User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 12

IP disrupting again
He's at it again, just so you know. S. D. D.J.Jameson 12:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is it okay with you if I leave all further notifications of disruption from this IP at your talkpage? S. D. D.J.Jameson 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but now that the case is documented at WP:AN, you might be able to get AIV to handle this editor in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My only concern there is that since it's subtle vandalism/disruption, AIV might not deal with it quickly. S. D. D.J.Jameson 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

editwar at 2-step garage
Hi Ed, and thanks for some much-needed admin action at the article. I'd ask you to have a look at the following:
 * User talk:Yaneleksklus
 * Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus (3rd)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)
 * There are some anon IPs he's also using at WP:SSP.
 * There are some anon IPs he's also using at WP:SSP.

This user is not a vandal. He just WILL NOT stop IP- (and recently, user-) socking or attempt to reach consensus in any manner. He's a recurrent headache for maintainers of various music genre articles. --Kaini (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an update, the user is blocked now. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was an IP range block applied too, as there has been in the past with this guy, cos he will be back. --Kaini (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Need a complete list of all the IPs you think he has used. If you know them, can you add them to the sockpuppet report? I assume we need a block that is some flavor of 82.209.*, but that is a /16 which is a very large range. Need to pin it down better. I'll be back in a few hours, or maybe another admin will notice the SSP and take some action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, this time round, on the articles he's been involved with which i actively maintain, we have
 * i do know that he's been causing a headache to User:RockandDiscoFanCZ as well, which also gives me
 * as a potential.
 * bar the last one, they're all on WP:SSP. seems to be a belarus-based IP (and the source he's using for most of his edits is a russian one with very questionable WP:RS). thanks for your attention ed! --Kaini (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and he's back under --Kaini (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 82.209.208.0/22 for one week. I'm going to submit 121.9.230.162 as a possible open proxy over at WP:OP to see what they think. Reverse DNS on that IP leads to this result which includes a report of some domains that are on a spam blacklist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bar the last one, they're all on WP:SSP. seems to be a belarus-based IP (and the source he's using for most of his edits is a russian one with very questionable WP:RS). thanks for your attention ed! --Kaini (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and he's back under --Kaini (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 82.209.208.0/22 for one week. I'm going to submit 121.9.230.162 as a possible open proxy over at WP:OP to see what they think. Reverse DNS on that IP leads to this result which includes a report of some domains that are on a spam blacklist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

hi ed, hello again. before raising concerns again at SSP i'd like your opinion on yet more anon edits. without direct evidence, the fact the editor is only involved in articles yanelek authored, and mostly removing clarify tags and the like, what do you reckon? ,.

the second one could be an entirely innocent driveby anon edit for all i know. the first one however looks to be from the same region. as always thank you for your attention. --Kaini (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino - User:Gravoso
Hi Ed. You asked me to keep you posted if Ragusino set up any socks. Well, User:Gravoso appeared yesterday. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black!

Debona.michel (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

House of Bunić/Bona
Hello Ed, There seems to be an edit war brewing again. Look at revision history []. Correct sources and references are repeatedly being ignored. I address this in the talk page but correct edits just get reverted with a claim of being unsourced. I admit that I am a relatively new editor and I have taken the time to read through Wikipedia policy, but I do not understand why sources are being ignored in this manner. Best regardsCaboga (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits do not make sense. I've already expressed my views on the Talk page; evidently you don't find my arguments convincing. I still think this article should be nominated for deletion. Please don't edit war, because that is bad for the encyclopedia and could lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how a edit that involves correcting an incorrect name with respective sources and references cited does not make sense. I am following Wikipedia policy for these edits. So according to your above reply does that mean that edits that do not follow Wikipedia policy make more sense? Secondly look at the Talk page and you will see that I agreed with your views and article nomination. Lets go on and nominate all other pages relating to Ragusan noble families for deletion as they also only have genealogical content. Third I agree that edit warring is not good. I think the degree of edit warring on these pages is too high, too many editors edit with no sources whatsoever. So absolutely the quality of Wikipedia becomes questionable. Further as a new editor I joined in good faith to constructively improve the quality of articles/pages I worked on. Unfortunately I rarely encountered a welcoming tone or neutrality or good faith as is laid down by Wikipedia policy.Caboga (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your work on this article seems to form part of an ethnic edit war on Dalmatian topics. If you truly have good intentions, please reflect on how it looks to others when you revert the Croatian names to Italian ones. I did not notice you waiting to get a Talk page consensus before doing that. The sources now in the article are weak, but the probabilities suggest heavy use of the Croatian names over the last several hundred years. This is the type of problem that is sometimes reported at Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your comment seems to be biased. I am reverting to hereditary surnames that Croatian families are still using in Croatia as their legal surnames. This is documented in the sources I reference. The sources I reference are sources used by Croatian as well as international scholars and institutions. Please bear in mind that the names are not Italian. In Croatia there are a lot of families that also have foreign sounding names. Unfortunately there are editors who wish to provoke an edit war and edit without sources or consensus.  Please reflect how it looks to others when legal surnames are repeatedly changed. Thank you for your reference to the Noticeboard, but I do not see how a legal surname is an issue for an ethnic and cultural conflict noticeboard.Caboga (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The quality of the sources has already been discussed at Talk:House of Bunić/Bona. You don't seem to have persuaded the other editors there that the sources are convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you seem very naive and/or easily influenced. Based on what you wrote above ("Italian names") it certainly shows you know very little about Dubrovnik's history. Are you American or Croatian? Who is backing you? I hope you are not in the category of Americans who think that Africa is a COUNTRY (Hello Sarah Palin!), that Switzerland's official language is Swiss (or even Swedish), that Scandinavia is a country, etc.

If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way. Emile Zola.

Debona.michel (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23
I did one better--I full-protected his talk page. Not sure if simply turning off his ability to edit his own talk page would have been enough, given that he appears to still be socking it up (see Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts). Blueboy96 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv and Threshold (online game)
Hmm. I went looking for the COIN entry about that article earlier, when I was researching prior to editing, but couldn't find it. Thanks for posting the link to the archive - no wonder.

There's a few odd comments and things from Mendaliv, though, that will perhaps explain why there's an edit war. "While I'm confident that I have no personal agenda, the IP will never see it that way." - who ever dares to boast that he's unbiased? There's been a major war on between Mendaliv, who is a disgruntled ex-player of Threshold who wants to bury it as hard as he can, and the administration of Threshold itself. Unfortunately, the Threshold admin has been the one posting with inflammatory edit summaries and other bad practices.

I am a Threshold RPG player myself, and have been trying to bring some semblance of order to the debate. Most of the material that is under dispute is actually fine imho, but it's being argued over as a matter of form and procedure. Mendaliv has been factually wrong in a few cases ("64.253.96.96 ... resolves to the subject's web server (see "Primordiax" in Frogdice)" as stated on the COIN entry - that IP does not resolve to anything, and the mere fact that a certain name resolves to an IP means little - a large number of people, completely unrelated to me, may well send mail from the same IP address that www.rosuav.com resolves to), and has mainly been playing the procedures rather than actually discussing content (in which, admittedly, the Threshold admin hasn't been helping, by falling majorly foul of Wikipedia procedures). Yes, I am not a disinterested party; but someone who truly has no bias or selfinterest in this sort of matter is unlikely to know what is and isn't significant.

There are two very obvious sides in the argument. On the one hand, you have User:Mendaliv, who desperately wants to bury something he hates. On the other, the non-logged-in Threshold administration, who wants to see his game publicized. (That sounds a GROSS oversimplification, but unfortunately it's not far from the truth.) Neither side is right, and it needs a Solomon in judgement to sort things out. Since you've taken an interest in the matter, can I please beg you to read through the various edits and make one restorative edit that you feel can be justified? I tried to do that with my most recent edit, but Mendaliv seems to have the article on his revertlist, err I mean watchlist. I've tried and failed; maybe it's time for me to step back and let someone else.

Thanks for your help. The more calm third parties that get involved, the better.

Rosuav (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page
I've logged into Wikipedia after a long time and find that you deleted Hombre Suburbano because it was a "Non-notable album". I understand that amlost any type of music in a language other than english is not successfull in the United States. I don't know it there have been any policy changes in Wikipedia, but I remember there used to be a rule against anglo-american bias. The band that recorded this album is not only remembered in Argentina, but it influenced rock music in Latinamerica too. The Band's leader, Norberto Napolitano, supported bands like La Renga, V8, Memphis, Viejas Locas. He played a lot of times with Steve Vai and brought Guns n' Roses to Buenos Aires. The google search Pappo|"norberto napolitano" (either his name or his nickname) throws half a milion results. That means that one every 60 argentinians has made a website in his honour, or that his importance goes beyond his country. Pappo died 3 years ago and he already has a monument in the Capital city. (pictures here). —Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish, the article Hombre Suburbano can be undeleted and considered at AfD. It is unlikely to survive there because it was nothing more than a track listing. (It did link to one reference). The musician himself is clearly notable. Note the caution expressed in WP:MUSIC: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. The article on Norberto Napolitano already contains a track listing for that album. If you have the patience to locate some reliable sources that have commented specifically on Hombre Suburbano, then there's no reason to hesitate in creating a new article. If you can do this, I suggest you begin work in your user space at User:Argentino/Hombre Suburbano and go from there. The reference you found about the park containing his statue could be added to his main article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Koov 3
. Colchicum (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm watching. Don't see any reverts yet, and most of his changes seem to be innocuous. His user name is suggestive, though. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one revert so far, note the removal of "Asia" from the template; typical Koov giveaway. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rohlb has been blocked indef by Nishkid64. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Carl Hewitt edits
Your protection of the logic programming article has had the effect of protecting the Hewitt edits themselves. This does not seem to be what you intended. Or is it? 158.232.3.65 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As soon as protection is removed from the logic programming article, an anonymous editor adds references to Hewitt's work. The page is then protected again, but Hewitt's edits remain. The overall effect is to prevent other anonymous editors from removing Hewitt's banned editing. Is this the intention of the protection? Or merely an unintended result? 85.3.123.102 (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which Hewitt papers should be removed, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The following references were added (and unintentionally protected) when the general protection was removed from the article and before the protection was restored. In further reading: Carl Hewitt. The repeated demise of logic programming and why it will be reincarnated What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications. Technical Report SS-06-08. AAAI Press. March 2006. Revised version in Middle History of Logic Programming: Resolution, Planner, Prolog and the Japanese Fifth Generation Project.

In general introductions: Carl Hewitt Development of Logic Programming: What went wrong, What was done about it, and What it might mean for the future Proceedings of What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications Mehmet Göker and Daniel Shapiro editors. AAAI Press. 2008. Revised version in A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing: The paradigm shift from "inconsistency denial" to "semantic integration".

In my opinion the references should be removed because they are polemics, rather than scholarly articles. 158.232.3.65 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Threshold again
Hi Ed, sorry to bother you about this again, but I don't want to get pushed deeper into a revert war. Cambios, the COI-affected editor I'd mentioned at COIN previously, has seen fit to revert my prior revert to Threshold (online game) and Frogdice, saying that he's "adding sources", etc. and making personal attacks in his edit summary. As I said, I don't want to get drawn into a revert war, so I haven't reverted his most recent reverts. Any suggestions or actions you can give, I'd appreciate greatly. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you would discuss in more detail at Talk:Threshold (online game). While the work of User:Cambios is on the border of edit-warring, Rosuav seems to be working in good faith. You have already left some messages describing the problem, at WP:COIN for instance, but they were quite general and full of policy initials. Maybe you can break it down to something more specific. If a disagreement persists between good-faith editors, an WP:RFC may be considered. If Cambios continues to revert without joining in discussion, he may be subject to sanctions. But first there needs to be a discussion, and that's something you could begin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that. Thanks for helping out here! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be quite frank, I find it ironic that Mendaliv makes reference to WP:TEND - most of what HE is doing falls under that heading, to a far greater extent than what I or Cambios has been. In the interests of avoiding editwar, I am going to refrain from editing that page for a few days. Hopefully everything will cool down. Rosuav (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is better to deal with specifics. Mendaliv has now itemized some of the problems he perceives at Talk:Threshold (online game). It is possible he is wrong about some of them, but if you don't join that discussion, we're never going to find out. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd like to continue discussing things at Talk:Threshold (online game), only Cambios is actively participating. And that's been to mostly engage in personal attacks. I don't think anything productive is going on, and all that's happened is he's used his willingness to edit war to force a result. I'm sorry to bother you again with this, but as you've already been involved, I'd rather not be seen as forumshopping. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Physician assistant
It's the same stupid edit war at Physician assistant again. The edit war resumed almost instantly after semi-protection expired. We've made some progress with User:Nomad2u001, but we're losing ground with User:News4a2, who is determined to push his(?) POV despite the clear and (IMO) logical opposition on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (who is watching your talk page for a few days in case you want to reply here)
 * I've been away, and I haven't been following the recent edits. There has been a thread at ANI. It seems that Nishkid64 has full-protected the article. Contact him for any further admin actions at Physician assistant. Consider opening up an article WP:RFC at Talk:Physician assistant if you have an intractable disagreement with News4a2. I don't find his comments in the ANI thread very convincing. If you believe that News4a2's contributions are Original Research you could post a question at the No original research/noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John Zachman claims copyright on a figure you added at Zachman framework
Hi Ed.

I wonder if you could take an other look at the problem you proposed to me, maybe even find a American Wikipedia copyright expert to look at this case. I prefer to start all over again, and that is why I start this conversation on your talk page. I hope you don't mind. It is all about the two events:


 * 1) As we know we are talking about the Image:VA_Zachman_Framework.jpg, which I retrieved from the A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework on the va.gov website, and.
 * 2) User:Phogg2 has send an email stating Zachman didn't release copyright on that image.

Now I have the following questions:
 * The Tutorial is released by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in the public domain, because it doesn't mention any existing copyright. Did I do the right thing using an image from this source, or not?
 * User:Phogg2 or even better Zachman himself should have contacted the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and that Tutorial should have been changed first, or not?. It is the wrong procedure to contact us, or not?
 * There is no prove Zachman owned the copyright on that particulair image in that tutorial in the first place. The Tutorial doesn't state it's author. It only gives the logo of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on every presentation sheet. So we could asume it is in the public domain, or not?

I removed the image rigth away from the article, the moment you contacted me. But I removed this out of a courtesy towards you and towards User:Phogg2, and indirect towards Zachman.

Now just tonight I realized there has been quit some disagrement around the Zachman Framework article, and you have been giving directions on the talk page for almost a year. I guess you agree that this article would improve with a good illustration. I think we shouldn't give up that image so easily, but check things first some more. So I would be gratefull if you could check this once more with a Wikipedia copyright expert.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to ask this question at Media copyright questions. I don't see too much point, because it seems more likely that the author of the VA slideshow was not paying much attention to the copyrights of his figures. (I.e. I assume he did not check that he had the rights to republish them). If he were just showing his presentation in-house it might not matter, but when it goes on the web, it is more significant. It seems that Zachman was the original creator of this image, and the question is whether he has delegated to the U.S. govt the right to republish his image. You can send an email to the author of the presentation if you want. We are aware that some government web sites contain images that are not the work of the U.S. Government, and a disclaimer to that effect does occasionally appear. See also Public domain. Generally we need to determine where the work came from, and show that the rights are clear for our use. So the fact that the VA author may not have checked carefully, doesn't let us off the hook. It is not plausible that the VA author created the image himself. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks I guess your are right all the way, and I checked once more with similair images on the web. I noticed this particular image is present on several websites. I just now realize, the author of the tutorial probably only changed the text on the top right/left corner, which has confused me. All other graphics seems the same in the images on those websites... It is most likely that Zachman is the author. Ok, thanks.... I agree, this image should be removed.


 * One other thing is that we can assume the author of the tutorial is not Zachman. I have tried to find that author, and the mentioning of the presentation on the va.gov website, with no luck so far. And not without reason. It is, I think, an excellent tutorial, which I would like to use. I uploaded an other image File:Zachman Framework Rows.jpg retrieved from that tutorial an hour ago. I do think this is an original image by the tutorial author. But maybe we can check this with User:Phogg2 first before I start using this image...!? What do you think?


