User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46

Skanderbeg


Hi EdJohnston. The Skanderbeg article is continuously disrupted by IPs and in a few cases, like today, by registered editors. Sometimes edits made by IPs create confusion, and as a result, create conflicts. Would a semi-protection help? Have a look at the article's history and make sth that can improve the situation if it is possible. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One admin fully protected the article for three days. It would be good if after it expires a semi-protection is applied. Have a look there and decide what you think is better. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, one newbie has created their sandbox as an article . It should moved from "article" to "user" format. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like people are disputing whether Skanderbeg had a Bulgarian connection. This question might be suitable for an WP:RFC on the talk page. If it turns out that nobody on the talk page has the patience for proper discussion, the article may be put under long-term full protection. We could then wait for edit requests if any changes are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a RfC is a good idea, and I will open one in the few coming hours. The origin of Skanderbeg's mother is a matter of dispute between academics, with theories existing on a possible Albanian, Serbian or Bulgarian origin. A RfC could help by attracting more opinions on the matter. Also, the Albania-Greece relations article is fully-protected but it expires today. The dispute has not been solved yet (it started roughly a month ago) and the discussion is rather heated. Would you consider extending the length of the full-protection? From all Balkan content disputes, those concerning relations between Albanians and Geeks are the most problematic ones, as they last for a long time and generally produce low-quality content, either with pro-Albanian POV or with pro-Greek POV. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not make a proposal at the bottom of Talk:Albania–Greece relations for how to proceed after the protection expires. Some people have laid out a lot of proposals there but there is no voting section. Maybe there should be one. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for comments by those editors involved in the dispute who have not responded to the current proposals yet. After that, I will try to formulate a version which could satisfy all involved editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Monica Seles article


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

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

Please handle the case somehow...

Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I left a note for the editor. If there is no willingness to negotiate I think that they should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now the case seem to be calmed down. Just for curiosity, why would this better be a "Yugoslavia" isse rather than a simple "Sport nationality" issue as in WP in the top the sport nationality (like by footballers the FIFA natinoality) is identified? My second question is that why this would belong to ARBMAC as it deals with Macedonia, a country this whole case is not connected? (don't misunderstand me, not filibustering, but you know me already and my precisity, as well the sought to properly understand everything) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
 * If you look at the WP:ARBMAC page you'll see reference to the "entire range of articles concerning the Balkans". I'm not sure what you mean by 'sport nationality'. It is common to see people disputing about what country should be credited with the accomplishments of wonderful person X. (For example, Nikola Tesla). These are essentially national disputes, so it is fair to invoke the remedies we use for nationalism. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I mean there is a consensus that sportpeople are identified by the sport nationality (= the country officially they represent). By footballers it is the FIFA nationality (country of birth, other citizenships may be mentioned, but he/she will be "X" footballer where X is the national team he officially plays for. I did not say it is not fair to invoke other remedies, I meant this would be not a classic issue of nationality dispute like Tesla or others, because it is a clear fact which country sportpeople represent. Thank You for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
 * We can easily tell what country Monica Seles has chosen to play for in international competition, but the dispute was over how to decribe her personal nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that nationaliy you refer in the lead is per consensus the sport nationality I was talking about. It was set before American and Yugoslav, because in sport he represented these two countries (Hungarian was not but, though having Hungarian citizenship and ethnicity, but she never represented Hungary). Though you are right in a way that by retired sportspersons not necessarily, just and only the sport nationality may be in the lead, like by Kevin Kurányi. Now everything is clear I think. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Can you point to a guideline page or a thread where the concept of 'sport nationality' is explained? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not...but during the years I assessed i.e. many football player article debates, especially those who were born a different country or having on the whole or partially different ehtnicities than the country they represented (although by FIFA, having the citizenship (= nationality) of the country represented is an obligation) and always this was the outcome and and the argument and everybody accepted it. Or in case they could not agree or it was not a highlighted article, they ignored it and added which national team the person represented (X competes for Y country). I did not dig into it much as these cases have been always resolved like this. Though you are right something would be needed in order to refer in the future to this in case...what is sure I've met multiple times the phrase "football players are identified by their FIFA nationality".


 * Famous examples where surely the thread should contain such:


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


 * Diego Costa (version B; X play for Y)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Hi, sorry for bothering you again, but the user left a clear and serious personal attack in my talk page (after reading it I noticed in the article he again tried to do changes that was reverted already by someone else), can you handle this or should I file an ANI for the civility issue? Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I have blocked 24 hours for the personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations



 * To EdJohnston:


 * Hello!


 * Congratulations!


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


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


 * I have no idea!


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


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


 * Or not!


