Kronstadt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can you help as an administrator to resolve the dispute for the page John of Kronstadt. Users Nicoljaus and ‎Wlbw68 write the word "moreover" in this phrase ([81]), [82]). But it is not correct and no need as I showed on the Talk page and two third party users, as I consider, agreed with me. Aleksei m (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue of the word 'moreover' does not appear very significant. But if it bothers you, consider opening an

WP:RFC. The stylistic problem is how to make a smooth transition from the canonization of John to the rehabilitation of the Ioannites by the Orthodox Church. Without knowing any details, it is easy to imagine that those favoring the canonization would also think that the Ioannites were good people. But if anyone wants to make a definite connection between the two (and state their conclusion in Wikipedia's voice) they would probably have to read some references, perhaps Kizenko's book. The appeal of using the word 'moreover' is that it's vague, though it does hint that the two events were linked. You seem to be objecting to the hint. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand why there should be a non-consensual version. Why should I open a discussion, but not who wrote this word and this phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In the thread at

WP:ANI#User Nicoljaus. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". I gave an example when a word "moreover" does not fit ([83]) and user Rosguill agreed with it ([84]). Why then does it fit the phrase "John was canonized. Moreover, after the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started"? Aleksei m (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill did not agree with you, in fact he said just the opposite of what you said. There is consensus to include "moreover". Also, this discussion should be happening on Talk:John of Kronstadt, not here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ultranationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeff6045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

unfortunately there became an issue with a user. He introduced a problematic POV's edit in the article, I've entered in the talk page and after reverted it per WP:BRD. The user ignored and in the edit log he pretended if i would not enter to the talk page and ignored the BRD principle. After I informed him again about our policies to read in the talk, but have no result, he completely ignores the discussion and in a weird way pointing to the "discussion necessary", although it is already there and tyring to twist the direction of BRD. At this point after multiple warnings, he entered on delibareate edit-warring (continuing after the 2nd revert, making the 3rd, in total the 4th trial of the current material), hence I ask your assistance.

Please have in mind I immediately informed by my very first entry Wikiproject Hungary ([85]) along with the problematic fact the user recently engaged and modified many political articles, though he is openly advertized his involvement and certain political views, that he blanked instantly ([86]) on his main page, this concerns me more regarding NPOV. Thank You for your assistance!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

See also an ANI discussion opened on 9 September, involving Jay Hodec rather than Jeff6045. However the topic of Fidesz seems common to both. A fairly confusing situation. But having seen that, I am not intending to do any follow-up myself. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have filed that ANI discussion, later on by mistake a user in the ANI started to accuse me improperly referring to the article I draw your attention, but soon another administrator gave me right and that inline thread has been deleted and the accusation has been retreated, but before not recognizing his mistake the user pinged in User:Jeff6045 there because he mentioned him there. The topic is similar, but technically totally separate, should not be confused, you don't need to follow up that (practically the accuser cherrypicked from my user contributions and draw in there something unrelated of the partuclar issue). Just follow the events in this article please, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

WP:RFC or finds some other way to get broader review of the 'ultranationalist' claim about Fidesz which is supported by Jeff6045. Normally, you would expect that Fidesz's own article would be the place to work that out. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree, I did not make yet any further since I follow the usual DR process, but soon I will follow up. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

• Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar Thoma Syrian Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a user named

Chad, if you are having a disagreement with this editor, why is there nothing from you on his talk page? See

WP:SIGN for how to sign your posts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, because he repeating undoing my and now couple another users edits for months, just over the main classification, with its only attempted to backing up his own claims, but failed due of how its using a incomplete "website" version of the Church from within a third-party site Weebly to backing up. And also I'm sorry that I forgot to used my signature for my question, so I'm sign it now. Along fine, I will try to edit warn him now, but I worry my constructive edit warning won't convince it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit: It has respond, and it still seemly don't understand that its page is direct see its current identity as a bit different from the other Syrian Christian Churches, while still making claims its still the same Church prior to its identity reformation. And it still disruptive editing without good justification by this point with this horribly edit with "Reformed as per Holy Bible" without specifically tell what it means. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that Chad and Chandy should be following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm just try convinced this Chandy user (and also I knew from weeks ago that the user's name is definitely mock my username), just accept it and move on its not that hard if it just go to the official church's website to go the "Heritage" page that I was right, but still it (and its log-off clones of anonymous users who likely the same person, during the previous edit war) can't accepted regardless the evidence its on it's face. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately your English is hard to understand. Are you producing it using a mechanical translator? EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm suffer from

Autistic Spectrum Disorder [in its worst state right now] for the occasional bad grammar, unlike that User I guess, but I just send out a request at dispute resolution noticeboard just now. Chad The Goatman (talk

) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately your report at WP:DRN is also hard to understand. If this is the best you can do, you may not get a favorable response. Do you know any other user who is also interested in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church who might help you draft some posts? Or, can you write in Malayalam? We have an article on the church at ml:മാർത്തോമ്മാ_സഭ. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately, this is best I can; and no I don't either speak or write Malayalam, but I do occasionally speak and mildly write native French due of my disability; as my technically semi-second language. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I closed the

the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk

) 21:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Chad i did not try to mock your name. In this part of world we call ourselves with our family name. Chandy is my surname and i am from Pakalomattam. I donot have any issues to discuss the matter for dispute resulution (Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

• Dean Winchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this page is again being vandalized (you locked it up back in August 30th) now that it's again opened, though the last change was done a couple of days ago, I wouldn't rule out happening again. Thank you. DarthJenny (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please link to the vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed; When I edited the "Evil Dead Trap" wiki article, I merely transposed the sentence that said "The film released internationally as Evil Dead Trap 3: Broken Love Killer has no connection plotwise to the two earlier films" from the wikipedia article that already existed on wikipedia about "Evil Dead Trap 3". (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Dead_Trap_3:_Broken_Love_Killer). That information was already in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article, I didn't come up with that information. I just transposed the sentence over to the "Evil Dead Trap" article, that's all I did. I assumed if that fact had been in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article for such a long period of time, it was apparently considered accurate or else it would have been removed. I thought the info already in the wiki articles was considered accurate, so I just transposed it into the other article. But I realize I shouldn't have done that now. I was just trying to give the three articles a little unity, that's all, just to kind of tie them together a little more.68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm moving your comment to the archives, since we have had the discussion already at User talk:68.129.15.71. Please continue there if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)