 * -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't respond, so I just introduced that other File:Zachman Framework Rows.jpg image in the John Zachman article. If it is not ok, I guess we will be hearing from User:Phogg2 or somebody else soon enough. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have received a response by Phogg2 on my talkpage, and I don´t know how to respons. It seems important to me that this article is illustrated with an image that gives a good impression of the Zachman Framework, but has no copyright issues. It seems only logical that this image isn´t an exact copy of the original, other wise it would be a copyright violantion. This way it seems impossible to get this article illustrated. Exact copies have copyright issues and original illustrations have the esthetical and moral problems towards Zachman? Could a fair use (copy) image of the orginal be an option? Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaneleksklus and sockpuppetry, revisited
hi ed, hello again. before raising concerns again at SSP i'd like your opinion on yet more anon edits. without direct evidence, the fact the editor is only involved in articles yanelek authored, and mostly removing clarify tags and the like, what do you reckon? 



the last one could be an entirely innocent driveby anon edit for all i know. the other two however look to be from the same region. as always thank you for your attention. --Kaini (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No edits since 19 December. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * hey ed, hope you had a good christmas. i have an odd feeling that this is your open proxy again. all the anon has done is speedied four articles Yaneleksklus was involved with. now, the knowledge of how to speedy would imply previous usage of wiki, and the text in his prods is very similar to yanelek's russian english in editing articles. one of the articles, UK garage is actually pretty good.
 * - geolocates to china. anyway, happy new year to you too :) --Kaini (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - geolocates to china. anyway, happy new year to you too :) --Kaini (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Query on Copyrighted Material
Hi Ed, You seem to be well versed in WP policies so I'm hoping you could point me in the right direction here. I have not had much success in locating pages specific to WP policy on uploading journal articles. I can only seem to find documentation pertaining to images.

I have a scanned .pdf of a peer reviewed document which is not available from the journal online. If permissible I would like to upload it for the benefit of all.

I notice in some articles, whole chapters of books have been uploaded to WP, but as I cannot yet locate the policy addressing these materials, I would rather play it safe and refrain from uploading any such items until I can resolve this question. Can you please give me an idea on what the go is there or direct me to the appropriate pages to read up on?

PS. If I do not hear from you before Xmas, Merry Christmas!

Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually you can ask questions like this over at Media copyright questions. In this case it's fairly obvious that the PDF is not released under GFDL, so it's not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia. In any case uploading the PDF, even if it was free, is not generally approved of. It is better to provide a link, since that way our servers are not burdened. Under fair use (per US laws) you are allowed to summarize what is said in the journal article, and to quote short excerpts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I figured as much. Thanks for the link too. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Page merge
Hi Ed,

Sorry for what might seam to be silly questions. I have noticed that there are two Regio Esercito pages; link1, link1. These two combined with Italian Army seam will ultimately result in much duplication. A merge could be justified.. Can you please tell me where I can find the procedure on recommending this officially?

Plus is there a search page for wikipedia tools? I would like to be able to search for pages on tools that I do not yet know the names and to also do things like create my own userboxes. SincerelyRomaioi (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is straightforward to merge or link the articles, but you should hold a merge discussion first. Why don't you develop some proposed alternatives for how to do the merge, present them on the article Talk page for discussion, and then post on WT:MILHIST asking for people to join the discussion? Regarding places to search for Wikipedia tools, you could get started at EIW. If you have a specific need, you could ask at WP:VPT if anyone knows of something to solve it. For Userboxes, see Userboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. Seams simple enough. I like the idea of a discussion so that agreement can be reached. I will put it on my to-do list. Its about 6th in line at the moment. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

121.9.230.162
I can't say for certain if it's an open proxy or not. I've got some interesting results in my Nmap scan, but I can't make heads or tails of it. I'd recommend you contact for a proxy check. He's far more competent at checking for proxies than I am. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

D'Alembert's Paradox again
Ed, User:Egbertus is back to his old schtick. He is literally repeating the same remarks and engaging in the same inclusion of material. He hasn't learned a thing. I've reverted him once, and that (and) this is about all the time I'm going to put into this. I don't know what the protocol is, so I leave it up to you to block him again or warn him first or whatever. --C S (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally someone would write up the problematic editing and post it at WT:WPM, so that mathematicians get a chance to comment. I agree that he does not seem to be interested in consensus, and I would understand if your patience has been exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) . He has reverted again. I'll offer him the chance to undo his own edit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He has dismissed your offer. I don't think he's learned a thing.  --C S (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Egbertus has not modified the article since I left him the notice on 14 December. If he edits again, I'll take another look. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in spending time reverting him, and neither is anyone else (one of the math admins even said this in effect to me privately), since none of us are keen on the real life version of Egbertus harassing or making trouble for us. Currently his version stands.  Unless you have anything new on this situation to say to me on this matter, this is the last you or anybody else will hear from me on this matter.  The responsibility of this matter rests in your hands.  --C S (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I had thought the link was out of the article. I see now that he added the link on December 14, and refused to remove it in a later posting. Since he rejected the proposed deal under which he could continue to edit if he would stop adding his work to our articles, he is blocked indef. 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


David WS (contribs)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy holidays! David WS (contribs)  19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Thanks for your feedback! I've replied here since your comment didn't relate specifically to BLP so I didn't think I should use that board to continue the discussion. The Organization FAQ does seem to limit what the company I'm thinking of starting can do, but I also think the FAQ is overly restrictive - it goes a long way beyond the COI guidelines as they stand now, and is fairly impractical. I'm sure you know how (in)effective posting things on the talk page and saying 'someone should do something' usually is. I understand why people are reluctant to specifically allow this kind of thing - its not particularly in keeping with the original vision of Wikipedia and the majority of COI edits are crap - but the reality is that people do and will edit on behalf of bosses, clients, friends etc regardless of what policy is. It seems to make more sense to encourage such people to be open about what they're up to rather than limit it to the sneaky and/or incompetent, which is essentially what is happening now.

In terms of the details of the business, I haven't worked them out yet - I thought I would find out what kind of thing is okay first, then go from there. I would make sure that any info which I added could be verified by other editors. You seemed to be under the impression that I would be pasting text given to me by my clients, which I'm well aware would be a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons. Instead I would probably get them to give me copies of newspaper articles and things like that and I would work from them, with references to official websites for totally non controversial stuff. I'm fully aware I would need to be really careful with pretty much every edit I made.

I hope you're wrong about people liking the ambiguity - it undermines the whole point of guidelines if people aren't given clear guidance and can't point to them to settle disputes. --Helenalex (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to add to what I said at WT:BLP, except that you've publicized your question very widely, and it is not necessary to find further places to ask it. By insisting on a change to WP:COI you asking people to do more work than simply to advise on the propriety of your business, and that may reduce the responses. If you are not close to actually doing anything, you might want to wait before giving people this task. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaneleksklus Strikes Back!
Hello, I don't want to bother you in this wonderful time of (post-)christmas, but there had appeared a little problem with some user...
 * 93 84 50 100 & 81 20 173 65; these (probably) sock-puppets of Yaneleksklus had appear on Template of disco infobox and there he starts to vandalising. Can you please check it if these IPs are really sock puppets of Yaneleksklus? Thank you very much. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the 93.84 editor one month. The other IP has just one one edit and may not be currently active. If the abuse continues, maybe you can provide a list of his typical targets and we can start semi-protecting them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to have a look here - the IP was blocked as an open proxy. --Kaini (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been following that. The China Telecom IP 121.9.211.166 was found via Google search on a website listing open proxies but I didn't verify its proxiness myself. The IP was later blocked by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * is IP 93.141.24.216 related in any way, or perhaps its some other sock being disruptive? dif to disruptive edit. Romaioi (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 93.141 IP is from Croatia, not Belarus, so is not likely to be Yaneleksklus. Nobody has left any vandal warnings yet for this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Headspinning confusion
There's also this page User talk:Savabubbles. I think the user's talk page was redirected to there for a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's confusing. Let's try to get Savabubble to respond before deleting his new User talk and moving back the old one. There is no reason for him to eliminate the edit history of his Talk page. His recent behavior in article space looks like move warring, and he could be sanctioned for that if he won't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dylan0513's unblock request
Thanks a lot for informing me. I have left a comment here. Your opinion would be appreciated. Best wishes, —  Aitias  // discussion 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say thanks for your input there. Great teamwork. :) Thank you. —  Aitias  // discussion 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino Part... something
Hi Ed, remember the indeffed User:Ragusino (IP 19*.**.**.**)? Well, as was to be expected, he did not give up. After the pages he edit-warred over got semi-protected, he simply moved on. Anyway, you advised me to give you a heads up on your talk if he ever got back to his old tricks. Boy did he ever... A link is worth a thousand words, have a look at these articles: I know, its incredible: its like all this guy does is revert all day, I'm not even sure I remembered all the articles just now... To top it all off, he's been posting personal attacks and "detective work" concerning my identity on talkpages of nearly all these articles (and on House of de Kaboga/Caboga). Also, the changing IP 151.**.**.** (undoubtedly) belongs to User:Luigi 28 (i.e. User:PIO), another banned Italian nationalist. The two have more than likely been "conspiring" to destabilize articles on itWiki, and are working together. All I know is something has to be done: these guys are not likely to give up. Would appreciate any help. All the best in 2009 :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Zadar
 * Bombing of Zadar in World War II
 * Dalmatian Italians
 * House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi (esp. the talkpage)
 * House of Gundulić/Gondola
 * House of Bondić/Bonda
 * House of Pucić
 * List of Ragusans
 * Brno Kabudžić
 * Autonomist Party (this one was already semi-protected by User:B, but the protection expired and I fear a longer period is warranted)
 * Antonio Bajamonti
 * I've done the semi-protections. Ask again about Autonomist Party if the problem continues after B's protection expires. Many of the 'House of..' articles look like they wouldn't satisfy WP:N or WP:V. Do you think they could be improved or should I try WP:PROD? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of the Houses, like Gundulić/Gondola, Sorkočević/Sorgo, and Getaldić/Ghetaldi are indeed notable, and their articles should be improved, not deleted. On the other hand, others truly do not satisfy WP:N... Frankly, its tough to make the distinction and draw the line. But then, deleting them all would surely be a mistake. Btw, sorry for the sock posts, I took the liberty of removing them. Well, I'm off to the party, hope you're having fun :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision song of Hadise
Hi! Could you move Düm Tek Tek (Hadise song) to Düm Tek Tek? Because there is only one song called Düm Tek Tek. Thanks! Happy new year! -- Turkish Flame   ☎  08:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Turkish Flame. The name of the article has already been changed three times in the last 24 hours! It has already been at Düm Tek Tek once but somebody claimed that was not the official title. Please open a discussion at Talk:Düm Tek Tek (Hadise Song) about what the permanent name should be. After consensus is reached, ask me again to change the name or request it at WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll open a discussion and then request for move. Thanks! -- Turkish Flame   ☎  17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Barba Nane
EdJohnston, we have a user, User:Barba Nane, reverting my removal of Ragusino's alleged personal information in an apparent attempt to WP:HARASS me. He's also been sporting this information on his talk for quite a while. Likely we're dealing with a sockpuppet Ragusino's been using to avoid your semi-protection. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was supporting User:Luigi_28, banned for an evident error, restoring his edits as mine. I don't know Ragusino and I will no more restore his edits (that was a misunderstanding of mine). User DIREKTOR put a sockpuppet's tag in my personal page: this is a against the rules. He is just allowed to report his concerns, but not to put tags. I ask you to examine Luigi28's block. I have indisputable evidences he is not a PIO'sockpuppet. I.E. two checkusers: one in En_Wiki and one in IT Wiki. Luigi28 was blocked by an administrator, ignoring a previous checkuser. He did an error, I suppose the good faith, but it was an error. Please, contact me and I will provide all the possible evidences. Best regards.--Barba Nane (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that Barba Nane has been indef blocked, so I won't be looking into this any further. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just another obvious sock of User:PIO/Luigi 28, sry to have troubled you unnecessarily. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, please check first before you open your mouth. --Flow man (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I support you
I support you -- Supguyy (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that you've got a group of vandals (Supguyy, EdJohnston mf, Jacky90, Flow man) targeting your userpage. I've blocked the lot. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Troy86 and his Sockpuppet
Hi, I got your message. I have no problem putting my Skanter-Troy86 conclusion in Suspected sock puppets/Troy86. I think Troy86 is trying to ruin the investigated b/c in the Arab Argentine article, I removed an unimportant group which an IP address, then one of his suspected sockpuppets (Cup22) put back which I undid , and then a user called User:JustBeingSkanter undid my edit. He is trying to paint himself as Skanter. I think Troy86 looked at my response in CaliforniaAliBaba's Talk Page. I will add both the IP address and the faux-Skanter in the suspected sock puppets page. If you need any more help, you can ask me anytime. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Collateral damage from Angelo de la Paz block
Thanks for the pointer. How/where did you find the number? I followed the URL you supplied, but it gave the following "Error: Block ID 1267715 not found. It may have been unblocked already." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, somebody must have undone the autoblock already! I don't know how to figure out who did that. Whenever I have a question about autoblocks, I ask Gwen Gale! Or, you can always leave a big request accepted banner on the guy's talk page and then see if he can edit again. Generally if the user fills out the 'unblock-auto' template correctly he will be feeding you back the autoblockid that he saw in the message he got from Mediawiki when he tried to edit. If you search for 'Block ID' on User_talk:Sanada Yuki-kun you will see the number. Not that this is explained anywhere in the documents.. :-) EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry I was confused and did not realize you got the block number from his talk page.  I thought you found it via the autoblock search ... and I could not figure out what I was doing wrong since my search turned up nothing.  Apparently however the autoblock had already expired, which is why the search did not yield results.  Thanks for your help!  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we are pursuing this as a true mystery, we still don't know. You blocked Angelo for only 12 hours, but autoblocks are always for 24 hours, if I understand correctly. So the autoblock should not expire until 03:00 UTC on 7 January, which is still in the future. Or maybe it is 24 hours from the first time someone tries to edit on the underlying IP. There is a story at WP:Autoblock. It would be more convenient if Special:Ipblocklist had a button to display only autoblocks. Once autoblocks are gone, it is hard to find out anything about them. (Even rangeblocks have a block history!). EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You made a 24-hour block on this user yesterday afternoon, after they edit warred at Fibromyalgia. Now, they anonymous IP is engaging in wiki-hounding here. They have no interest in editing Syracuse University, and it was an intentional bad edit (duplicating information). Also, there appears to be a relationship between User:Dr. Anymouse and the anonymous editor per WP:RFCU. This crap drives me crazy around here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, are you suggesting I do an SSP? Or is someone else handling it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait and see what happens at Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr. Anymouse. If there is no objection, a 3-month block of the IP anon-only might be considered. (With an invitation to create an account). One catch is to show collusion. The two roommates share a point of view, they have edited articles together (without mentioning the relationship, which is bad), but I don't know if they have been in 3RRs together or if they have pretended to hold independent views. Editors at Talk:Fibromyalgia appear to be hip to the situation, so they are not deceived. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the IP block is causing him some problems. You might want to check out User talk:Dr. Anymouse.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake, I did not check the 'anon-only' box. I hope it is fixed now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

136.8.5.100
Just FYI: I think this IP address is a dynamic IP, which would explain the mix of good and bad edits. I think this is true because the WHOIS report contains the initials DNS in the "nameserver" field, which, supposdly, means "dynamic network somethingorother."