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


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


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

Editing on Shirvanshah page


Hello, EdJohnston. I have did edit on 5th december which was reverted by Wario-Man who offered about discussion of my edit. So then I called him to discussion on talk page But he didn't reply although I still was waiting one and a half weeks for his discussion. So my question is that do I have right to restore my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Ed, please keep in mind that Sahahansha5 often adds "Azerbaijani" to many articles without providing any reliable source and sometimes, irrelevant templates : 1, 2, 3 etc ... He has been reverted by numerous editors so far. Thanks. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikaviani, It would be nice of you if you proof me that these ones [1], [2] are irrelevant templates, by the way, both these templates were reverted without any consensus by Wario-Man and HistoryofIran while no of them didn't add citation what is against wiki rules such as WP:Consensus and WP:Edit warring. What about [3], this source is using as rs on Kazimzadeh's russian wiki page, so that's why I had thought that source is RS. But if you really care about non-rs sourced articles then explain me that since you're rollbacker why you hadn't done anything over manipulating by other editors on source which clearly mentions 15th century's Shirvanshahs as Azerbaijani state? In addition, here for a long time were staying non-sourced edits which were deleted by me, however, originally it is your duty but not mine.  What about my reverted edits, usually when I do edit related to Azerbaijan or Iran it is reverting for example, [1], [2], but when I do non-Azerbaijani/Iranian related edit such as [1], [2], [3], usually, no one reverts it, is it by chance? I don't think so. And it would be nice of you if show me those my etc irrelevant edits.Shahanshah5 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shahanshah5, please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. As a first step, explain on the talk page the change you want to make and say which references are in support of it. If you want to refer to published work, use a page number to say where you got the quote. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answer. I'll try to search references.Shahanshah5 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but you need to read Wiki policies more carefully, There is no need for sources in the lead section if the information it contains is not controversial. The house of Sasan is a Persian dynasty, this is, by no means, a controversial content. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikaviani, it doesn't mean that my edits were irrelevant since wiki policies mention that information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read all the paragraph, not only a little part. After your above sentence, it also says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus .". You have not sought to reach any consensus. No need to continue this discussion on Ed's talk, if you have anything to add just use your talk or mine. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikaviani, and at the end it also says that the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. What about the consensus, why you think I haven't sought to reach a consensus while I had began a discussion there[1]? I don't want to continue this discussion on another page since I suppose your POV isn't neutral. Shahanshah5 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"What about the consensus, why you think I haven't sought to reach a consensus while I had began a discussion there" : Not true, you began discussing after having tried to insert your template without any consensus and having been reverted twice : ...
 * Wikaviani, show me wiki policy which says that user can add template only after consensus. Shahanshah5 (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"I don't want to continue this discussion on another page since I suppose your POV isn't neutral" : I'll ignore that statement of yours, per WP:IPAT. Please keep in mind that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence can be considered as personal attacks]. Now, i guess that we're done here. Regards.
 * Wikaviani, actually, I wasn't interested in saying opinion about you but since I refused to discussion on your or my page, I was should to write its reason, or wasn't I should? Shahanshah5 (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

My appologies for blowing up your talk and squatting here for a while. My best wishes for Christmas. May 2019 be troll-free. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians


Hi EdJohnston. There has been much reverting on Origin of the Albanians, a highly sensitive topic. I decided to help there and reverted back to the stable version (the version before the disputes started), and called on al editors on the talk page to sort out all disputes and then change the article. From all editors involved, Skylax30 is the only one who continues blind reverting. I even pinged them on the talk page asking them to disucuss there, but they insist on their own. A few minutes ago they made a comment on the talk page with personal attacks on another editor. Given the long history of blocks, warring, personal attacks by Skylax30, should a report at the 3RR Noticeboard or a request for article protection be made? Or even a report at AE or ANI/I? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop complaining, talk. I improve the article with new academic sources and you, assisted by a another user, revert claiming that we have a "stable version", which we don't.

User EdJohnston is requested to pass this case to another user, because he has been more than once involved in disputes beween me and Ktrimi and some others edit-warring about Albania related articles. I believe he is pre-occupied against me. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An editor rv you and you wrote on the talk page that you were reverted because you are a Greek. Now you are saying that EdJohnston is "pre-occupied against" you? Is this a way to solve disputes? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You cause a "dispute" everytime we (I am not alone) are trying to improve the article with sources that are not compatible with the Albanian national myths (Illyrian etc). If you don' like the source, you claim that you have the right to "evaluate" it, like in this post of yours: " Skylax30, the same source, Matzinger, is being used to reject claims of several academics. Let the rest of editors read Matzinger and make an evaluation of him. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)  " May we know which WP rule gives you the right to evaluate an academic source? Thanks--Skylax30 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why Ktrimi insists against the creation of a new (sub)section on this new issue [][] making the discussion even more difficult for others to follow. Not to mention aggressive edit summaries. Well a large-scale full revert without precise arguments isn't a good way and it's against wp:BRD. I believe some decent explanation for this would be a constructive approach.[]Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, when your addition of section/sub-section head is reverted, do not add it again. As I said to you, I am on the phone and read nothing that way. Re "aggressive summaries", provide links to them. A few days ago you were criticized by other editors for describing me as "aggressive". Anyways, this is not about section/sub-section head. Take them to my talk page or ANI/I if you wish so. I will not respond about them here. @Skylax30, your words that "You cause a "dispute" everytime we" is another assumption. We can not continue this way. EdJohnston, what do you suggest? Maybe a discussion at ANI/I or AE for more community input on Skylax30? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that a new topic, in this case your massive revert needs a new section in the talkpage because a decent discussion on this is needed. Simply saying "don't create a new section again" isn't an explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a discussion at . EdJohnston, sorry for disturbing your talk page with this. When I edit non-Balkan articles, everything is easy. Idk why Balkan people love nationalism and fighting each-other. What do you suggest? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that if you don't "love nationalism", let other users to expand the article with modern academic sources, and stop claiming that you can "evaluate" academics bibliography. If you can, the academic journals will be happy to accept your papers. Not with a nickname. --Skylax30 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not try to merely "expand" the article, you removed well-sourced content. If there are several theories for sth, editors have the right to check what your source and other sources say before deciding how different theories should be presented side by side. Since there were many changes to the article recently, and several ongonig disputes on its talk page, I reverted to the pre-dispute version and asked all editors involved to sort out the disputes and then make the changes. Only you continued warring. If you check my editing history, in the past I wrote on the Meshari (16th century) being the first literary work in Albanian. I highlighted that view long before you started to do. Idk why you make so many personal attacks. Do you edit Wikipedia for hobby or someone forces you to edit? But trying to explain you how Wikipedia works every few days is a waste of time, filing a report at AE is not. Prepare yourself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any removal of sourced content in this case. Skylax made some changes per available inline reference. If that's correct or not this is a matter of interpretation of the given material.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that was really scary.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, yes they did remove content . But as another editor pointed out, you have been canvassing Skylax30, it is understandable why you are trying to redirect the topic of this discussion. Feel free to comment at the AE case, though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't an excuse for your massive removals. Ktrimi you removed text by various editors (me, Resnjary, Calthinus) by pretending that there was no discussion in talkpage [], while in fact several issues have been disccussed indeed. Please avoid large scale wp:NINJA.Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think I have done anything against the rules, open a new discussion below or at ANI/I. My massive removals were due to the massive disputes on the talk page. As I said on the talk page of the article, I do not have any particular interest in the topic, and my only reason of intervention there is my desire to stop massive reverts, another one of which you just made a few minutes ago, without consensus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, since you want to discuss about us, tell the community about our early interactions. You once filed a SPI on me. Did you wrote it by yourself? After you respond, I will respond the way I should have responded long ago. I forgot some things as they were shameful, but it seems that I should recall them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You deleted sections created by various editors: Calthinus, as well as by me&Resnjary. The last one was the product of discusion in correspondent talkpage. Per wp:BRD cicle removals should be performed in a carefull manner (remove only when necessary).Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do not you respond to my question about the SPI? Because you were involved in things that are strongly prohibited by Wikipedia. Right? Again, did you write the SPI by yourself? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume this means you can't offer a decent explanation for massively reverting constructive edits by various editors.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have, you just wish to redirect the discussion from the SPI. It seems that some nationalist editors of Greek and Albanian nationality had conflicts and it seems that they decided to solve them not at ANI/I but off-Wiki, and you were involved in that, right? You wished to retaliate and filed a SPI, mistakening me for other people? Why do not you respond to my question, did you write the SPI by yourself? Although I do not have much time at the moment, I plan to continue this discussion, so respond. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I asked above, the SPI report you filed said that I know for a fact Sulmues is based out of the DC area. Tell us, how did you discover that Sulmues lived in the DC area? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There was nothing I've did against the rules of this project contrary to you who keeps derailing the discussion and displays persisent wp:NPA violations combined with wp:NINJA.Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then, why do not you respond to my questions? You lack of responses to them means that you agree with what I am saying. This discussion has just started though, do not rush, we have time to explain everything gradually. Agreed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A concern