If you reply, please put at my talkpage.--Call me Bubba (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

threshold afd
Does it not matter that the AFD was closed one day too soon? Five days is a policy just like being able to discount canvassed editors comments. Why hold to one and not the other? --Theblog (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many AfDs are being closed in less than 5 days as a routine matter. This has been discussed at WP:AN. You could complain about it there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, I have done so. --Theblog (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:16, January 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Man who runs with wolves
Thanks for your help. I started to do a request at whitelist, but there seem to be other sources. I'm not really sure why that one was worth edit warring over. I'm going to look into using other sources and discuss with one of the other editors to see what the story is. Thanks for your help, it's been interesting and a learning experience. Happy editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of linking to the cache was a way to get around the spam factor. But it seems a little contrived, even for me, and I tend to err on the side of marginal links when they improve the encyclopedia. The content doesn't seem very good anyway. Sorry for distracting you, but I learned about a new board... So many to keep track of! Glad you're on top of it.  :) Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a 3rr report regarding the Korean article and I think you handled that one too. I just put up an ANI report on an apparent SPA doing reversion on that same article. If you want to check it out and or advise me on the appropriate approach (I'm kind of new on all the procedures and try to steer clear of trouble generally), your input is welcome. If you're doing something more fun and interesting, no worries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since someone has put semi-protection on Korean cuisine, I trust this issue is moot. I'm not eager to get any more involved with that article that I already am. Still, I'm pleased that the discussion is as calm as it is there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Milton and Wayne
Thanks for posting that diff by Wayne! Both of them reference "aspergers" which makes the connection more than obvious. Good accidental work! :-D Scarian  Call me Pat!  02:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 2
Also could you protect Template:Foreign relations of Romania? -- Turkish Flame   ☎  06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been handled. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

164.58.212.202
Re: Suspected sock puppets/164.58.212.202

Belated thanks. It turns out that the RFCU process (and NishiKid) resolved the matter. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WorldFacts
I've acctually reported him on the notice board (As he is now on 5 reverts over 24 hours and he received a 3RR warning last month) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet JayJG is left alone to continue his one woman crusade for truth and justice. Give me a break. Give Worldfacts the proper respect he deserves.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we need much more evidence that this chap is just a meat puppet? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is that ? Because I simply support the efforts of this editor and am not afraid to call you all out on being unfair and acting in consort against him ? You act more like meat puppets than anyone. Give me a break.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

USS LIberty
I have had tons of discussions on the USS Liberty incident. It is you who have not done your fair share of research. You appear to be acting like a meat puppet jumping at Narson and/or Jayjg's commands.

In order to assist you, let me reprint one discussion where an attempt to reach a consensus is made. See USS LIberty incident - Archive 4 for a plethora of discussion.

Discussions we have had a plenty, success in giving the Moorer Report it's rightful place on the web page is what is missing. At the time this attempt at consensus was written, we had already been discussing the entry for 2 months.

USS Liberty - Consensus - Summary of Issues

On this day, November 11, 2008, Veterans day, it seems most appropriate to analyse the 2 months or so of debate concerning the inclusion of contents from the Moorer Report into the USS Liberty incident Wikipedia Page. During these 2 months there has been a great deal of debate as the appropriateness of this entry. Having sat out on the side lines to allow others to discuss the subject of the Moorer Reports appropriateness I now take it upon myself to summarize the various points made and how those of you who chose to comment on this Subject are leaning, thus attempting to define a consensus.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Words in Italics were inserted by me to add clarity, or to correct spelling.

One issue below is generalized as: "Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page." This issue is derived from the following:

Has any news firm of repute picked up the Moorer report? They might have included a synopsis that we can reference and write a brief summary of the report citing that? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

also

What you want to look for, WorldFacts, is reliable secondary sources that speak about the report....--Narson ~ Talk • 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also

We're asking for credible secondary sources to support your proposed edit to include the Moorer Inquiry at an appropriate level. Where are they? Justin talk 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

also

PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue then, is: Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page. My response to this is simple:

a) The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry entry makes no reference to a third party source. This record is allowed to stand on it's own. b) The Joint Chief of Staff's Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own. c) The Clark Cliffod Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own. d) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony makes no reference to a third party source. This testimonry is allowed to stand on it's own. e) The House Armed Services Committee Investigation makes no reference to a third party Source. This investigation is allowed to stand on it's own. f) The NSA History Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own.

Therefore, the notion that the Moorer Report must have a third party source as a prerequisite to inclusion on the USS Liberty incident page is a non sequitur. None of the reports above have a third party source, I fail to see why the Moorer report requires one.

The Joint Chief of Staff's Report does have a reference, somewhat, in that it references an article in the Daily Star, January 21, 2004. However, this article was written by Admiral Moorer himself. This reference is in the USS Liberty incident "Other Sources" list of links. It contradicts comments by both users Jayjg and Justin. These comments are:

PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

and

This is ridiculous, your secondary source is an editorial written by Moorer himself in the Houston Chronicle. WP:RS calls for INDEPENDENT sources not something written by the author himself. Justin talk 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

The link to this article has not been removed by either of the afore mentioned Wikipedia users. Yet, my attempts to use articles written by Admiral Moorer draw comments such as the two above.

The contradictions coming from those who wish to exclude the Moorer Report are extraordinary indeed!

Another issue which has been raised is "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."

This issue is derived from the following:

Perhaps a solution is to add two sub-sections the "American Investigations" sub-section and title them "Government Investigations" and "Non-Government Investigations" respectively, or otherwise make it abundantly clear that the Moorer Commission was an independent, private citizen group; i.e., NOT a USG sanctioned commission.Ken (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also

I changed the title of both the American and Israeli investigations sub-sections to include the word "government" to classify the type of investigations each sub-section contains.Of course, this does not prevent somebody from adding a new sub-section for a different class of investigations, but it may help prevent misunderstanding about the type of investigations and reports contained in the current two sections.Ken (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the latter comment above, I actually created a third category, Independent American Investigations, and added my entry. As usual, these were removed, even when it satisfied the request by Ken above. My attempt at WP:AGF.

Also,

The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's or Bamford's books are. We don't list their work as "investigations" either. If there's anything of value in the report, work it into the body of the text. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is in error on this count. In the Houston Chronicle, on January 9th, 2004, Thomas Moorer explains the purpose of the Moorer Report. In this article, Admiral Moorer says: "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ". So, the Moorer Report was the result of an 'exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records". It was clearly an investigation. Note also the phrase: "we presented our findings on Capital Hill." These are the Congressional Record references I have referenced which are currently considered invalid references. But as I discussed above, at least I have references. The other reports above are allowed to stand alone. The Moorer report is the only one in which a few Wikipedia users are 'demanding' have a third party source.

Also,

We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section. The findings down't even lay specific blame anywhere but call for a new Naval enquiry with Congressional oversight which is the only way the Moorer findings can be refuted (or supported)... Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This notion is echoed here:

...It is very difficult to see how the intent behind the policy of WP:FRINGE, to keep ufos and weirdo theories off wiki, can allow us to use that policy to challenge the use of the Moorer report, given the careers, background and institutional standing of those associated with it. Fairer is the request that Secondary Sources, as per policy, be privileged, and that the Moorer Report be vetted for this article only when Secondary Sources are available. This however sets up, unless I am mistaken, an internal contradiction with the history of the article. For a good deal of its footnoting refers us to Primary sources. One cannot hold the Moorer Report hostage as a primary source, and yet write the page using primary Government documents. The only distinction that remains valid is 'official' versus 'unofficial' primary documents.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, the rebuttal to the notion that "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."

a) Is stated above in two forms. The first, by the Houson Chronical article from January 9th, 2004, which says in part: " "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ". b) The second rebuttal concerns the notion that the report is not reputable or is a fringe theory. "We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section." Moreover, the investigation was quite thorough, so no 'theories' are discussed in the report, only actual results of the investigation are part of the Findings of the Moorer Commission. c) Lastly, the irony here is that some users are requiring of the Moorer report entry that which is missing from each and every other report listed: A Secondary source to vet the Report.

The notion that the Moorer Report is not a government investigation, when it's leaders were ALL former members of the military and one ambassador, and therefore reputable members of government, is absurd. Their reputations as government officials speak for themselves. Their Reputations as government officials also speaks volumes for the notion that the report is a Fringe Theory.

Another issue in this debate is: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

This issue is derived from the following:

I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s). Ken (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also,

You already include reports that are nothing more than partisan statements in the investigations section so the claim you don't want to give the Moorer Commission undue weight is ridiculous. Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the issue that: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

The entry I had had 2 quotes. No more then the entries for the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report. My entry also quoted statements from those involved in the report, or subjects of the investigation. Why are quotes from the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report allowed, but explicitely cited quotes from the Moorer Report unacceptable? Why are Quotes from the aforementioned reports acceptable, but when I quote the report, twice, I receive comments such as: "I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report...". It is interesting that the request continues: "brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s)." I did use sparse quotes. 2 of them. What grounds are there for removing my entry when my entry does exactly as one of those removing the entry suggests?

Any reasonable person considering the items above would conclude that the exclusion of commentary from the Moorer Report for the various reasons sited above is wrong based on the information provided.

Users User:WorldFacts, User:Wayne, User:Nishidani, User:15thST, User:CasualObserver'48, User:HenryWinklestein and User:PR are all in agreement, to one degree or another, that removal of the entries for the various reasons stated is uncalled for. They agree, to varying degrees, that the entries have a place on the USS Liberty incident page.

Users Jayjg, Ken, Narson, and Justin appear to wish to exlude the entry, again, for their various reasons.

By numbers, we have 7 ayes and 4 nays. The aye's have it.

If I have misrepresented anyone's view, please let me know.

I have modified my entries by adding explicit references and added this new entry to this page.WorldFacts (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)



The responses I have received are little better then sayanim inspired deletes with all editors contrary to the Moorer report deleting it's entry, a list which consists of about 4 editors, plus whatever meat puppets they are able to muster. The list of editors in FAVOR of the entry numbers around 7. Oh - and yes - I am aware of the WP Policy on what Wiki is and is not - especially about it not being a democracy. But that doesn't matter here, does it? The goal is to keep the Moorer Report entry off the incident page, and discussion is nothing more then a tactic to keep the entry off the page. At least, after this much discussion, that is how it appears.

While the Moorer Report is not listed as a valid report on the USS Liberty incident page, these editors misuse Jay Cristol and the ADL. For example: Captain Ward Boston wrote his affidavit in which he says that Admiral Kidd was ordered to find the incident a case of mistaken identity AFTER Jay Cristol's book was published. Yet, Jay Cristol's book is used to counter the Captain's arguments. Jay Cristol's book came first, then Captain Wards Affadivit. Yet, in the "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions" section, Jay Cristal is used to defend against a report written by 2 Admirals, a General and an Ambassador. A report which was finalzied AFTER the affidavit was submitted. How pathetic!

Furthermore, these are and have always been 'useful' edits. Unfortunately, since the edits show the Israeli's to be the "murderous bastards" (Admiral Kidd's words, not mine.) that they were during this incident, all the sayanim inspired editors hover like vultures over the entry.

Reasons for deleting the entry have approached laughable standards: For example, one of those who last reverted the entry uses as his reason that it has been reverted before!! See Nudve's Talk page.

An Excerpt:

USS Liberty

Can you point me to the consensus that says the 2003 Moorer Report doesn't deserve it's own section at this article? PRtalk 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that this edit was reverted four times since the beginning of the month (six, including my revert and another one) is reason enough to refrain from reintroduction without discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)



This is the same user who decided to revert the entry when it existed for only 8 minutes. 8 minutes isn't long enough to review the sources, nevermind determining if the entry is acceptable or not, so your telling me to make useful edits is somewhat of a red herring. I don't see you as anything more then just another meatpuppet assisting others in keeping a perfectly valid entry from being added to the Page. If you weren't assisting them, then why did you not check out why an undo in 8 minutes was acceptable? No evidence that you even attempted to do this is found anywhere.

No amount of discussion will satisfy the sayanims. If you were a fair editor, you would have figured that out by now.WorldFacts (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - -

Also, I have removed the attempt to hide/archive the text which includes EXTENSIVE attempts to reach consensus from your talk page. It would be nice if you at least acknowledged my attempt to reach a consensus. You have not. Why is that?

Are you going to be an editor, a mediator or just another person allowing the Moorer report to be censored. What, useful purpose do you provide if you simply allow commentary to printed on YOUR talk page and you don't respond to it, instead, simply 'archive' it out of the way. '''It has been 2 weeks since this comment was added, and you have nothing to say. What gives?''' WorldFacts (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw your gigantic post here, I was not inclined to respond. See WP:TLDR. Please continue any necessary discussion over at Talk:USS Liberty incident. It is not up to you to control what is kept on my Talk page and what gets removed or boxed up; see WP:TPG. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing in your response is anything of value which will help resolve this dispute.
 * Let's simply this:
 * 1) Is the attempt at consensus above invalid in some way? If invalid, how in particular is it invalid?
 * 2) Did you find that any other editor actually attempted to reach a consensus? Where exactly, and by whom?
 * 3) If this attempt at consensus is valid, how do you come to the conclusion that I am in an edit war for adding the entry, but those who perform the opposite action - delete my entry - are 'not' in an edit war? Put another way, why is an attempt to add an entry called edit warring and followed by restrictions, but attempts to delete the entry not edit warring, and is allowed to go unpunished?
 * Please answer the above simpler questions - inquiring minds want to know. WorldFacts (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have got off on the wrong foot here on Wikipedia, and don't have the patience to learn. See WP:Advocacy for the problems that single-issue editors may encounter when they try to have an effect on Wikipedia. The only way you can be successful is by persuading other people, and if you remain constantly in a warrior stance your views are unlikely to be influential. Since you have never edited on any topics besides the Liberty, you have not picked up the general knowledge that would give you perspective on what is likely to work and what will not. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having been working on one subject only for 4 months, I'd say I've learned everything I need to learn about how WikiPedia really works. You, on the other hand, are still avoiding answering the real questions, which are:
 * 1) answering the questions above,
 * 2) explaining how my rather extensive attempt to reach a consensus, reproduced for you above, is somehow not an attempt to seek a consensus or is somehow invalid,
 * 3) how does an Edit war get declared with only one person in the 'war'? and
 * 4) how can 2 people be in an Edit War (wars have 2 sides, at least), and only one is reprimanded time and time again?
 * Please answer the questions. WorldFacts (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to consider you as a single-issue POV-warrior. If you were to work in wider areas I could yet change my mind. It's of no use for me to answer your questions, since (a) you won't believe my answers, (b) you wouldn't need to ask these questions if you had acquired broader experience here, (c) you personally believe you've 'learned everything you need to learn.' Hence there is no common point of agreement from which we could move forward. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I could yet change my mind." In other words, you, and you alone are planning on preventing the entry, but don't actually have any real reason to prevent it now? Oh wait, why ask you a question - you don't answer questions, mine anyway. Also, your numbered items above are interesting: you won't answer the questions, so my attempts at consensus are not considered. As for not believing your answers, that's a good one. Are they going to be that unbelievable? Would anyone believe the answers? As for spending more time on Wiki to 'learn' what I can and can't get away with, wow, that one's great. I have tried to make dozens of differently worded entries on the Moorer Report almost exclusively, and all I have seen are half baked excuses, flimsy arguments, and non sequitor statements about the LOCATION where sources are printed, with no regard to the author. A source is required for my entry, while none of the other reports on the page have a single source. How flimsy and transparent is that?
 * You are as free to make yourself useful to the sayanim crawling on Wikipedia as I am to expose your intent. I will add my valid entry and some sayanim will remove it.
 * Here is what I have learned: The basic strategy is to remove any mention or entry alluding to the fact that the US Helped Israel in it's attack on the USS Liberty. That is why a recent entry which discussed that 2 attempts to send planes from Aircraft Carriers suffered for lack of references. I have learned that that kernel of truth cannot be exposed by any Jewish or sayanim controlled publishing outfit. Alas, I am not sayanim. I have no such purpose. If my entry will not stand, I will be satisfied in exposing your ilk to the rest of your readership. That's good enough for me. WorldFacts (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If either the US or the Israeli government had bothered to do a full inquiry, then the real story of the USS Liberty might be known by now. That article seems to consist of speculations of malfeasance by one group or another. I'm not entirely sure why you are here at my Talk page, since you don't find anything I say persuasive. For conspiracy theories about Wikipedia, see WP:CABAL. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jo Self
This is a difficult one. Googling confirms what I suspected: Jo Self is dyslexic. If it is her, not the most helpful person to be directly editing the article, COI or not. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not too bad. Joselfartist did remove the COI tag but has not removed it again since being warned. A brand-new editor, Mauvemalapropism, has recently shown up there and started making helpful changes to conform with policy. Curiously, there is also an IP vandal there,  who is now one edit away from getting blocked. The IP is unlikely to have any connection at all with Joselfartist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe (I was looking at changes like this one summarised as "clean up" that introduced the section "An easle painter know for her often monumental canvas,s". Also, none of those new edits cite sources. I'm just collating some stuff about Jo Self to help expand and source the article, but at the moment can't log on to NewsBank for some reason. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: A brand-new editor
 * I don't think so. Mauvemalapropism shares a couple of specific typographical quirks - particularly using commas for apostrophes - with Joselfartist and, before that, FLJSART. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's clearly worth noting. If we think there is a relationship, then a sock report might be considered. But what's the abuse? If they are making the article better, then it's OK. Remember the Neotu article in Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 27? That was a furniture gallery with not a single picture of furniture. At least this one gives you an impression of the artist's work. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, this is the sum total of the edits. Anyhow, managed to get started. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Clade and indef blocked User:Consist
Hi, Ed, thanks for semi-protecting Clade, and for your note at Talk:Clade. Unfortunately the Talk page is being made unusable by Consist's rants, and the next time an archive bot runs we'll be left with nothing but these rants on the "front page". At Talk:Clade I set out some terms on which User:Consist could contribute, and on the Talk page of his most recent (at that time) IP I told him I'd revert anything outside these terms. After I'd reverted a few of his rants, this seemed to work fine for a week or two, then a couple of other editors got soft-hearted and starting replying to his rants. Would it be OK to revert any posts that come from his known IP range and match his style and POV, apart from those that comply with the terms I offered him before? --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could box up over-long conversations in which he participates, using templates like hat and hab. Removing his posts is an option but there is a chance this might lead to a revert war. If he starts being a nuisance again at Talk:Clade, let me know. I would consider imposing two weeks of semi-protection on the Talk page. Another idea is to archive frequently, minus his additions, and semi-protect the archives permanently. I know that Talk:Translation is permanently semi-ed because of a similar warrior who made the Talk page unusable. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Ed. I'm not sure semi-prot on Talk:Clade would be good tactics, as he might then start bothering other Talk pages - or articles. OTOH so far he backs off if he sees that someone is prepared to revert anything he does that's out of line. Now that my too-nice for-their-own-good colleagues have started ignoring him (for about the last week), I can revert Consist without reverting my colleagues. --Philcha (talk)

Looks like you made a friend.
Ah, the love we all seem to get heaped on us when we delete a bit of nonsense here or there. I had an entire litany of "Grawp" wannabes cut loose on me earlier today with variations on my username. Anyway, he's blocked. Have a cookie. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)



PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Koov again 3
-- Turkish Flame   ☎  05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) - no only one who noticed this obviously. --Russavia Dialogue 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Sureshmaran
Heya,

Have you closed the case ? What if If I want to add new evidence? Should I create another case or can I add it to the current one in the comments section?

Thanks, ShivNarayanan (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena
As a third party observer -- I got involved in Albanians doing RCP -- the block of Forsena seems redundant as he received the User_talk:Forsena for the Albanians edits and he has not violated it since it was posted. In my opinion, La Paz was equally capable in the edit war -- he kept calling Kosovo a country where as Forsena considers it part of Serbia, whereas the consensus achieved at Kosovo is 'disputed region'. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Gerardw. If you click on Forsena's contribution list, and review the edit summaries, it is hard to believe that he's patiently seeking consensus on Kosovo matters. (For instance, Removing data from albanian extermist vandal member Angelo De La Paz). In particular, look at this edit of Battle of Kosovo where Forsena goes against all the cited references, and actually *removes* most of them. On the matter of 'disputed country' versus 'disputed region', if Angelo continues to make that change without getting consensus first, it would be worrisome. Though your point about the Balkan topic ban is noted, since Forsena has not edited any articles since it was announced, it is too soon to give him credit for following it. The announcement that he was under Digwuren restrictions on 7 January seems to have had no effect at all on his edits. I will leave Angelo a note that his editing was discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, first of all I want to thanks for your helps. There were enough proofs showed Forsena is always violate NPOV, as a Serb nationalist. I were really upset when he called me as an Albanian extremist although I am an Asian-Hispanic (LOL). And if I am an extreme nationalist so I think there were some admins or neutral users have left me a warning in my Talk Page and block my account. You could compare Forsena's edits with other editors (included me) who reverted his nationalistic POV edits, especially after January 2007 . I also leave a new message in edit summaries of Albanians, there are many similar cases to Kosovo status in another ethnic articles. Have a nice day guys!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A Favor
Hi Ed! May I ask a favor slightly outside of the realm of normal procedure: in light of this discussion, can I ask you to fully protect my user page and semi prot my talk page for 14 days? I expect to be rather busy here on Wednesday, and probably not going to make any friends from "that place", so just to cut down on what's happened to my page 46 times and counting, I'd like to preemptively prot these pages. I imagine the admin corps in general will be equally busy, so this gets it out of the way before the storm. Many thanks! Arakunem Talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both done, for two weeks. One full protect and one semi. Good luck! EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have a pie!

Arakunem Talk 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 4
Could you protect Template:Foreign relations of Pakistan? Thanks! -- Turkish Flame   ☎  06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing an AfD?
We talked before: User_talk:Inclusionist could you close Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg? As per:

Articles_for_deletion "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. "

Thanks travb (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the AfD. Though there is a slight majority of Keep votes, I would probably close it as Delete because of the critical sourcing problems, so far unrefuted by the keep voters, though they have tried valiantly. (How often do you see DGG arguing so persuasively for Delete?) If you believe you could do more work on sourcing and rewriting, I might consider relisting it one more time. It's really not justified to keep the Mr. Universe claims in there with such weak evidence. That musclememory.com web site looks hopeless as a source. Otherwise I'd rather leave it for someone else to close. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Milton P
Hi Ed, I have at some point edited every article listed on his contributions with the exception of "List of Full House Characters" and his user page. To de-archive the sock report do I just add the template thing to the list of open cases again? Is that how this sort of thing is usually done? TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We usually don't de-archive sock reports. You would have to relist it, take it out of the January archive of closed reports, etc. etc. Also the original closure comments would now be incorrect. Worse than trying to interpret an AfD where the article changed during the AfD. Just make a new case, and include a link to the old one. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread your message. I'll make a new case.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * mm when I go to remake it, the information from the old one comes up because I'm editing the same page (the MiltonP Ottawa one). Should I name it MiltonP Ottawa (again) or something?  TastyCakes (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think the sockmaster is MiltonP, then name the second report 'MiltonP Ottawa (2nd)'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I still think it's the same guy but he hasn't really been doing anything particularly bad so I guess maybe just leave him... TastyCakes (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

87.196.192.176
Ed, thank you very much for your help.

Can I report him for vandalizing after a final warning, if the page he vandalized in the latter instance (my user page) is different from the one for which he received the final warning? SamEV (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I see he's just been blocked. Still, when you can, please drop me a note concerning this. Thanks again. SamEV (talk)
 * Two different admins have now taken some actions about this guy. He is now on the radar. Let me know if you see more problems after the block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. But in general: does a final warning cover vandalizing against other articles/pages? Is it an across-the-board warning to stop? SamEV (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, a final warning on any one topic is enough to cover everything. Final warnings are most useful for someone who is possibly a newbie. If someone is behaving like a hardened veteran, or seems immune to commentary, they lose their newbie aura fast. The obscene comment in this IP's edit to your user page certainly takes away his newbie protection, assuming he had any left. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again, Ed. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of 80.217.214.139‎
Hello, and thanks for your blocking of 80.217.214.139‎. However, the user has moved on to a new IP: 80.217.202.212. Could you keep an eye open on Mats Helge (or perhaps even semi-protect it for a week or so?). Plrk (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the IP-hopping vandal came back, I renewed the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A user called ”Njaelkies Lea” has changed article “Mats Helge”. And writes, removing unreferenced stuff unlikely to be true, and unencyclopedic stuff like "the immortal classic", all added by a known problematic user. But this is not true, if you look at the link below, you will see that ”Njaelkies Lea” changes in the article is wrong. Se sources below. All people like ”Njaelkies Lea” and "Plrk" who take away information on this article are the real problematic users. Check for yourself. I can´t make changes cause you have protected the article. Make it correct please.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087806/trivia

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/mats_helge/biography.php

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mats-Helge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespeach (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments, and explain your connection to Mats Helge. The above edits by Njaelkies Lea seem to be removing promotional language from the article. Though every director would like to think he is producing immortal work, we are not an advertising medium, and we like to reflect what reliable sources have written about a topic. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don´t think the links above are enough, please explain why. I don´t have any relationship with the filmmaker. You don´t think nationmaster encyclopedia, imdb is a good enogh? It´s been there for years. The cult status in asia? Isn´t that true information? Please read the sourses and the article again. I don´t know how you do when you sign, sorry. Make it correct please it´s not promotional language. Is it promotional language to say that the Film Titanic is one of the most populair films in history? No, why? Because it´s a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespeach (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okej I can sign now, can you respond to my last message please Freespeach (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are my comments on the three references you list above. The first is from IMDB, which is usually not accepted as a reliable source, since random people are allowed to submit content. The second, Rotten Tomatoes, is a copy of a Wikipedia article! Wikipedia can't be used as a reference in Wikipedia. The third is Nationmaster, which is itself an encyclopedia. With a few exceptions we are not allowed to use encyclopedias as sources. See WP:PSTS for more on this. Nationmaster provides no sources to explain how it got its information. Try looking for anything on Mats Helge in newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites which are well known. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know that Rotten Tomatoes is copied from Wikipedia, it could be the opposite. I think it´s been longer on Rotten Tomatoes than Wikipedia, whats your proof? And why do you aloud any information in the article when nothing has sources exept from this sourses you just said isn´t okej? I don´t get it.

Pleas block Plrk he is hunting people and offending them for no reason. He calls people spammers and me a vandal, he is the vandal not me. Ålease Block Plrk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.202.186 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okej I can see now that rotten Tomatoes are from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia must have got the information from NationMAster, so why is some information from Nationmaster okej on Wikipedia and some of it forbidden? I dont get it.


 * And Finally, how come this article been aloud for years, but now it´s okej to take away information. You have to explain that, because I don´t understand it.

Edit Warring WP:AN3 compaint
Thanks for looking into this for me so promptly. --GeezerBird (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User: 96.239.140.104 reported by User:Mervyn Emrys (Result: Incomplete report)
Dear EdJohnston, I am but a lowly editor on Wikipedia, not an administrator. Your response presumes a level of technical sophistication about Wikipedia that I believe most editors do not have. I am trying to privide content, not police work. I do not know how to "provide diffs." From the looks of it, it may take some time to learn this.

I asked for immediate assistance, and your response denied it. The history record on these articles continues to change, and will change more before I can learn how to do what you say must be done. In the meantime, several previously decent and improving articles are being destroyed by individuals who apparently believe it is their mission in life to defend white supremicists and reduce all artilces about those who oppose white supremacy to meaninless babble.

For example, the article on Morris Dees, a start-class biographical article about a living person, a prominent civil rights leader using innovative techniques to defend civil rights of the underpriviliged, has been systematically gutted of all content that makes it interesting to any reader, reducing it to about nothing. This has been done one phrase or word per edit, in a large number of edits (which will produce a VERY long list of diffs, if I ever figure it out), in an appartent attempt to make reverts difficult without comparable effort. I have tried to restore some of it, but this is a difficult and time consuming class, especially when a couple other editors repeatedly revert my efforts. WillC (who posts a confederate flag on his user page, something that has signal meaning to all black persons) and Pacificus defend the efforts of white supremicists mentioned in this article. The edits consititute an obvious pattern of racially motivated behavior directed towards a living person and his civil rights advocacy, designed to minimize it or denigrate it.

Edit summaries of the anonymous user indicate a familiarity with Wiki policies far beyond my own, and a tendency to wikilawyering. The mere fact this person edits on Wikipedia with no user name but is so familiar with the policies suggests to me it may be a person who has previously been banned. What I think you have here is a small group of friends working together against the purpose for which (as I understand it) Wikipedia was created.

But your reply suggests that is less important than my technical skill in presenting a complaint about it. That is very discouraging.

I will try to meet your demands, overcome my technical ignorance, and learn how to present a proper complaint. In the meantime, Wikipedia content suffers and a few bullies are in charge of the content of some important articles. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center. Some aspects of the center's reputation are contentious, and it is not surprising to have these kinds of disputes. I am puzzled that you want to remove the 1994 Harpers' article, because in my view it helps to add balance to the whole picture. The editor who likes the Confederate flag does not seem to have done anything outlandish on this article. Your debate with User:Arimareiji seems to reflect good faith on both sides. There are a number of users participating on the SPLC article, and some appear to know policy well. (I.e. the article is not being hijacked by POV warriors, so far as I can see). Admins are more likely to intervene when there seems to be serious abuse going on, and I'm not seeing any behavior that would require admin sanctions. See Diff for how to make diffs. If you plan to work on hotly-debated articles, you should learn how to use them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove
user is object of a Administrators' noticeboard/Incident report for a wide collection of insults towards other editors. After a Wikiquette alert was filed he escaped consequences by declaring to go on a "permanent sabbatical"... This was yesterday. Today he has returned and edited for the last hours and with such incivility that there are now two more Wikiquette alerts 1. and 2., as this permanent sabbatical isn't very permanent at all, the user in question has a history of incivility and as it seems currently no admins are keeping track about the various Wikiquette alerts I'm informing you about this, I the hope you might have a look and take the necessary actions. --noclador (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * don't pay attention to what noclador was doing, nor that he instigated all the alerts himself. also, do not pay attention to the users who vindicated me by stating i was editing in a civil way and in good faith, but was attacked by noclador and gun metal ma.  also, ignore the fact that i tried to end this with noclador, but he removed my comment from his talk page as vandalism.  i hope noclador is such a person that takes pride and driving others away by being so completely aggressive and insulting.  it is like someone who blames a rape victim for being upset.  i'm outta here permanently, nuking my password..  what a waste of my life today has been. Icsunonove (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alkclark's unblock requests
I see you are fielding Alkclark's unblock requests. I don't want to belabor the point, but besides the checkuser evidence there is a ton of behavioral evidence behind this sockpuppeting, which I outlined in Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. I can even provide more examples if necessary, since I spent a lot of time pouring through this person's account histories. I should also note that other editors had similar suspicions, as you can see from the notes they left at User talk:Wasted Time R. Finally, this person used the sockpuppeting not just to win edit debates but to bully other editors and to deceive admins with deception games. That's why I feel strongly that the indef block is justified. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a "new" user doesn't like you for some reason ... and check out User talk:Dancefloor royalty for a new level of sock denial hilarity ... Wasted Time R (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Uclides
EdJohnson - I seconded the motion, and listed the reasons. The POV of Euclid is not final by any means - it is awaiting discussion. NittyG (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer this article be deleted as soon as possible, and we have a perfectly good case. How can we have that done? NittyG (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not a speedy deletion candidate, unless you want to consider it Vandalism. Just need to wait out the five days on the WP:PROD nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Tales23 removed the PROD, the discussion is now continuing at Articles for deletion/Uclides. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution
I don't see how "attribution" can possibly be an element of wikipedia. As soon as you type something, it is subject to change. You don't "own" it. So how can "attribution" possibly figure into it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Attribution (copyright). Attribution is required by most copyright and copyleft licenses, such as GNUFDL and CC-by. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabistan article vandalism
User:Mashkin User talk:Mashkin has deleted the references to Eilat being in Arabia Patraea. He has ignored the requests that he desist on his talk page. He says there that he does not care if there are good references for the material. harlan (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really vandalism. You have yet to win the argument on Talk, in my view. The references could be better. Unclear that the ancient Arabia Petraea should be considered to form part of the land now referred to as the Arabian peninsula. Making a list of countries that includes Israel and the Palestinian Territories and including it in the Arabian Peninsula article seems like it risks confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh
I didn't know you were an admin, sorry, I would have let you continue to sort through the 3RR report on Maltese language instead of just jumping in. My apologies -- Samir 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've been watching the Maltese language dispute for a while. If the feeling of immunity from blocks goes away among the participants, that might be enough. Their pattern is Talk, Talk, Talk and at the same time Revert Revert Revert. I think that misses the point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision of article
Please see my complete rewrite of Alexander Fiske-Harrison and comments on the AfD page. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Winged First
done, apologies. Didn't realise the script automagically blocked with autoblock enabled. StarM 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby
Re: this - Scibaby doesn't bother asking for new accounts to be created for him. The anon's request can be passed along to ACC. Raul654 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors
Hi there ED, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

I was the one posting the case of vandal PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasd08). It was nice of you to add that info and link it to past ANI reports concerning this "contributor", good teamwork. I doubt it (that is to say am 200% sure) he will respond to anything, including your last message.