I ran on to this editor disruptively changing Byzantine/Greek to Roman throughout numerous articles. And, judging from their continued editing, it has now expanded into calling Odoacer an Italian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Same IP at it again


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

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Added Category:Indian Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Indian Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Iraqi people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Indian people of Iranian descent / Category:Pakistani people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Iranian emigrants to Vietnam. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Iraqi people of Iranian descent. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * Added Category:Pakistani Shia Muslims. Unsourced, no edit summary/explanation.
 * I left a note to warn the IP. I hope they are willing to stop and discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope so too. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since they kept right on going while making no response, I've blocked for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Happy Holidays btw! Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !
Happy Holidays text.png Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


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

List of largest cruise ships


Hi EdJohnson! I noticed you recently helped out at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. Would you mind taking a look a "List of largest cruise ships"? Madrenergic is attempting to enforce the criterion of the page from a subjective view, whereas I view "largest" as its objective dictionary definition (Oxford). All I am interested in is the facts, and as a long-time admin it would be great to get a clear and definitive answer from you to settle this discussion. Merry Christmas. 75.28.18.138 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The List of largest cruise ships has now been fully protected by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Another concern


I believe this editor has issues with English as I told them on Talk:Antioch. Despite the issues I clearly explained to Shahanshah5, they have continued to edit broken illegible English into articles.

Example:
 * "Shaki khanate was one of the most powerful Caucasian khanates established in Afsharid Iran, on the northern territories of modern Azerbaijan, between 1743 and 1819 with its capital in the town of Shaki".
 * changed to:


 * "Shaki khanate was a khanate later becoming powerful state established in Afsharid Iran, on the northern.."

Another example:
 * "The Quba Khanate was a quasi-independent Safavid khanate, under Iranian suzerainty..."
 * changed to:


 * "The Quba Khanate was a quasi-independent later becoming powerful Caucasian Khanate, under Iranian suzerainty.."

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

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


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


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


 * Seriously? It is my fault you can not construct legible sentences in English? I believe this completes the exercise in not being here to construct an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Robert A. Hoffmann
EdJohnston (talk) I saw your comment on RHaworth (talk)'s with regards to WP:REFUND being deleted, even though it's the work of the US government. I hope this gets resolved soon. WikiFixur (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Draft:Robert A. Hoffmann has now been restored per the discussion at WP:REFUND. The article contains material copied from the .mil domain. It turns out that the .mil suffix is specifically mentioned to have the same status as .gov at Public domain. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Reporting on Talk: Albania–Greece relations
Ed, I am here to report that the dispute has come to a natural end: We ended with a paragraph that cites 3 parties to the issue: 1) The Albanian, 2) The Greek, and 3) human right organizations / third party countries. This way, the paragraph covers all viewpoints and is ready for inclusion to the article, per Wikipedia's rules. From the 6 editors, only particular 2 editors are objecting to this outcome of the discussion. I have explained to them what their options are on this: They can take it to the RS, or the NPOV noticeboards, or call for mediation. From my part, I am done, there is nothing else I can do to convince them. I hope they will cease with this disruptive attitude of theirs and realize that covering all different viewpoints on the issue is the most balanced solution and is beneficial for both the readers and the article. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most editors had indeed agreed to a set paragraph and then you moved the bar yourself by insisting on a merger and then other content . Other editors then brought up issues about content and its relevance to the article. Its what happens. You can't expect that some editors after much discussion and compromise accept something sprung out of the blue to the article. You will likewise get similar comments with content as well.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "then you moved the bar yourself by insisting on a merger" As you can see, the Greek Minority is an ongoing issue (aka, new information will have to be added in the future to it - it is not a static or frozen or resolved issue for us to avoid the need for a Merger proposal.
 * I don't know about you, but the article has to be ready for expansion and inclusion to it of future developments (or past events). You may fail to understand this, but like I said again and again: this is not possible if the article is not structured accordingly. Currently it is merely a summary of the issue and NOTHING else - and if my memory does not fail me, some of you the editors have basically insisted that nothing changes on the paragraph once it is added to the article. Am I right?
 * Resnjari, you may not care about the article's future development, but I do. And the best way to do this is to expand the content. not limit it forever to this difficult-to-agree-on paragraph. You may agree or disagree with the Merger proposal, but you haven't made a counter proposal on this. It was only Calthinus who took the time to offer us better proposals than this. Please I don't understand why are you turning this report of mine to the admin, into another discussion or battlefield. I won't respond to you anymore here, spare Admin Ed from multiple notifications and instead discuss your disagreements with the Merger proposal or your overall disagreements with me on the appropriate talk page, not here. This report here is meant for Ed, not you. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 15:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do care about the article's development. When editors agreed to get involved in the article it was on the premise that it was about the Greek minority of Albania, not a merger etc. As things went along, the bar kept getting shifted to a merger etc. Indeed the section is a summary so as to have something in the article and its important that the page does not become a one sided WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS article. In the end the scope of the article is about bilateral relations, its history of past and current positions/events of both countries in their interactions etc.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears these matters are being worked out at Talk:Albania–Greece relations. The RfC itself appears to be well organized and certainly it's a better way to handle the issues than edit warring. Let me know if there is anything that still calls for admin action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