Will only make two further additions: A month ago, admin/user SATORISON, whom has been following this with me at length, did a checkuser request for another of this person's accounts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pep10); keep in mind they have three: PEP10, PASD08, and PARARUBBAS, and countless anonymous IP editing. The said request resulted in both PEP10 and PARARUBBAS' indefinite blocking.

The second issue is the following: language. Since he operates solely on PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL, i deduced he should be like i am, that is to say, hailing from Luis Vaz de Camões and Amália Rodrigues' homeland. Thus, i left him tons of messages in our (assumed) mothertongue which, as you have already sadly discovered and pointed out, resulted in ZERO response.

That is all for the moment, thanks for the contributions, keep safe

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 5
. For your reference --Russavia Dialogue 02:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh... EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Missing In Action
There's an ongoing edit war in Missing In Action. It's been going on for days now, although you have previously been involved with trying to fix the problem. I have placed a note on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Nabokov (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm always one for second chances; I'd like to see if he heeds this warning. If you must block, then go forth and do so, as it is definitely deserved according to policy; I was just hoping that he'd learn from this last warning without getting a block. Essentially, your call. Thanks for asking though! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm not an administrator. However, since it's "my call" let's be reasonable and give ToTheCircus one last chance. Perverse though they are, his actions are driven by sincerely held (though misguided) beliefs, and not by malice. However, if he starts up the revert-war again, I strongly recommend that he is blocked without delay. - Nabokov (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I was talking to EdJohnston (I just stole this topic header so not to clutter his talk page). There I go again! :P And of course, if he violates it again for any reason I'll lay down a week's block. Thanks for being sympathetic though! We need more people who understand that force isn't the primary modus operandi around here. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MoP and Nabokov, thanks for your comments. Let's see if this editor continues to revert after MoP's new warning. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor - UPDATE
Hi there ED, VASCO here, hope i'm not bothering (which i often believe to be doing, as 99% of my reports on vandals are either ignored or scolded),

Upon your contribution in my report about a disruptive editor (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editors), i bring you this update: User:Pasd08 has not responded to the "challenge" provided via talkpage, and has continued to remove LINKS as of today, as seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Second_Division:_Serie_A&diff=prev&oldid=265550228)

Urgent action needed, i believe, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors
Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Ty very much for your input regarding the steps to take regarding disruptive edits and akin. Also i think i had an hot-headed reaction, but it's just i have (honestly) more than once or twice experienced the complete lack of feedback to my reports, and did not know what to think anymore.

Also, thanks a million for handling vandal PASD08's case. Wonder if this person will "see the light" after having a third account blocked? I included that case while engaging in my rant, because i thought i only had received help because of the assistance of User:Waldir (also an admin in PORTUGUESE WIKIPEDIA), last 4,5 reports i "sent" alone were left totally unanswered.

Anyway, sorry for any incovenience/misunderstandings, ty for your assistance as well, keep safe,

From PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Anywhere But Home
Hello!

First of all, if you're confused by my identity, I underwent a name change from SWik78 and you and I had discussions about this editor while I was still using my old signature yesterday. Anyways, I blanked Suspected sock puppets/Brexx (2nd) and opened and filed Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx under the new WP:SPI system as you had suggested. There is more evidence there than you might have seen yesterday so hopefully you'll be somewhat better informed. One thing that I was unable to find is a notification template at SPI to notify the accused party of a case against them. Do you know if that has been deprecated for privacy reasons or was I just unable to find the correct template? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no deprecation; I would always warn the person. You can use uw-socksuspect if you wish. It takes one argument, which is the name of the sockmaster. The case appeared strong to me both before and after your recent improvement. I notice it has been confirmed that ABH used proxies; it seems to me that is already a form of abuse, and already sanctionable, though the checkuser who commented did not draw that conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the proxies are used by all, or at least most, ISPs in UAE due to governmental directives on internet censorship; I don't know if we can really hold that against him. The use of proxies is very similar in other middle-eastern countries as well as China. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What now?
Could you please clarify on the sourcing issue there? I mean it wouldn't practical to accept attributions to any website on the internet in these articles. There's 1000s of them making different and often contradictory claims. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody in one of the discussions said that if a source appears to believe in astrology, then it is not a reliable source. (I can't find the link right away). That person would accept books and articles as sources if they were written by ethnographers, historians or social scientists. (I.e. they would be treating astrology as a belief system, and describing what was believed). Since from your user page I guess you are a fan of astrology I wonder if you'd go that far in policing inappropriate sources. Too bad the discussion at WP:RS/N was so brief and left the main issues not exactly resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're talking about this. The problem with this approach is that first, most of the aforementioned sources usually discuss astrology in general terms, and not so much specifically to the signs. Secondly, I think that as around 30% of the population believes in astrology, there should also be some balance in the coverage with pro-astrology opinions (eg. the traits for the signs). I think the general discussion about the validity of astrology is more appropriate in the more general Astrology article. I am willing to police any consensus that arises, I just want to reach *some* kind of consensus. This ambivalence doesn't work in Wikipedia's favor. How do we advance this discussion? I am avoiding the astrology Wikiproject because most of the individuals there don't seem to mind these subtleties of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't try to average over the opinions of the population, only of what the reliable sources say. If you ally yourself with the people who are strict on sourcing, you may be able to find a broader base of support, but these articles would lose some of their current sources. So if you won't go along with the strict guys, and you don't think you can win over the members of the astrology WikiProject, you have a tough problem, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Multi-IP vandal: 131.94.22.74
Thank you for your help with Suspected sock puppets/131.94.22.74, it would be great (if you had time) to look at two new IPs being used to perform the same vandalism Suspected sock puppets/131.94.22.74 (2nd). Is there a place to report multi-IP abuse, or should I continue to report it under SOCKs? Thanks for all your help! Plastikspork (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to the SSP, and semi-protected two articles. The IP-hopping is annoying, but the total number of vandal edits is not large. (When there are few edits, it should be not much trouble to revert them). Let me know if anything more should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I do anything about this post? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and I think this one is unrelated, but I wouldn't mind your input all the same. Plastikspork (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could go ahead and remove the post from your Talk if you want. The accounts you have reported don't seem to edit much, so ignoring them may be the simplest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested photo
Hi Ed. I uploaded the photo you requested at my talk page. I'll leave it up to you to judge whether it's suitable for the article, feel free to install it there if it is. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for taking care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User Mac
I am a little curious about the block log for User:Mac: 17:51, 10 November 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) blocked Mac (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: This is a conditional indef block. Will be lifted immediately if you join discussions. See your Talk)

I believe said user may speak Spanish as a primary language and may have somewhat of a language barrier to participating in discussion. I would not like to see them banned from participating in the encyclopedia, and am curious as to what they are doing now - are they contributing to the Spanish version? Are they just doing other things? I also was able to find a notice on their talk page for a 24 hour block but not a notice for any indef block. Was that an oversight? 199.125.109.31 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just left a longer note on this user's Talk page. This is the editor who was known for never discussing any of his changes. His extensive sockpuppetry since the original block, and the amount of cleanup work he imposed on other editors, will make it harder for him to succeed in an unblock request. He received many complaints of copyvio, spam and inappropriate redirects. But he can still request unblock. (If you want to see all the admin discussions, do a Whatlinkshere on his User page). EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mac is still very active as at least 2 IPs. Not having a named account means he can't create as many problems as he did in the past, so I'm not going to complain unless this changes.  NJGW (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat
Most of the articles that I know should be semiprotected have been listed in the SPI

Pages Abhijeet Bhattacharya Surgery Nanga Parbat Baintha Brakk Wars and conflicts between India and Pakistan Saser Kangri Line of Control Rimo I Talk:Dharavi Azad Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir Northern Areas Gasherbrum III Junagadh Princely state Extreme points of India India–Pakistan relations Wakhan Corridor Kargil War Battle of Chawinda Battle of Longewala Religious violence in India List of military disasters Srinagar Sino-Indian War

Aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks Battle of Chawinda Religious violence in India United Nations Security Council_Resolution 47 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ragusino again
Hi Ed, just to let you know, it seems Ragusino's opened a new account. Details at Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily for me, Nishkid64 has acted on the case and done everything possible (see the SPI). So I don't have to parse who is being mean to who around the Adriatic! EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OliFilth has commited a 3-RR Violation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oli_Filth

Original Version: 
 * Revert #1 
 * Revert #2 
 * Revert #3  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicChessInventor (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied over at User talk:GothicChessInventor. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Too nice
You are far too nice to VOA accounts.  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your timely appearance to correct the leniency! I thought it was one of the trick questions on RfAs these days whether an admin could block people for incivility that was only directed toward the admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny enough I opined at length on the practice earlier this week at User_talk:Tony1/AdminReview.  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your desire to avoid multiple blocks of the same editor, but I'd like to make exceptions for 'mechanical' blocks that don't involve any judgment of character. For example, (a) vandalism, (b) abuse of multiple accounts, (c) plain 3RR [4 reverts in 24 hours], (d) edit warring where someone was blocked for repeatedly making some edit, and they return after their block and continue to make the edit. Cases where multiple blocks should be avoided would be personal attacks (short of vandalism), and WP:EW-type edit warring, where you're making a judgment on the person's good faith and willingness to negotiate. Or blocks for disruptive editing, that try to judge whether a pattern of conduct is innocent or abusive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it is one of those hard things to define. A large part of the problem is abusive admins who take even clear cut situations like plain 3RR and turn it into vendettas against people they don't like, which then makes every admin look bad.  Oh well, nothing we can do about it I suppose since Arbcom requires gross abuses to act and recall isn't yet binding.  MBisanz  talk 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 6
. Now, repeat after me, sigh. --Russavia Dialogue 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right again. But he's already blocked; no further action needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 7
. sigh --Russavia Dialogue 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, as per usual. Also a few semi-protections. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 8
. This is becoming all too regular, me on your talk page, people are gonna start thinking we are dating or something. --Russavia Dialogue 01:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 9
. Are we gonna take bets on what his next username will be? I am guessing Rohlik. --Russavia Dialogue 08:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Rivet on Wiki
Months ago, I applied some useful pictoral content on the wiki page for rivets. At the time I did not know all of the Wiki policies. Wiki is a learning curve for me, but... tegarding the pictures that were removed by you... I am the owner of those pictures. I own a rivet manufacturing company (rivet.com), and those pictures were taken in our facility. Im not sure what kind of letter is needed if they are being placed in wiki by the owner of the company. Would wiki prefer, I create a page strickly for wiki and just post the pictures up on that page with a note at the bottom stating all the pictures on this page are permitted for use by wiki? Im at a loss regarding what to do. I read the statements required by Wiki but there is no email address to send it to, and I figure it will take months for someone to read and approve (if I did it properly). I think the link on our site with the note at the bottom is faster, easier, better....  Can you confirm? Since I am specialized in rivets, I have a tremendous amount of knowledge in metals and fastening. I dont mind providing the content if I can streamline the way I put it up without getting it removed. -RIVETPRO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivetpro (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past, the Rivet article has been a target for people who wanted to advertise. Preferably you would explain at Talk:Rivet how you think the article should be improved, and people can comment there. In my personal opinion there are enough images in the article. Since you are an expert, it would be valuable if you could examine the article for technical mistakes and see where it needs expansion. (Do you agree that high-strength bolts are a better choice than rivets for many uses?) In any event you can still propose your idea on the Talk page. If it is agreed that more images are needed I could help with the permissions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

REPLY Yes I agree that the article needs improvement. Being an expert I can see a jumbling of info and its not organized properly. If you were new to rivets, and needed to develop a callout... based on some of the contributions it would be all wrong for most catagories of rivets. I will figure a way to fix it... Its difficult for me to let it remain as it is. As for the images, people dont know what the difference between rivet types are and the tools needed to install them. I have access to lineart drawings and photo's that are created by me that are very useful for this article... but I need to know the easiest way to not have them rejected. Stating that I am the creator of these and that I allow wiki to use them is not a problem. Once again, I am new to Wiki but not new to rivets. So, Im trying to learn the process. As for the talk section of rivet on wiki... few people visit and it would take way too long to get some objective discussions in place... which is why I have contacted you. And as for High Strength Bolts compared to riveting, I can answer that question... and will do so on the talk page. RIVETPRO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivetpro (talk • contribs) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to make it easy to put photos in Wikipedia, consider opening an account with http://www.flickr.com, uploading your pictures, and marking them as 'Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons.' You still face the question whether consensus will support putting them in the articles, but it solves nearly all the copyright problems. More background is here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...  By the way I answered your question related to high strength bolts vs. rivets on the talk section of wiki:rivet. One question regarding the structure of Wiki:rivet... dont you think that seperate pages should be made for each sub catagory? i.e. solid rivets, semitubular rivet and blind rivets, etc. Im sure people want to know how those products are installed and it would be one BIG page if you had to put that on Wiki:rivet only. How about wiki:blind rivet? There are many sub catagories that could be linked to the master wiki:rivet page Rivetpro (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)RIVETPRO
 * Not clear how far we need to subdivide. Take a look at and  to see how those topics are organized. Also you'll need to find reliable sources that discuss each of these special kinds of rivets. (Wiki guidelines don't allow things to be sourced only from personal knowledge). That could take time. The rivet article has only two reference works at this time; I wonder if you have access to either of these? (One book by Smith and another by Segui). EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 10
Could you protect Template:Foreign relations of Argentina and Template:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China? -- Turkish Flame   ☎  15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Xiexie
Thanks for the updated info and the backup at the edit warring noticeboard. I've added my own follow-up in light of YellowMonkey's findings, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon edits
There are two ways to check ranges. I have the CIDR extension on, but it shows me everything ... thousands of edits, including the ones that led to the original block. I use a tool called AnonEdits that searchs the last nnnn edits to Wikipedia for examples of a given range. When you want to focus on the behaviour over the last week, it's simpler to use.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Email Franamax and ask for the latest version. If he doesn't respond, e-mail me, and I'll send you an old one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sock editing at Scottish Knights Templar
Go for it, I have no objections. Malinaccier (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabistan Article Discussion
I have updated the talk page with information from Britannica about the collision of the Arabian Peninsula with the Bilitus Mountain suture in the Hatay region (Cilicia) of southern Turkey. I added links to maps with boundaries from a book published by the Geological Society of London, and links to some peer-reviewed scientific journals and Cornell University's Dead Sea Rift Project. The latter two explain that the jury is still out on the question of locating the African-Arabian plate boundary in the rift or in the Levant.