your deletion
Hey, why did you delete my comment?

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

Shentino (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete your comment. This was not my edit. I think your complaint (if valid) should be referred to User:Bbb23. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Quick question.
Hi Ed, I have a quick question. What do you think of this edit summary? It was made by the IP I had reported earlier in the year for edit warring. I didn't notice this until recently and it looks like a personal attack to me. I followed Wiki protocol and left that template, I can't imagine why they'd need be so hostile. Coincidentally it looks like they're warring on multiple pages with an experienced editor(See their user history), and are harrassing that person with templates. Any chance you could spend a few minutes taking a quick look at this IP users conduct?. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to be going out of their way to annoy people. That probably can't continue indefinitely. They get into edit wars but are careful to stop at three reverts. They were recently at AN3 but claimed to be insisting that WP:V policy be followed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Constantine the Great
Thank you as it appears that I first misread the second bullet yet I stand by my prior comments relating to the somewhat biased remarks that did not offer such guidance. Please state who it is who is the arbitrator of such a proposal. Uncledonmc (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one person decides. Consensus of editors decides what should be done. Though I know nothing about this dispute, since Constantine the Great is part of the history of Christianity I can imagine that people might prefer the BC/AD system for recording dates within his article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is not listed under that heading of 'Christianity' even though it has a good deal of information relating to that topic. It also has an equal or greater amount of information relating to his military campaigns and imperial rule so that does not seem to be a valid point. Regarding this 'consensus of editors' that does not appear to be an objective system but one based primarily on whatever subjective views are the first on the scene. Additionally this also indicates that the vox populi is of overriding concern rather than what actually conforms to current academic, scientific and historical standards. Uncledonmc (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to edit here, you are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bullying tactics
I need your attention. An editor is WP:BULLYing. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 21:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
You've got mail
 * Hello SilentResident. I suggest that you write to the Arbitration committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

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

harassment


Is there anything that can be done about the user I reported for 3RR being harassing? He’s following me to talk pages for communications with others, which is stalking. Is there a PM function on wiki? He won’t leave me alone. I think I will have to leave Wikipedia if this cannot be dealt withManboobies (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't yet see this. Anyone may view your contributions. Others may notice if you continue a discussion at more than one place. If you think this attention is solely conducted to annoy you, it might be different. If you want to contact another editor privately ('PM') see Special:EmailUser. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Western World


Hello, it has come to my attention that you protected the article for the Western World against sockpuppeting by user that went either as Johnston1111 or as random IP's located either in Italy or in Greece, I welcome the effort. However in doing so you actually left the sockpuppet's last edit as in force, with the removed sources and other forms of vandalism extant. Could you please revert the article to the second-to-last edition before protecting the article? Otherwise it kinda feels like the sockpuppet is the one who won. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not request the edit on the talk page. You could use the edit extended-protected template and an experienced editor can evaluate it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about doing that but wouldn't you consider it for yourself? I am sure that your action comes as well-intentioned but seems like a questionable practice to protect an article while simultaneously leaving the vandalizing edition as the page's source; which is exactly what you did. I just want for the introductory image, the cited sources and the quotes by Huntington that the sock puppet deleted to be brought back into the article. If you disagree (which I don't really see any reason not to, but you could have your motives and that would be absolutely valid) I would have to use the template you describe. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As an admin I prefer not to edit an article I have protected unless the vandalism is quite obvious, so I can safely write 'Rvv' as my edit summary. It seems there are enough regular editors active so somebody else can take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring - Rimac Automobili
Could you please resolve the edit warring issue at Rimac Automobili regarding sourcing? Here is the talk page starting from 21 jan below: Talk:Rimac_Automobili, since you participated in a previous editing dispute? Thanks in advance. Kiksam (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Markkonen could be risking a block for violating WP:Verifiability. He is using questionable sources to suggest that the car company is deceiving the public. In the thread you refer to at Talk:Rimac Automobili, Markkonen says "Rimac automobili are buying products from various companyes, and sell them as their own." If he wants to charge Rimac with deception, he needs to have WP:Reliable sources. Instead, Markkonen seems to be looking at pictures and reading the names on boxes. This is considered WP:Original research. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * [I removed some text here from the original talk discussion, because it had some syntax problem that kept it from being enclosed in a collapse box. Please check my original talk page history if you need to find this material. -EdJ ]***

<....>


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

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

Opinions on my previous edits on the page? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to check the casualty numbers against the sources, but had some trouble. Some of the edit warring was changing these casualty numbers. It would be helpful if someone would do a calculation and show how they came up with numbers. As to the immediate future, why not open a discusion at Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War and give the case for your version? EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban breach
Hi EdJohnston. Although FkpCascais is currently topic banned from Balkan articles, he is editing articles related to Serbia. In the past few weeks he was blocked several times for breaching the topic ban. Can you have a look at this? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you so affraid of me so you have nothing better to do then obsessively following me after months already? Do your stuff, a Senegalese footballer has nothing to do with your area of editing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not "affraid" of you. I just placed a comment on this talk page, as you are editing Serbia-related articles breaching your topic ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this needs to be taken to AE for more community attention? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An admin blocked FkpCascais for two weeks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is now a thread at User talk:Sandstein which led to this result. Particularly of note is FkpCascais' edit summary which states he is reverting a Serb nationalist, while insisting that his own patrolling 'consists of no nationalism'. He also asserts Romania is not part of the Balkans, a claim which is open to question. Arbcom is currently spending its valuable time on a tweak of this whole area, but FkpCascais has violated his topic ban regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are condemning him wrongly like you also are condemning me, Ed. Look, I don't know if he is any nationalist, but Romania only has 2 counties out of 41 in the Balkans (Constanta and Tulcea). Romania is often included in international organisations though. But if we are exact, we are Carpathian (Carpathian Mountains). Regarding me, you are proposing a TBAN for what? How am I a nationalist if I have edited handball for 1 year? Can't you stay neutral? The user's reasons are crazy, I had comments but I never went against as actions against the general consensuses. Christina (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Your help on Talk:Nizam of Hyderabad
Hello Ed,

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

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

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

Kind Regards, Sakura Sakura6977 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sakura6977, remember the advice I put in the closure of the last AN3 report. I hope you will think about discussing those three topics on the talk page:
 * –EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Contribution
I faced with three users (User:Fredrick eagles and user:Yashar.takallou,user:Theycallmeparsa) who have awesome contribution. They created articles belong to people (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) who play vital role in Haft Tappeh workers protest. Their contributions just focused on these article as well as they didn't edit Other articles. I would point that the notability of created articles is disputed, in other words the event (Haft Tappeh workers protest) is more notable than people who organize protest. All in All it reveals, a propaganda is appearing. It would be great to make the best decision as to such contribution.Regards!Saff V. (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The three articles you mentioned about the activists have all been nominated for deletion at AfD, and it appears there will be consensus to keep them. The larger issue is now being discussed at WP:ANI. I don't think you meant to say 'awesome'. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Tatars
Hello. Well, User:BrendonTheWizard obsessively keeps removing the information about the phenotypes of the Tatars, even though the termins are still used in academia, particularly in the area of biological anthropology, forensic science, and also ethnological studies, including in the society where Tatar homeland is located, Russia, so it is indeed even culturally relevant in the article about Tatars. There is nothing to be disputed about this information.Vaultralph (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a consensus on Wikipedia, that when we are speaking in Wikipedia's voice we don't use terms like 'Mongoloid' for describing people's appearance. A brief discussion appears at Talk:Tatars.
 * "[Mongoloid] is one of the outdated three races proposed by Georges Cuvier in the 18th century, the other two groups being Caucasoid and Negroid. ... It is today not widely used by anthropologists as its validity and usefulness in classification is considered highly questionable."
 * If you are determined to use this terminology in the Tatars article, post at Talk:Tatars and see if you can find others to support your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi
Just to know, in this case I am the victim. You are doing a really big injustice regarding me and because of the subjectivity of a user who is harrassing me and is destroying my clean Wikipedia CV. Imagine, Ed, I am on Wikipedia since some time ago, every user including you had loads of comments. I have no idea what's with him, understand I had no work with him. He wasn't on my pages, he came out from nowhere. Please don't treat superficially this matter, what if he's connected with some of the extremists on the page of Romania. At least stay neutral. I am trying to see the reason, but maybe he's just misogynist or with some problems. For me a TBAN counts, I never wish you would be in my place, because you also have some sections which you love. Christina (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make your arguments in the currently-open thread at WP:AE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protection of Odiyan


Protection of this page automatically removed by a technical problem during a history merge. Can you resume the protection ?--Let There Be Sunshine 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Loyola Jesuit College
You talked about consensus editing...but no one is talking on that page's talk page. I included information about test scores which is similar to Loyola's Sister school Regis High School and other Jesuit and non-Jesuit high schools. But two editors have edited the page since my previous edit without discussing changes on the talk page. I suspect The Banner has something to do with this but if Wikipedia is a fair place where verifiable information can be sought, why will information on test scores be included in many school's pages and removed from anothers? This question has not been answered and undermines the credibility of the editors and wikipedia as a whole. Policies should be standard across the baord. Hypernerd387 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no substitute for getting consensus. You may be blocked if you won't wait for agreement, even in a situation where you believe others are not behaving as they should. If you are not satisified with others' response, layers of appeal are possible, if you use them correctly and are patient. I have no interest in helping you further unless you first respond to my question at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Afd-merge to/styles.css
I don't see why this template needs to be template-protected: it only has 81 tranclusions and is the stylesheet of a page that is only semi-protected. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Pppery. I looked at the protection levels of similar templates. Also I found this advice in TemplateStyles: "The protection level of style pages should match that of their associated template."
 * So I'd like to make the following changes in protection:
 * Template:Afd-merge from – semi, with indef move protection
 * Template:Afd-merge to – semi, with indef move protection
 * Template:Afd-merge to/styles.css – semi, with indef move protection
 * Do these changes look OK to you? EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't personally think that the template needs to be semi-protected, but I nevertheless would support that. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that Template:Afd-merge-from was indefinitely semiprotected by User:Primefac on 10 January 2018 (citing 'recent template-space vandalism'). If we defer to that judgment, we can then observe that everything in the above list would most naturally be kept at the same protection level. This would imply semiprotection. These templates are literally not used very often (mostly by AfD closers) but it is also hard to imagine IPs having the knowledge to edit them correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. OK, just set the level of them all to semi-protection. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done for all. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal


EdJohnston, in June of last year you protected the Gurbaksh Chahal article on account of persistent, disruptive editing. These disruptive edits resumed about a week ago. Chahal was convicted of committing domestic violence. For some time now new editors have tried to remove coverage of Chahal's crimes from his Wikipedia article. Would you consider protecting the article again? Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be some whitewashing of Gurbaksh Chahal by new registered users with fewer than 100 edits. So I've applied a period of extended confirmed protection. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Chisme (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia


Hi,

I ask your attention and your help. In the subject and the recent edits, you may check the events...after asking the very inexperienced seem user to comply with certain rules (WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:DR), still he/she continued - though in the talk things have been already started - and harmed the clear frame of edit warring, which I was warning him/her in his talk page (blanked out quickly though)...I offered him/her two days waiting to reconsider consensus bulding and draw the attention of the problems he/she commits, but instead, a very uncivil answer I've got with multiple harsh accusations (mostly repeats already he/she commited before in the talk and the edit logs), and he/she put a "report" (?) in the talk page that seems weird, becuase the user linked my name as a "vandal", that I think is crossing any good faith or civility, since I don't have to explain to you addressing anyone as a "vandal" improperly is a quite harsh commitment...I kindly ask your intervention (per good faith I don't raise an incident yet hoping you'll handle things properly in time), Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Hello KIENGIR. I assume you are referring to edits by, so I've listed their name at the head of this report and I've notified them of the discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Well, two almost identical reactions came to different places after I answered the last time in the article's talk (one there, and one at your private discussion with him). I chose no further reaction wisely, because it is useless...I learned that I did not receive any personal attack, but I did it with my edit warring notice, the word "sabotage" was again pursued 5 times if not more, the rest accusations were the same already I received and answered multiple times...btw. I checked the word "rant" = "declamation", that means "a strong statement or an occasion when you express something with a lot of feeling", or "speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way", so I don't how could it be "insults of personal nature"...but what is really awesome:


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


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


 * So practically you, administrators are my "rogue saboteur" colleagues...pfff..enough for today...I am sorry for this user...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
 * If it does not seem there is any forward motion, I might just protect Triune Kingdom of Croatia. But if you want, you could open a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would try to repair neutrality by extending only one sentence and adding sources, without removing any recent improvement, and see what's hapenning, since more days it was untouched, I don't see protection would solve anything right now, since not any fast "edit-warring" is going on. Though because of this user we should not really ignore the usual policies of WP (you generously did not block him yet although he did not follow your condition but made it worse, though he has to learn that in WP bold additions may be challenged if lacking neutrality, anyway he reacted very aggressively even to any minor challenges or repairs regarding any user, if you check his edit history..., . Thus, I'd wait a bit more, do that one minor correction, and if he again reacts similary, then either you act or I will (regarding civility). Regarding the content issue, in case of further challenge, I would first turn to the Wikiprojects (Hungary & Croatia), that have a traditional good relation.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
 * At present the article's sources are only in Croatian and German. My guess is that there must also be sources in English. Possibly you know of some. The dispute that I am aware of concerns Lajos Kossuth. It seems possible that one or more sources from our Kossuth article might contain usable information about the Triune Kingdom. Or at least, about Kossuth's attitude to the non-Hungarian nationalities and about his policy of Magyarization. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have English language sources as I recall...will look on it and follow the way described here, please keep on looking the events. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Done. (KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Hi, I will be off now a little bit, but shortly some info (I did not touch the article):
 * This was his first reaction, factually if you read, you see the whole argumentation is nonsense, since if the subject would not be related to Croatia, than why we discuss 1848 Revolution, Kossuth and the Hungarian Government? On the other hand, there is not any connection to the subject what was Croatia's status then, but if so, then why he cited and wrote more sentences of Kossuth and the Hungarian Govenrment? (Anyway, the case is not just about Slovaks...).


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Disruption by Ban kavalir
Hi Ed. It just came to my attention that recently you warned. Based on that, I am asking for your assistance regarding Ban kavalir's recent edit-warring at where he has resumed the edit-warring s/he had started since last August. In short, s/he is trying to relocate Croatia to Central Europe and will not take no for an answer from multiple editors. Dr.  K.  07:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked Ban kavalir for continued personal attacks, after my original warning at 17:25 on 13 March. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed for your action and your block rationale as you communicated it to that editor on his talkpage. It was excellent. Dr.   K.  19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Carnivourous123


Ed, User:Carnivourous123 who you recently blocked has come straight back off your 24 hour block to edit war Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 regards Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Carnivourous123 is now blocked 72 hours for continuation of the war. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan


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


 * I disagree, this article is a disruption magnet, you can still make edit requests. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DSLOG/2018 I put Pakistan under indefinite EC protection on 22 August 2018. Due to the many conflicts between India and Pakistan, this still appears to me as a sensible precaution. As FlightTime says, you can still file WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with IP edit warrior at António de Oliveira Salazar


Hi Ed, we're having problems with a stubborn IP editor who's ignoring consensus and continually edit-warring against editors who revert his unexplained and undiscussed addition to the article. He's already reverted 6 times today; I've reverted him 3 times,and 3 other editors have reverted him. And he's just reverted me again. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IP is now blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. Let's hope he mends his ways. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinion needed


Hello, Ed. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the issue raised here and here. --Sundostund (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would leave the user's talk page alone, even though they are indef blocked. So far as I know, User:Trust Is All You Need is not recently active. Between mid-2014 and mid-2018 they were not blocked, and there is still a chance they might return. They did flame out in rather spectacular fashion about one year ago. As User:Jpgordon stated, "Indefinite isn't infinite. TIAYN is a generally good editor who has some self-control issues..." You have now asked five administrators. If you seriously disagree with the advice that most people are giving, you might open a thread at WP:AN. Reopening old matters hardly seems worth it unless there is some reason for concern. Did anything happen recently to draw your attention to this? EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My only thought about this issue is whether user pages of editors who are indef blocked should be left permanently open. It is not related to the particular case of TIAYN in any way, I have the same thought about any other editor in that situation. Of course, after consulting five administrators about this, I am satisfied and I see no reason for opening a thread at WP:AN. This issue certainly isn't so important to me that I make such a move... User:Jpgordon is right – "Indefinite isn't infinite". BUT, as far as I saw here since 2010, in most cases indefinite turns out to be infinite. I still remember the case of once well-respected User:Evlekis and its outcome. There are few indefinitely blocked editors who got unblocked and resumed a successful WP career afterwards. --Sundostund (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evlekis and TIAYN are not the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not, but their current status here is pretty much the same (with some variations)... I myself would like that to change – both of them seemed as valuable and important members of the community. But I truly doubt it would happen. --Sundostund (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