The Dead Sea rift separates the Galilee mountains in the west from the Golan Heights in the east. The statement that 'The following countries either are now, or at one time have been, considered part of the peninsula" was a NPOV approach to the issue of the 1980 annexation of the Golan plateau, which is located entirely on the Arabian Peninsula. harlan (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to continue the discussion at Talk:Arabian Peninsula. Though I perceived vandalism of the article before, the issues you are discussing now on Talk don't appear to have vandals on either side. It is a good-faith content dispute, so there is no need for intervention by admins. If there is a dispute that you can't solve, and if there are only two active participants, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion. I'm still puzzled by your wanting to make the plate and the peninsula be the same thing. The article gives the population of the peninsula as 77,983,936, and I doubt that the CIA World Fact Book (which compiled that number) included any residents of the Sinai peninsula or of the Palestinian Territories in the total. The Arabian Peninsula (in the sense of the CIA) is unlikely to include Israel or Palestine. Every source might have a slightly different definition of the AP, but in a brief article, laying out all these different definitions may not be of great interest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding "wanting to make the plate and the peninsula be the same thing". The article redirects from both "Arabia" and "Arabian subcontinent". In order to have a peninsula you just need some land jutting out with water on three sides. The IGCP reports that Arabia is a NNW-SSE four-sided subcontinent in Southwest Asia that is flanked by seas on three of its sides: the Red and Mediterranean Seas to the west, and the Arabian sea to the southeast. On the north and northeast it abuts the southern edge of Turkey and northwest Iran. see Quaternary Deserts and Climatic Change, A. S. Alsharhan, IGCP Project 349, page 279.


 * The talk page indicates that others have tried before, and failed, to mention that Arabia/Arabistan is both a peninsula and a subcontinent. The Earth Sciences and Oil Industry folks still view it that way. Here is a US Geological Survey map that shows the Geological Provinces of the Arabian Peninsula. The peninsula is notable for its geology, and its oil and gas reserves.


 * The article mentions ancient boundaries back to the days of the Romans, and that's okay. But mentioning the 20th century Arab boundaries or districts is taboo. History of the Jews in Arabia mentions Jordan and Iraq, but not Syria. History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula does the same thing. These two articles distinguish between lists of the countries by explaining some are only "geographically" part of the peninsula, while others are "politically" part of the peninsula. Brittanica, Encarta, Websters and etc. include the Syrian Desert in the peninsula, and that desert includes portions of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, any attempt to mention that in the Arabian Peninsula article starts a revert war. That is not a content dispute, it's an on-going violation of policy regarding Palestine-Israel related issues. I'm just following the recommended steps to resolve the situation.


 * Mashkin has added a "History of the Term" subsection, so I put the list of Arab provinces there. It was immediately reverted. The list can be obtained and verified from Review of Reviews and World's Work: An International Magazine, Albert Shaw ed., The Review of Reviews Corporation, 1919, page 408 or the New International Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, Dodd, Mead, Co., 1914 page 795 harlan (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ani thread
Personally I think a block is needed at this stage, the incivility is just one aspect of this odd behavior. He's accused three editors (myself, Eo and Iridescent), who have a combined edit count of about 150,000 of being socks and started a very ludicrous check user. He repeatedly sites sources incorrectly as well (probably deliberate misinformation in an attempt to satisfy notability criteria), he was siting a magazine, but when I found the article online, it did not contain the information he claimed. When I reverted the edits, in light of my discovery, he reinserted the information multiple times. I'm also suspicious of sock puppetry, several accounts were inserting the same misinformation on an obscure article. His recent comments at ANI indicate that he has no understanding of his wrongdoing. Endorse a block of 24-48 hours, and strongly urge an uninvolved admin to monitor his behavior afterward, applying future blocks liberally (seriously, Eo shouldn't have to spend hours writing a huge ANI thread over this editor ever again). Feel free to transclude this message over to ANI if you feel it adds anything to the discussion. Best. — R  2  04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking swift yet accurate action. Has my faith in WP:DRAMA been restored perhaps? — R  2  05:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI does have its good days. Since you mentioned (above) that this editor reverted incorrect information back into an article, that could be something that could be taken to WP:AN3. Since that board has broadened its mandate, it can deal with bad-faith edit warring, whether or not it reaches 3RR. It is easier to weigh the evidence for edit-warring than disruptive editing, which is not always easy to get consensus for at a place like ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *Rolls eyes*. — R  2  15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Block
Hi, you just posted on my page as I was playing with the unblock templates. Apologies for that, I was trying to figure out how to discuss my block with the admin team. I have read through the spam rules and posting of links and I'm not really sure that the block and removal of my link was fair. Is there a place that I can discuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.177.46 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

''Please consider removing all the above block and unblock notices from your Talk, now that your block has expired. I trust you have read WP:EL. The fact that you added the same link to multiple Renault articles was pretty much guaranteed to get the system in an uproar. It seems other people have tried adding this link before, which is why it is on the blacklist used by the XLinkBot. I myself am quite unconvinced that the link has value. We expect that our readers are able to use Google to find things. If you want to appeal against the removals by XLinkBot, you could try posting at WT:WPSPAM, but that is not likely to be successful. If you know stuff about Renault cars, you might help improve one of the articles. That would have more benefit for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)''

I read WP:EL before I added the links, but the way I read it the reference to forums is to social forums :QUOTE: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. and whilst there is a social side to this forum it's primary function is as a technical resouce for Renault owners. It's not comercial, and there are only a few small banners to cover the overheads of the site. I note that there are owners forums linked on many pages within wiki including those that I added to, the only difference I can see is that they are model specific. I get your point about google, but we have had members comment on finding the link on Wiki. As for me helping to improve articles, yes I know plenty about Renault cars, I'll take a look through them. Don't get me wrong Wiki is a great site, but I doubt that you want the technical content and articles that are held on the site that I linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.177.46 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of us have these discussions very frequently, so forgive me if I seem terse. I cannot see that link being approved in this age of the universe. Rather than just repeating your question, why don't you stay around for a while and work on articles. After you pick up our system, you will be able to answer these questions for yourself. Please help stamp out repetitious conversations! EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for taking up your time, thanks taking the time to explain as best as you can, I won't bother you with this again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.177.46 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NEW ISSUE: Just to follow up on Thoughtcrawler's post, the links to Big Think represent unique content available nowhere else. This is not recycled or aggregated. So perhaps we can reconsider the policy on external linking and move toward a more lenient treatment on a case-by-case basis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thoughtcrawler&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbigthink (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Tarsomething
Thanks for the note, and I will take heed. I really need to learn to let things go, and stop letting things like this users's false edit summeries and behavior affect me. But as said above, I will take heed, and thanks for the note.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Glock pistol and User:Nukes4Tots
as the admin who blocked nukes4tots for NPA, now that he has returned to editing, would you mind looking at Glock Pistol and offering some advice to him and me as to how to proceed in regards to whether the sources being edit warred over are appropriate, usable, and reliable? i don't want to edit war, so i'd like to hear some outside advice. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys need to follow WP:Dispute resolution. While I could offer my content opinion, that won't help the underlying problem much. You need to find people who can offer outside opinions. One option is to ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But, in fact, Glock pistol seems to have a number of active editors right now. I see no post by you on the Talk page since the page was unprotected. If you do participate there, try to keep all the personal comments out of it. If somebody is being unreasonable, that fact is going to shine through and you don't have to keep drawing attention to it. Still a further option is to do nothing for two weeks. That will probably confuse the heck out of the other party. If the two of you keep circling around Wikipedia in single combat, admins will be tempted to block both of you just for the annoyance factor. I'm unlikely to take any further actions in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm discussing every edit on the Glock Page currently. During my ban, The...comma continued the edit wary by reverting my prior edits.  I've been operating in good faith and would expect the other editor to as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi EdJohnston, thank you for protecting Mismatch negativity and Neurolinguistics. I did not mean, however, to give the impression that the editor I reported is sock puppeteering; I think he just happens to log in from several different locations on his campus, which isn't a big deal. I figured the most appropriate thing might be to have a ban requiring him to post suggestions at Talk (for these particular articles) rather than editing directly...assuming he would follow the ban. But if you think semi-protection is the way to go, I'm fine with that (but hopefully, of course, we won't have to keep it protected for too long, since it seems to be on account of just one guy). Best, Polit i zer talk / contribs 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The usage of multiple accounts makes it difficult to communicate with him (no User talk that will be routinely checked) and it means that blocks will have little effect. If he wants to engage in vigorous disputes, let him get an account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me; I didn't notice your reply at AN3 when I was writing this. As a side note (I posted this at AN3 but am not sure if you had a chance to see it), I noticed that the semi-protection of Neurolinguistics is currently set to indefinite; should it have been set to expire in March? Polit i zer talk / contribs 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Koov again 11
- you should have put money down, I would have given you 2:1 odds --Russavia Dialogue 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's running out of names; there will have to be an innovation soon. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Zadar Article


Hi Ed, I just read bits the Zadar article that you have semi-protected, for the first time (linked to it in another article). I dare say there are racist undertones, a lack of verifying citations, and an attempt to rewrite history there. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The semiprotection seems to have stopped the barrage of sock edits. I hope this will allow the regular editors to take care of any de-POV-ization that is needed. If you find questionable statements in there which have no citations, you could consider moving them to the Talk page until sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have a go in the medium term future. It seams that yes, the extreme Italian-POV editors who cannot write in proper English have been shut out (I don't know why they insist on IP edits) but I also find the opposing camp to be somewhat extreme (that's where I see the biased undertones, to the point of racism). Plus, the edit summaries of the non-IP editors seam somewhat abusive in their claims of neo-nazism etc; they are very convenient accusations. Reading around, there seams to be a lot of conflagration surrounding the Balkan articles.....seams to be a lot of political agenda behind many of them. I will leave them alone for now (with the possible exception of minor edits here and there) and focus energy on my current list of to-do's. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
 * (I hope you're not referring to me :) All I'm asking is that you resolve any disputes that might arise on the talkpage before reverting and edit-warring. Concerning the name of the city used in the article, please refer to WP:NCGN. Regards, -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning to look into this further. Consider asking for comments at WP:CCN if anyone thinks that editing at Zadar is being affected by ethnic loyalties. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are being paranoid there DIREKTOR as I was not referring to any individual in particular. Please do not imply that I partake in edit-warring or blanket reverting, as this is already an indication of a lack of good faith (whilst I have assumed good faith of you personally in regard to a matter I found rather dubious). You'll see that I have already tried to help make places in the article more NPOV with no content changes; just a few minor edits to modify the wording. I have no issue with the name Zadar (I am not sure know why you would have thought I had an issue) and I am from a relatively neutral country. You'll also find that almost all of my content-based edits are accompanied by citations. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a half-joke, I realize you're not referring to anyone in particular. :) I certainly did not mean to imply anything, nor did I assume anything about your personality. Its amazing how you drew all that from my post :P. All I wanted to do is to try and make sure nobody would restart the old edit-wars that haunt these Dalmatia-related articles. No offense intended, at all. Edit-away -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In spirit of good faith here, I have one simple question for Romaioi. racist undertones - rasistic towards whom? Zenanarh (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I may have jumped the gun there DIREKTOR. I have read how heated it has gotten on the talk pages, and I have been flippantly accused of ridiculous things before; in fact, within a few days of first signing on to Wikipedia (and then re-accused, in spite of the hard evidence to the contrary). So I am wary of such possibilities. Zenanarh, as a third party who has reasonable knowledge of the historical etymology of the region, based on the portions I have read, I feel that the article paints a negative portrayal of Venetians (4th crusade and other inevitable conflicts notwithstanding) and Italians, in places. Yet the portrayal of other political entities and and cultures appears to be more positive. There are blanket statements of Venetian oppression of local peoples, yet not sources and no explanation on how they went about effecting that oppression. I feel there are pieces of history missing and to my understanding (again 4th crusade notwithstanding), the relationship between the Venetians and people of Zadar was generally healthier than what is portrayed, with ethnic tensions growing after Italian unification. Moreover, the sources are almost exclusively slavic (and therefore may have a certain POV; There are definitely English and Italian sources of relevance too and their inclusion would add balance) and there is a passage written in Latin under reference 14 (even though this is the English Wikipedia; if its not translated, it is not useful). In short, an outsider reading this would obtain the binary impression that the Venetians and Italians were the bad guys and the Croatians and Hungarians were the good guys (and that the presence of the Venetians and their architectural influences was negligible); hardly the makings of NPOV. I am guessing that this is possibly an understandable result of push back against all the pro-Italian IP's and their extreme opposing views (which have thankfully been stopped), rather than a deliberate skewing of history. Me personally, I am not concerned with ethnic loyalties (we are all cousins in one way or another, and I have a cute little Croatian god child who lives in Zagreb, soon to move to her mother's ancestral city: Split), just balance and facts. But I'm strongly opposed to inaccurate negative bias. Don't get me wrong, I feel the work contributed to date has been great (particularly in light of all the vandalism), but I know that Zadar has such rich and wonderful history that I would love to see represented to the fullest. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comment. It's not sarcasm, it's just that I'm not used to it when it comes to Zadar, Dalmatia and Italian users (unfortunatelly, thanx to a bunch of extreme POV-pushers - that's where DIR's "paranoia" comes from). So welcome sunshine to a rainy day.
 * Hmm Real nature of Zadar-Venice relationship during Medieval (from 11th to 15th) were ~300 yrs of war. I don't think that actual version of the article represents it at all. 1202 was just the most known internationally, probably the most tragic accident in the city's history (in last 1.000 yrs), but widely known mainly thanx to the "4th Crusade". 1242 was nothing better, etc... I'm thinking about writing separate article about these wars, since format of Wiki article doesn't give enough space in this one. BTW that's the main problem with Zadar and its history. It's rarely huge. Every period can be covered with separate article. Already during Medieval, Zadar was known as "a city with many names". Nowadays, historians describe it as "a city with incredibly rich history" but also "proud city that survived many tragedies".
 * It's impossible to write the city's history and not to mention what happened there. Venetians played extremely negative role in Zadar story in that period. How to avoid negative portrayal? To say that bad guys from Venice a few times sneaked, a few times sieged, a few times were beaten and a few times turned it into the ruins, while good Venetian guys were always staying at home? Come on... problem comes from a reader's mind - what is expected to read? Let's not relate modern ethnicities (Italian, Croatian) to Medieval (Venetian, Croatian, Dalmatian).
 * I'm sure you miss knowledge of history on this region, a little bit. From 9th century on, after Charlemagne's retreat from region, a sort of match started between Venice and the Dalmatian cities - to control Adriatic meant to be there. Venice had important position in the north of the sea as an "eye" of the Central Europe to the east: Constantinople, Levant - trade! Zadar had the important position at the centre of the eastern Adriatic coast - this coast with the thousands of islands and proper flows and winds was much more suitable for navigation to the Medieval seafarers, than "naked" Italian coast. It's calculated that Liburni from Iadera (Zadar) had all Adriatic in 2 days of cruising, with a station on the island of Issa (Vis) for southern trips (the most southern Corfu). Venice had a problem and resolved it by force, not by flowers. Let's not be emotional about it.
 * I'm sorry to hear your opinion on sources, these are probably the most reliable ones, written in the same place, by the cover of the same university continuing tradition of the one established in 14th, in the largest part based directly on very rich historical archive saved in the city. 3 toms of Povijest Zadra were written by eminent names, never related to any kind of nationalism or bias. Suić an expert for Antique period in Dalmatia and Liburnia, often cited everywhere, Petricioli Zd historian whole lotta Zd, Klaić an expert on western Balkan, etc. It's full of everything, don't worry, question is only what to pick and present. You asked me to explain how Zadar's economy was restrained and I have at least ?00 academical pages with details to choose from. :( Wrong way to build the article!
 * I see actual article history version as "work in progress". There are many important things to add everywhere to make it more objective. I agree that actual version is poor. But I don't think that an article should be result of a tennis match. This particular article was like a front in last 2 yrs. I'm reparing it slowly, had no enough time recently. I'm glad if you can help, but then it's supposed to be started in Talk:Zadar and not at an administrator's talk page "in good faith" ;) Zenanarh (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has gone to Talk:Zadar. Here Say cheese Zenanarh (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your election page
See Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unexpected honor. I have filed my statement there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Puthandu or Tamil New Year
Thank you Ed. I am not IT savvy but tried to follow your instructions. Please help. Thank you

--MrinaliniB (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: How to win a revert war
Yes, some tendentious editors were giving me a hard time about that recently. I had to remove it from my user page for that reason (which is also why I edited my talk page to unlink it). One called it my "modus operandi". I dunno really what one is supposed to do ...I guess not everyone is gonna get it ?8/ Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said to C.S., the arbs are divided the same way wikipedia, some with differing abilities, perspectives and senses of humor. It's a diverse world! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are free to remove warnings from their Talk page (unless blocked)
Hello I5kfun, You restored some notices that an IP had removed. This should not be done, since unblocked editors are free to remove warnings (unless they are confirmed socks). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll leave it up to more senior editors, but if you see the edit revision summary for the edit it is pretty clear that the person was removing the edit from their own address. They said "i am at school, i had to delet this because if my parents see that i vandalized, i will be in big trouble. please i am sorry. please let the page stay clear."  I won't touch the page again I just brought it to people attention. I5kfun (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Truce
I did propose my changes on talk. And elsewhere. And no one responded. And there was a wikify tag. So eventually, I did just that. And those who had put a watch on the page but were unwilling to lift a finger to edit it themselves had their suspicions confirmed. Odd that. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He is back!!!
Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Do you remember PARARUBBAS aka PEP10 aka PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasd08#Sock_of_Pararubbas)? Well, the vandal is back, now with the account KAKD08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kakd08).

The modus operandi is, unfortunately and obviously, the same as seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitorino_Antunes&diff=269312444&oldid=266434623). As you can see, now he is magnanimous enough to leave the EXTERNAL LINKS, but continues to "hate" REFERENCES and paragraphs, "gluing" all sentences...It's him, alright!!! I am tired sick of idiots like this, i am leaving the project for good but, before i did so, thought i'd drop you a line as you helped me (and the site ultimately) the other time.

P.S. Heard a couple of times about long-range blocks, but apparently, the case of an idiot who is in his fourth account and keeps ruining other people's work, is not justification strong enough, oh well...

Greetings, farewell, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before leaving (4 good), just tipping you off that i reported the situtation at WP/ANI (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet)

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing that continues, as this idiot vandal, is this: i report, i get no answer: reported half an hour ago, the folks who reported after me have already been "served", i guess i should say to somebody (not all) at WP/ANI "Sorry for wanting to get rid of a vandal". Keep up the good work Ed, don't worry, you can (if you wish) reply to this message, i will abandon WP but will still log in the next weeks to see the outcome of this procedures.

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again me, ED, sorry for the insistence but, as i wrote my message to you and my report, received a useful message from User:BanRay about this vandal (he has helped me in the past), re-directing me to a more proper field, judging by its according name, SOCKPUPPET INVESTIGATIONS. I copy/pasted my report to WP/ANI there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet)

Now, my task is done, hope this "person" gets his due,

Goodbye, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Vasco. The three editors that you complained about in Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas/Archive are now indef blocked. So your effort at reporting these activities does get results. Sock issues are complex, so you are well advised to keep filing at WP:SPI when these issues occur. I am not always available to respond, but blatant cases are usually dealt with one way or another. WP:SPI is a better place to file these complaints than WP:ANI. File an actual sockpuppet case, don't just use the Talk page of SPI. Don't be surprised that socks keep returning again and again, this does happen. Wikipedia still survives. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaksgam_Valley&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=States_and_territories_of_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North-East_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_disasters&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.162.68.2 Special:Contributions/86.151.126.176 They never give up, I encountered them by sheer (bad) luck Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

back
Special:Contributions/86.151.126.95

  

These pages need semiprotections from Nangparbat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC) this page has been attacked too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the consensus at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive, semiprotection can be used when needed if editing by Nangparbat is detected. I have semi-protected everything listed above except Last stand, which seems to get most of its normal edits from IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Koov
. Colchicum (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sockpuppet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

More Nangparbat attacks
Special:Contributions/81.158.129.26 Special:Contributions/86.153.128.18

Pages needing semiprotection: States and territories of India Dentistry Talk:Battle of Longewala Religious violence in India Pakistan Army Ethnicity of performers in pornography

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected States and territories of India and Religious violence in India. The rest either (a) have plenty of regular editors, (b) get many legit contributions from IPs, or (c) Nangparbat hasn't done much there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you take pictures?
On your userpage you said you live in the Boston area. Did you ever think about taking pictures for wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know what pictures are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hi Ed, You mentioned I had not gained consensus for a Quilliam Foundation post - this was the first draft and contributions were being made until one user removed large chunks of it and without discussion. Could you elaborate your comment further please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember it was not easy to sort out what was happening on this article. My comment on the 6 February 3RR report was Jk54 has four reverts in 24.5 hours, and he uses blanket reverts to install his own much larger version of the article (59 kb vs 13 kb). I do not see that he got consensus anywhere for his larger version. I would welcome a patient discussion on the article Talk page to arrive at a consensus, before making large reverts. Other participants were blocked as well, and I hope they will become more patient in the future. Small changes to individual sections are easier to track and discuss than very large ones. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response Ed. The original article was based roughly on a masters thesis, fully and academically referenced - one individual hacked most of it away without any discussion or justification. His unendorsed edits were reverted back to the original article by me with an attempt to discuss in the discussion section what he opposed and achieve consensus. He gave 3 examples which did not justify deletion of such a large volume of material which I explained and instead of continuing the discussion he simply complained about my reverts.
 * I would appreciate if you could advise how to take this issue forward in a productive manner - it seems sensible to try to start with the article and discuss what needs to be deleted / rewritten if inappropriate to wiki standards. What do you think? Would you be willing to neutrally facilitate the process or be on hand to help resolve problems if necessary? Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is presumptuous to revert to your version as a starting point for discussion. Offer questions for discussion one at a time on Talk and see what the reactions are. You might be able to find a WikiProject whose members would be interested in reviewing the article. We do have WP:Dispute resolution to resolve disagreements. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Võro
Hi, maybe also users Termer and K731 should know what happens in the discussion about Võro. If you haven't notified them yet. They have participated actively in discussion on talk pages of the articles about Võro and South Estonian. --90.190.63.182 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, I forgot to log in. --Võrok (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing question
Hi. You do lots of work with edit warriors. I do not; I'm usually off in the copyright infringement part of the building. :) What's the proper way of handling an IP contributor blocked for edit warring who has clear intent to continue disruption after the block expires? Do we give him rope and see what he does with it or, in the interest of protecting the project, simply extend his block now? This is the user in question: . He's been at it at that IP since October 2008. Before that, he was, . It seems to have begun in May 2007 and has, obviously, escalated. My efforts to encourage dispute resolution have failed. My thought is that it might be a good idea to extend his block for a couple of months and leave him instructions for requesting unblocking if he decides dispute resolution is the way to go after all (he'll probably just delete it like he did the last notice, but at least he'll have it). But I wanted to seek advice from somebody who is much more experienced in this neighborhood than I am and whose judgment I trust. I'll watch here in case you have any input to offer me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring blocks for more than one week may get resistance from other admins, however richly deserved. I support your idea of a two-month block, and WP:DE sounds like the best tag to put on it. If it were up to me, I would probably offer the situation for review at WP:AN, indicate you are planning to do a two-month block, and ask for advice. It would be 'the community's patience is exhausted' type of block. Itemize and quote from the various personal attacks, not just because the guy was rude to you, but because it suggests there is little hope of future improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. I will do. Thanks very much for the feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Zakynthos - media listing all from the one stable?
Hi Ed, i read your comment re Zakynthos and i really do appreciate that wiki is not an advert hoarding but then why are all the radio stations from one media group listed, i question the reason for listing this particular company's products (in total) and, i question why no other form of media is allowed to be listed as well, particularly the non commercial island ezine. do i detect hidden interests or is this a genuine oversight. lets be honest here the bottom of the page reads like a classified ad! does anyone else agree that either all media is listed and treated fairly or no media is listed - im new here and enthusiastic, i dearly hope that there are no 'rat smells' that would be very disappointing can you clarify your view on this and can action be taken? your trusted thoughts and advice please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladstone100 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented over at Talk:Zakynthos. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Family Foundation School
Thanks for reverting the latest vandalism to that article. I tried to revert it, but I guess you were a few seconds ahead of me. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Law
There is no Further reading list on this page. What are you looking at, the list of References actually used in the article? Close reading...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the RfC, which asked for comments on the Further Reading list in this version of the article. Sorry if my post was not clear. If I had checked the date of the last response, I probably would not have commented at all, since it does not appear to be an active issue any more. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ITK-SNAP Review
Dear Ed,

Back in October, you flagged the ITK-SNAP article with a notability guideline tag. Since then, I've added a number of independent sources. I was wondering if you could review your tagging of the article now.

Thank you very much Paul

Yushkevich (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Paul. Please see my response at User talk:Yushkevich. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New sock of Pararubbas

 * PARARUBBAS aka PEP10 aka PASD08 aka KAKD08

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Incredible!!!! This "user" does not learn!!! He opened a fifth (!!!) account, now under the name SVZ08. He still does not give a rat's ass, and continues removing links, refs, just because (two examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9lio_Sousa&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fary_Faye&diff=prev&oldid=272106667).

Will report this immediately to WP/ANI, just tipping you off.

Have a nice week, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Svz08. I have blocked Svz08 as a sock of Pararubbas. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas - SOCK
Hi there ED, VASCO here,

In response to your message (sorry man, where are my manners? First things first, thank you very much for blocking the vandal, here comes account nº SIX), i'll say:

Only sent a "memo" to those who came across his wrongdoings (i "fell on" some while checking the latest account's "contributions") just 3 or 4 people, and that includes you, want to corner that despicable person and make him quit (the only way he would not be so would be if he did not know better and was mentally challenged, which he is not, since he operates perfectly well with a computer), but i guess maybe i'll quit first (and that takes me to an article i saw a few days ago, about WIKI-divas; well, maybe some folks would call me that, but at least i'm not an idiotic vandal like this one, and he's but a tiny tiny fraction of the lot...). He spends a mere one or two days before opening a new account, and adds nothing new, this is preposterous.

Also regarding your message, i welcome that suggestion, will perform as asked when reporting the sixth account (somewhere towards the end of February 2009), although i think the only one wasting everybody's time is "you-know-who"...and his akin.

Cheers, nice "talking" to you, happy week,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A question....
inre this puppet problem: (see above). This has been ongoing and is about to drive a user of of wiki. What kind of protection is available? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Svz08 in response to Vasco's request. This is a routine process. We find that some editors will just create one sock after another, until the cows come home. Our rule for handling these people is 'revert, block, ignore'. If you think the case is serious enough to justify more work, consider opening a new complaint under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. Ask the checkusers to see if there is an underlying IP that could be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)



And if/when User:NothingButAGoodNothing contacts me again, I will encourage him to be patient, to stay on Wiki, and to not let repeated vamdalism by puppets. Thank again,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT ON MARC MYSTERIO ARTICLE
Hi, this is not Marc Mysterio... I am simply, as a wiki member, noting the controversy here... It appears that this user THM is trolling this page and deleting acceptable edits, including noted of major country chartings, despite chartings... I posted a yousendit link of the judge jules bbc radio 1 show i found on the net... He cited some reason to not validate these edits and revert back.

i think that you need to realize this individual whom keeps deleting valuable portions of this article is warring and trolling this article, notwithstanding other valuable contributions to this site.

As i mentioned, The Chris Lake article notes that he was a guest dj on BBC Radio 1 with Pete Tong and even included a Tong quote. Judge Jules is also on BBC Radio with a timeslot just after Tong and, moreover, Jules is ranked higher than Tong in DJMAG; therefore, it is more notable -- the mysterio guest mix.

THF also deleted important chartings in the One More Time section of Mysterio (2009) including national chartings.

I suggest that you undo the latest revision of the mysterio article by THF and block him from editing this page since it seems there is a vendetta.

THF's edits are in violation of T&S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.224.161 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User talk:209.222.224.161. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

HI SIR, I have replied there as well... I just want an answer why verifiable info is being deleted that is notbale..

not to insult others.. please advise so that this can be fixed and that i understand for the future..

i am not a troll.. merely frustrated by what seem to be to be harmful and needless removal of information that is fact based, and neither self promo nor slanted. in fact, on the last edit before THF deleted it again, there was a reduction of content but kept the important facts (Guest Dj on BBC Radio 1 with Judge Jules, Jules Comments, stats pertaining to One More Time).

Perhaps there is a middle ground we can reach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to make your case over at Talk:Marc Mysterio. Since blogs are not accepted as reliable sources, the article may have to limit itself to not including as much as you want. 'Information that is fact based' has to be supported by references acceptable in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, it was almost every night for two weeks. I just hope they don't start going after my article edits now. I think you might have even been the one to range block him at one point last summer. NJGW (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Monshuai
Hi Ed, personally I don't think there's a big enough range of users there (just three of us). I mean, I wouldn't mind if you just went ahead and enforced the sanction because I agree with it. But he might have a problem with so few editors being involved in the decision making. Oh well, you make the decision, Ed; I'd be okay with it either way. :-) Thanks for your message! Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vsemthem
Good catch. I wasn't entire sure it was Shustov until today, when he started to (re)add the usual links back to his personal websites in prose with the same somewhat stilted phrasing. Thanks for the heads-up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback on protecting a section from being archived
– xeno  ( talk ) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

blocked user back again
you blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.11.100.50 for a week for archiving the page without consensus. they're back, and they've started archiving again Theserialcomma (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note at User talk:Diamonddannyboy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i dont want any of my comments shown and I want them removed for personal reason, I also want my account closed and all of my contribrution removed, surley I have the right to remove what I right.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * they were my comments I removed, can I not do this. If I cant I want my account closed and all comments removed.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i am not sure the procedure for removing your own messages, so we should wait to see if edjohnston says it's appropriate for you to do that. until he comments though, i would suggest that you do not delete yours or other editors' messages, as any deletion might disrupt the context/coherency of the conversation. also, you've already been blocked for trying to inappropriately archive various talk pages, and you've been warned again about it. yet you've gone right back to doing so. please stop? Theserialcomma (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If your not sure if I can remove my comments, why do you revert when I remove, surley you should be clear on wikipedia rules before reverted, as it might actullay be acceptable removes ones comments.


 * I dont wish to be on wikipedia any more, and i wish all my comments to be removed straight away, I have right to do this, as personal request.

It is of no concern of yours if I wish not to be invloved in any conversation or in the wikipedia.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Improving the system of tagging for COI
Suppose it were like an AfD nomination, and there was a template at the top of the article that pointed to an active WP:COIN discussion?
 * That would be good; it would deal with the common problem of outdated COI tags. As I've said elsewhere, it's so easy to tag and hope someone else will sort it (because raising COI commonly involves taking on tendentious editors) then forget to see out the outcome.
 * I'm not terribly keen on SJ's solution of Template:COI-check. Apart from general discomfort at the relationship - editor gets told off for COI, then starts off on advocacy / new templates that weaken COI procedure - I think it focuses too much on the sole issue of article neutrality. As I've also said elsewhere, COI often brings a package of problems (e.g. creating multiple articles, too many incoming wikilinks to a page, WP:SOAP in discussions, etc) that would be better dealt with globally at WP:COIN.
 * It's a difficult one. I know we're told to focus on edits rather than editors, but COI is a problem where the focus is the editor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to leave a (friendly) message for Gordonofcartoon and followed this discussion here. As I just explained, this was THF's proposal, not mine, and the irony is that if you check the first comment you'll see that I don't even necessarily support it (even if I've tweaked the template itself). Even more ironic is that I'm actually proposing to "beef up" WP:COI (rather than "water it down") by requiring disclosure and making it a policy. The flip side is that we don't attack editors, articles and subjects by tagging them COI or citing WP:COI without supporting violations (V, NPOV, AUTO, etc.). That should help to clear out the backlog so we can focus on the problem cases. It would also avoid current culture to severely punish conflict disclosures and eliminate the grey area which appears to be the source of most of the problems; conflicted editors will know where they stand and what is (and is not) allowable. Given how hard it can be to deal with undisclosed conflicts it would also give us a real stick to use when they are discovered (e.g. non-disclosure = block or disclosure w/ supporting violations = block, not the current situation where disclosure w/o supporting violations = pergatory).


 * FWIW you have my full support re: turning COI into an AfD style process linking back to WP:COIN. This will ensure that the right people (like yourselves) will be able to collectively respond promptly and intensively rather than the current 'tag and run' culture under which articles are tagged for years but never improved.