More information about Wikiedro

 * WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)
 * WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)
 * WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)

Hello, thanks for taking part in the issue I reported in the noticeboard. I write you here because as someone who have dealt with Wikiedro in the spanish wiki aswell I have additional knowledge regarding his uncivil practices, as those have been reported to noticeboards repeatedly by other users there (this is a report for violating the 3R rule, it is important to note that Wikiedro used to go by the name of Açipni-Lovrij before he requested a name change not long ago, with his signature often appearing as A.L.),  (here he is called out for trying to imposse poor quality sources),  (here his uncivil practices such as reverting several editors aswell as unilaterally removing reliable data against concensus and claiming in the summaries to edit one thing while removing others expecting that no one notices). it is also pointed out that this editor tends to reignite discussions that seemingly are solved (this is, if the result is unfavorable for him he waits a couple of weeks and then starts rmodifying data again), he has done this in the Spanish article for Demographics of Mexico, and I have been on the need to link in my edit summary the precisse diff on which he agreed to keep the sources , in fact, he did it again two days ago. Perhaps this editor has managed to stay unsanctioned despite how conflictive he is because much of his 27,000 edits is reverting one-time vandals and performing tedious tasks such as linking, but there must be ways to stop it from being disruptive aside of blocking him definitely, such as impossing an 1-revert limit on him. Additionally, in his last reply in the talk page of White latin Americans he textually "warned" ("advertencia" means "warning") the editor Dhtwiki that as soon as the 24 hour limit passed he would revert the article until his version stays on top. . Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever would says Pob3qu3, in Spanish Wikipedia this user was signaled for prosiletism and dubious information (with polemical results) and no matter if Wikiedro acused Pob3qu3, the acusations where well-recibied by the Spanish Wikipedian administrators and also approve that.

I will traduce the final resolution wrotted by the Spanish Wikipedian Administrator´s Taichi:

I will close this case after the tablon´s request, user Pob3qu3 no longer edit anddo not take care in search a middle point, thats mean that theres not disposition for continue this issue.

For these reason I give permission to Açipni-Lovrij fo make the necessariest corrections in the article, since the issue is not being ever mediated informally. I make mention to Geom (User) to be aware.

Also, Pob3qu3 is warned to not make label defaults anymore, and he will be santioned if he does it again. Whitin the suckpoppet suspicius, the best way is make a cheksuer request.

As the judment to what is Pob3que exposed, its clearly that the informal situation its abandoned, for that, my response gived hours ago is the only one to the resolution of this conflict. Also, I remember to the user Pobeque that he hasnt disposition to stand up in this administrative resolution or indicate waht we may do. Under penalty of breake this rule. I close this case. Taichi. 11/11/2018.

In Spanish:

Respuesta Voy a cerrar este hilo porque luego de esta solicitud en el tablón, el usuario Pob3qu3 no ha vuelto a editar ni se ha interesado en buscar un punto medio, lo que significa que no hay disposición de avanzar en el tema.

Por ello doy permiso a Açipni-Lovrij que haga las correcciones necesarias en el artículo, ya que el asunto ni siquiera está siendo mediado informalmente. Hago mención a Geom para que esté enterado.

También queda advertido a Pob3qu3 que no puede seguir cometiendo faltas a la etiqueta, por lo que se le sancionará si hay reincidencia. Sobre las sospechas de usuario títere, lo conveniente es solicitar vía checkuser que se despeje esa incógnita. Taichi 〒 00:04 11 nov 2018 (UTC)

Como corolario a lo expuesto a Pob3qu3 queda claro que la mediación informal está abandonada, por lo que la respuesta emitida hace unas horas por mi persona es la única referencia de resolución a este conflicto. También reitero que el usuario Pob3que3 no está en posición de pasarse por encima de una resolución administrativa ni de indicar qué hay que hacer, so pena de romper esta norma. Cierro el hilo. Taichi 〒 08:07 11 nov 2018 (UTC)

--186.151.62.200 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

 * User talk:Wikiedro
 * AN3 closure about Wikiedro
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive
 * AN3 closure about Wikiedro
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive

Hello, it's me again, this time I write to you to inform you that the IP editor who participated in the White Latin Americans edit war and also in the Edit Warring Noticeboard case is leaving personal attacks on my talk page in the English Wikipedia and also the Spanish Wikipedia  (in this one he insults you as well). This is not the first time he does this, as in early 2018 he wrote this in my talk page, I must point out that this IP is from the same location that the IP who left the attacks today is, and that I included it as a sockpuppet of Wikiedro on my SPI , to which I, as time passes, incorporate new evidence (for example, compare the writing style of the edit summaries and the content removed on this two diffs & . Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your concern is with the IP referring to you as a "mitomano acomplejado"? How would you translate that?