 * PS I'm not really a spammer and am far more reasonable than some would make out. I do however feel very strongly about IP abuse) and intensely dislike unjustified accusations, particularly when editing with my real name. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 04:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More Nangparbat attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalimar_Gardens_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indophobia&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_the_Punjab&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.235.164 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine COI case
Ed, since you are the admin that looked into this matter previously, I'd appreciate it if you could review this new case too. Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   04:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, if you are indeed the admin who reviews the case, I expect you will wish to focus upon these WP:COIN edits:
 * The problem here is that it is only the South African Wikipedia editor, Socrates2008, who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".
 * I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your socket puppet accounts closed down.  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner Deon Steyn awarded you The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your concerted attack on me in collaboration with Deon Steyn has been recorded by no less an authority than Wikipedia Review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds like WP:NPOV and/or WP:V issues rather than WP:COI (which would require be obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Broader discussion of merge
Hi, Ed. I have a procedural question. An article has been tranformed into a redirect (Orthomolecular psychiatry) after a discussion at which I and another editor expressed opposition, and there has been some editwarring over the action. I would like to refer the question to a broader community discussion – I think I would prefer AfD. Do you think it would be OK if I restore the article and immediately list it for AfD (although I would be voting "keep"), requesting that it be left in the form of an article during the course of the AfD, or is there another more appropriate procedure to get broader community input in such a situation, e.g. article-content RfC? Thanks in advance for your advice. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Since Ruslik0 has protected the page, I've referred the question to him here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall
I'm not sure what counts as, but figured you could handle it?  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor for more details here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure - the article is Davenport, Iowa African American history. Brrryce (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh...
I thought it was kind of quiet around here :) Thanks.  NJGW (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More Nangparbat attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalimar_Gardens_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indophobia&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_the_Punjab&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.235.164 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I messaged you before, but nothing was done

The links above, plus these below need to be semiprotected

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poonch_District_(AJK)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.233.205, this was the IP that was vandalizing

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A-11 and please stop that guy from deleting our 100% FACTUAL post
'''Below is the correct facts put forth and please repost it. Thank you, and there is NO copyright violation:'''

History: The A-11 Offense is used in American football, and it combines certain aspects of Option offenses, the Zone Read, West Coast offense, and the Run & Shoot http://www.A11Offense.com.

The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation.

The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country.

Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math

Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.

Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3.

In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany.

Legality and feasibility in various leagues
The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.”

In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down.

The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted."

The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur.

In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about A-11 offense, an article which has been semiprotected since you have added material there which violates copyright. Please read WP:5P about Wikipedia policy, and do not cut-and-paste material that is posted on other web sites. Unless you can prove you own that material, it is a copyright violation to put it in Wikipedia. Besides the copyright problem, there is a verification problem. We can't accept assertions about A-11 that are only based on personal knowledge; we require published references. The Scientific American article is fine as far as it goes, but you make a lot of other claims that have no references. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ed
Please post this article now that the references of facts have been listed, thank you.

History: The A-11 Offense (All Eleven Players Potentially Eligible) is an innovative new offense that blends aspects of almost every type of offense in the history of football such as the West Coast, Spread Option, Run and Shoot, Shotgun Zone Fly, Wing-T, Single Wing, Notre Dame Box, Triple Option and Veer just to name a few. Teams can use the A-11 as a “package” to supplement their own offense & feature up to eleven players as potential threats, and even two quarterbacks in the shotgun!

The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation.

The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country. Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.

Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3.

In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany. Reference: www.A11Offense.com

Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math

Legality and feasibility in various leagues
The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.”

In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS (www.nfhs.org) in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down, and hybrid A-11 concepts will come into play in 2009, on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs.

The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted."

The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur. Reference: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3779821

In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shshshsh
Yesy, the other guy had a few socks,, actually.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello YM. I see that you blocked the above guy, who was involved in the 3RR dispute at A. R. Rahman. You've also blocked 91.130.91.84 as his sock. What about who was one of the other participants in the controversy at A. R. Rahman. Did you reach any conclusions about him? EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot. They're both him,  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Soy
Thanks for the note. I wish the anon would have said what was on their mind... would have saved some trouble. I really don't care about being wrong, only about the article being right. I think it's taken care of now though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Takahashi Meijin
I noticed that Takahashi Meijin was deleted by you, without discussion. As this guy was a celebrity in Japan in the 1980s, I think skipping past the AFD was a mistake. It'll be difficult for me to find sources since I don't read Japanese (neither do you, apparently), but even today he's getting pub from the likes of Business Week, Wired, and Kotaku. A general writeup can be found at Hudson's site, which was likely on the original article but outright ignored. I don't know what the rules are about recreating an article, as last time I did it with many added proper sources some admin got his panties in a wad and threatened to indefinitely block me. I believe his favorite catchphrase to newbies was, "Fuck off." What a cheeky fellow. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to work on the article, I can restore it into your user space. Your new references look good, but the article may get flak due to its poor state if the references aren't put in immediately. If you need any advice on strengthening the article so it won't be deleted, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Dear EdJohnston, hello!

You declined my unblock request and I'd like to first thank you for the kind words, and tell you something very important to avoid misunderstandings. It's just too disappointing to be blocked twice within one month when all I'm doing is fighting POV and biasness and going according to consensus and sources. I spend a lot of time discussing matters on talk pages, citing sources, but those who refuse to accept the truth and the facts derived from it cause all the troubles. They of couse get punished, but then those who try to stop them get their hard work thrown brutally at their faces. I'm one of them. I also lost my rollback, which I always used fairly and never misused it or violated its terms of use (I always use the edit summary in cases that are not vandalism). It's hard to see al that happening to me after three years of hard work and great collaboration with other admins against vandalism all for the sake of this project called Wikipedia. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Shahid, and welcome back to regular editing. Please be aware that the enforcement of 3RR is usually quite mechanical. Editors who let themselves get carried away can be blocked regardless of the value of their edits. If you see you are in danger of crossing the 3RR line, try to widen the discussion and bring in more opinions. In cases where the other party is really violating policy, you can ask for help on a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasis
Again. NJGW (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Took some action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but somehow he slipped through again last night. How does that happen?  NJGW (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried something else. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Correlation
About this, there is already a reference here. There is no original research, apparently. Nightbit (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about moving other user's discussion
I'm continually finding talk comments that I make being copied and pasted into discussion on other pages, giving the impression that I had participated in the discussion on the secondary talk page. What is the WP policy on selectively copying (dare I say editing) other user's comments in this way in order to form an argument? Thanks  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The copying was clearly not "selective" since it included the full, unadulterated comments by three editors: Socrates2008, SamJohnston and me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a clear policy on this; you can check WP:TPG for the Talk guideline. In general it is better to *link* to the previous discussion and then summarize its significance in your own words. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Rupert Everett
Hi. To be honest, I barely recall having done that, and don't quite recall what I was doing, besides cleaning up a messy reference that was left. It's obviously a mistake and all I can do is say "mea culpa". Thanks for letting me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification
That you for the notification so I had a chance to respond jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

RRQ
Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor=. Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

Can you take a look at the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois page if you have time, thank you.Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ
Thanks for your advice. Filed the proper format. Note also that he has admitted his conflict of interest: he is part of the organization and contributing on their instructions. Vincent (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)+

PS You know you've been on Wiki too long when a section title like "COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ" makes sense... Vincent (talk)

Vfp15|Vincent
I think Vincent work for a federalist organisation he really want to block me, he lie about me and make false accusation. He dont contribute to wikipedia credibility. Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

Proposed wording for proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine
Under your Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine, I've added a proposed wording; please let me know what you think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK with me. 'Broadly construed' is fair, and there should be no Talk page ban. If the discussion closes, and editors agree that a topic ban is needed, I thought I would try negotiating with Patrick on a detailed list of articles that were included, so there is no ambiguity. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I've closed it - consensus is pretty clear. Given that topics can often affect many articles, or sections of articles, we don't usually provide an exhaustive list other than handpicking a few examples (like we did in this case). But I'll leave that up to you. Full compliance with the sanction would mean avoiding any related articles as much as possible, especially with the broadly construed provision. My only hope is that no socking will follow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with how you handled that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for taking appropriate action.  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "My only hope is that no socking will follow" — Ncmvocalist should assume good faith.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope PJHaseldine refrains from editing disruptively or violating a topic ban (even through socking - the typical response to topic bans) because failure to do so would merely earn further sanctions. It's that simple; not a matter of good faith or bad faith - time to move on, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording makes no mention of the topic ban being temporary. Nor is any restriction placed upon Socrates2008 or User:Deon Steyn — see the following discussion:
 * Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Were these omissions deliberate or inadvertent?---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quoting Abd's opinion and Samj's opinion. Administrators who enforce the ban are expected to use common sense. If necessary they can refer back to the full COIN discussion before taking action. I was considering proposing the ban as temporary rather than permanent, but the issue has continued for a very long time. I did not anticipate that you'd ever change your editing habits in the future, since you seem to not see any problem with what you do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed. The issue is moot, because all bans are temporary and can be reversed on a showing of good faith attempts to cooperate. The ban allows Talk page participation, which may have been appropriate from the beginning for this editor with respect to certain articles in any case, given how close he is to the subject, and, indeed, he is the subject of an involved article. In dealing with other editors who may be problematic, PJH is welcome to ask for help, and he did ask for help in response to what I wrote, quoted above, and I've suggested that he act only in minimally disruptive ways, as I will, and I'm reviewing some of what he has claimed. From PJH's responses so far, I have hope that his behavior will indeed change and that he may be more effective in what is legitimate about what he wants, if he very carefully respects the ban and the need for cooperation among members of the community, including those with whom he disagrees on this or that. None of this involves a judgment by me that he got a raw deal or that he did not get a raw deal. He's been banned, the process was reasonable, and I'm taking this one step at a time. I do anticipate that socking will not follow, but if I'm wrong, well, win a few, lose a few. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal we all well "know"
Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Again!!! PARARUBBAS has opened a new account, now the gentleman's called MNHT08. He continues to glue sentences (Rio Ave FC) and glue sentences and remove links just because (Orlando Sá, Hélio Sousa). I don't want to be intrusive or anything, but how about a long-range block on this idiot (although i know others would still "suffer", but being for the common good...)?

Kind regards, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, Ed, that was surely not the response i was hoping for. As i deduce from your second reply, i see that you have already seen my report, and are not at all satisfied with my deeds. Well, i tried my best: i write names in caps because i just wanted to stress the vandal's name. In the future, and following your suggestion, that will be avoided. Also, i continue to be "accused" of not providing diffs, when i did just so in the report i, in excellent or poorest fashion, filed. All in all, with the report you have, and since you are much more qualified do deal with this than me, could you help me? If not, cool too. By the way, i already added new "user" to the sockpuppet list.

Attentively, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to file a WP:SPI report on your own, the best way you can. Since the guy you are reporting already has a very bad reputation, you will probably receive some help from the people who review your report, even if you don't do it exactly right. Apologies for being annoyed, but I tried to look up User:MNHT08 and found nothing. So I had to carefully study your contribution history to guess the real name of the person you had been dealing with. Thank you for adding a sock template to this guy's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already have, and if you have seen it, what else do i add/remove there? Ty in advance,
 * Hello Vasco. You left a talk message at WT:SPI, asking for people to help you. But so far as I can tell, there is no new item mentioning Pararubbas visible at WP:SPI. If you had made a regular sock report, it should be visible there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think (although i could be grossly mistaken) it's mentioned in the first line in the report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#SOCK_vandal_.28and_counting....29). If i am wrong, then Ed, then i am really at a loss, and really need your help. If you feel otherwise, ok, sorry 4 the inconvenience...

Cheers, Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:SPI is a *Talk page*, for people to give their comments on how the sockpuppet system is working. If you actually want to file a new sock report, in a proper way, go to SPI and read the instructions for filing a report. The instructions are at the bottom of the first green area. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, it's been done, tell me what you think of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas). Don't know what else can i do. Regards, Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your report seems good; I have added a comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My thanks also, Ed. No doubt we'll here from another puppet in a few weeks. And to Vasco... just be patient. As each puppet appears, it will be dealt with. Keep up your good spirits.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking guidance.
Well. I did not do as good a job as I should, it seems, at the ANI. The resulting silence has led to this post. I find this very disturbing. Normally, I would simply warn the editor for incivility for the "Well since the strong arming you all tried..." remark, but the editor has stated that I am harrassing, and that my edits there are vandalism. I have already dropped the article from my watch list and don't plan to edit it further, but this behaviour is offensive to me. I plan to do nothing for 2 days, then either follow some good advice I dredge up, drop it, or pursue the editor's behaviour further. If you choose not to advise me on this I will certainly understand, this is not your problem. Thank you for your time, and any advice is entirely a bonus.sinneed (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment at Talk:Sovereign Grace Ministries. It's funny that you've identified your counterpart as being the problem, since you both seem to be on the same side of the larger debate. In a quick look at his contribs I think he uses 'vandalism' incorrectly, but you should (ideally) still be able to work with him. Since so many people have already got burned out on this article, the field may be open to new compromises if you, Jbolden and Fender can find something you can all live with. I see you've been working on Babywise. That could be a step towards dealing with SGM eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. :) "identified your counterpart as being the problem" - but I haven't. *Some* of his behaviour is.  I truly, honestly, have no knowledge of or feeling for this church or its issues.  The article, before, was an advert.  I thought it was under attack by vandals, and tried to keep what I thought was vandalism out.  I was simply wrong.  :)  I'll be wrong again. I am trying an RfC at Family Foundation School where there is a similar issue (serious problem, shortage of coverage in the media), and I now have an idea how to attack it.  I know far less about churches than schools.  I think I'll focus there, then maybe hit babywise (which looks like a whitewash, where it was once a tarring and feathering.  Churches?  Not so much.  sinneed (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Miguel Andres Matienzo Guerra
Thanks for letting me know. I am reprodding it, I still feel the subject fails WP:BIO and the fact the article was apparently created by the subject himself is an additional confirmation of such a feeling of mine. --Angelo (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually, I agree and overtagged it as a CSD. My concern was for historical accuracy (I'm pathological in my desire to see articles deleted for the right reasons). 74.69.39.11 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat returns once again
Special:Contributions/86.163.155.254 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your report. I renewed the semi-protection on those three articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandal
Hi there Ed, Vasco here,

Thank you for the note and, should i say, your kind and invaluable cooperation. I guess it will have to be dealt "one sock at a time", until the closet is full...Rest assured my friend, as far as i am concerned, from now on, i will deal with these matters solely in the appropriate fields (this was a good lesson).

Regards, have a great weekend, from Portugal,

Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pararubbas
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a Sockpuppet category template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion about reclassifying sockpuppet accounts, and I don't know if the template you describe actually exists. Sorry to be so unhelpful. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Avis kings
Hi, thanks for your message. I think there are more or less consistent WP policies regarding anglicization of foreign proper names. Names of kings before the 20th century seem to be one of the cases where anglicization is mandatory in the article's title (of course, there is no reason for hybrids in the article). My idea with "Azurara">"Zurara" was that the issue there was not anglicization. I'm not sure that I can help you somehow, but please leave another message if you think I can. Velho (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read those rules some days ago. But it first depends on whether there is an English name for the portrayed person. There is no specific rule for monarchs, I was just mentioning a case that seems pretty clear to me. There has been a huge discussion about this kind of issues... Velho (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't get your "Bah!"... Velho (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It just meant that there was a recognized outside authority that makes the same choice as our current naming convention for the Avis kings, at least for that article. So my proposed change would be unlikely to be credible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Iraq-Russia relations
Hi Ed, I found this page on protection and would like to be able to expand the article. It was protected some while ago. Thanks. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have undone the semi-protection. If the sock comes back, the protection may have to be restored, so I hope you'll get busy soon :-). EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Feces
I replied to you at RFPP, but then reconsidered. In a perfect world, the article should not be indefinitely protected. But, as you and the protecting admin say, this article is just too tempting a target. Any attempt to unprotect it would be met with the inevitable onslaught of vandalism. Thanks for talking sense, 71.182.216.55 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)