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


 * It is possible that the Guatemalan IP,, is just a person who supports the same view of Mexican demography as Wikiedro. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "mitomano acomplejado" translates to something akin to "complexed liar", and while the IPs seemingly are from different locations, a subscription-based proxy service can be used to achieve that effect, which have been seen on SPIs before (back when I filled in my investigation I recall another case involved an spammer that used a proxy service for example). I doubt that they're not the same person because their behavior is way too similar, from edit summaries, changes they push aswell as the way they edit discussion pages (doing several edits at once instead of only a well redacted one), they also tend to be dormant. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would actually be somewhat logical if the Guatemalan IP was . See Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive. They share an interest in German Guatemalan and irreligion. It would take a lot of study of that SPI before I'd sign on to that hypothesis, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be, uncivil users that abuse multiple accounts are likely to share behavorial traits albeit similarities in this case (specially among registered accounts) are rather extreme. Though as you say, it would require much research as I don't know if that sockmaster ever shown an interest on Mexico. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this edit by a sock of ELrey which makes reference to White Latin Americans. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * do you have some time to look at this list of Spanish socks made by User:Taichi? Especially look at the behavioral description of ELreydeEspana at the top of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP editor fits the profile for yet another sockpuppet of that editor, not sure about the registered accounts, do you think I have to gather more evidence on the other ones and keep you posted on it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But, if you decide to file at SPI again, remember that Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive is not the way to do it. It has to be short and punchy and contain real evidence. Your posting there just looked like a continuation of a content dispute.EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Using the talk page doesn't work

 * WP:AN3
 * WP:AN3

Well, I tried to take your advice, but as I suspected (it's pretty common with this editor) it hasn't been working. I really don't want to put up with trying to "discuss" a content dispute with an editor who refuses to actually read my comments and instead responds to bogus strawmen. When I asked him to please respond to what I actually wrote rather than what he claims I wrote, he comes back with a nonsense remark about how I'm "lollygagging" and "silly sidetracks or self-victimisation", in which every declarative sentence ends with an explanation mark. Where's there to go now? Should I just revert again (now that it's become clear that Adam is not willing to use the talk page) and if he reverts again file another ANEW report? I'm really struggling to decide how to resolve this at this point. (FWIW, I contacted separately about a loosely related incident that took place on Adam's talk page. I don't blame Swarm at all for not wanting to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but someone really should.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of people editing at Avengers: Endgame. Consider opening an WP:RfC. Or, if that seems like too much trouble, make a concrete proposal for the wording and ask people to say if they support or oppose it. The diff of the revert is this one. You could put that up for a vote. If a new AN3 is filed, admins should consider blocking both sides. On the bright side, nobody has actually reverted since the AN3 closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
So how can we do this the correct way as you put it? We already try to solve the dispute on the talk page but nobody else seem to not care. Why can't you just be happy with the ones already on there, they been there for a good while now and isn't causing any problems. It seem pretty stupid to get both of us blocked just because of a lack of consensus. Please, show me the correct way to solve this. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion continued at User talk:Vauxford. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your approved disruptive editors
Your approved disruptive editors, Amaury and IJBall, are at it again. Amuary revert my SOURCED edits on A Cinderella Story (film series) due to WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Since, that its a content issue, I just request that he make those edit and leave the source information alone. He then demands BRD and ONUS. The IJBall adds back some info that I added. I revert indicating BRD, etc. They will not discuss the content and just make GAMING the system type excuses (claiming I am POINTY for WP:3RRNO action) for their action or attack me instead of discussing the content. You block me and made it clear you would not act fairly. You are green lighting this. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please work this out at Talk:A Cinderella Story (film series). At first sight you appear to be removing a reference which is usually not a good idea. Since you are an experienced editor, you should have already heard about WP:Dispute resolution. If you want to open a WP:Request for comment and need any assistance, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Plantilla de discutido a White Latin Americans


Es un artículo altamente censurado y controvertido, pero no posee ninguna plantilla de discutido: Template:Disputed, lo cual es engañoso para el visitante ocasional, que puede creer que el artículo goza de consensos que no existen, y que están largamente evidenciados en la página de discusión del mismo. Por ello, y como administrador, le pido la inclusión de esta plantilla en la cabezal del artículo. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedro (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that Disputed is appropriate, why don't you make that suggestion on the article talk page. Per WP:SPEAKENGLISH, if you intend to spend a lot of time editing this article, you are advised to write your talk comments and edit summaries in English. In fact, the next time you *revert* the article using an edit summary that's in Spanish I think you are risking a block. You are placing an unreasonable burden on other editors who may have a need to negotiate with you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

AWB
I have over 500 non-automated edits now. Can I reapply for AWB? My old request is still up, not sure for how long. Thank you &mdash; Amiodarone  talk  10:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now done, see your talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ban kavalir

 * Ban kavalir

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

The Croatian Kingdom, Triune Kingdom of Croatia (<-- this entity is not even "pushed" on Croatian wikipedia), Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (totally destroyed and now even claimed to end in 1848 due to previously mentioned article(!)) and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia have all been severely, and I must say, violated in these massive edits. I even snapped before and went on a big back-and-forth revert edit war on Triune Kingdom page, but now I feel somebody needs to handle this situation in a more solid way--Havsjö (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that this editor is influenced by nationalistic feelings and is going against the good sources. If this were fully documented, it might justify some action under WP:ARBMAC. He has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions. But there would have to be a lot of data. In particular, I notice that User:KIENGIR was saying that User:Ban kavalir was introducing false statements to the article on Triune Kingdom of Croatia. This would have to be explained in such a way that a lot of admins could understand it. One way to do this might be to open a WP:Request for comment on one of the articles that is in dispute. Then the parties would have to quote (verbatim) their sources and what they say, to check that one side is actually adding false statements. There was a previous discussion at Talk:Triune Kingdom but I find it hard to understand. But while seeing this, it is clear that Triune Kingdom and Triune Kingdom of Croatia are trying to cover the same thing! EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User is now blocked for two weeks due to a complaint at AN3. This outcome is not a complete surprise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can link to a dicussion relating to this which I guess covers some major points: User_talk:Dr.K. --Havsjö (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Are you kidding me?
Regarding Dissociative identity disorder, I'm the one who pushed towards discussing this on the talk page, time and again. But the IP get's implicated, because, well, it's the IP -- nobody ever suspects the bad behaviour is on the admin's side. Have a look at how this guy treats IP edits in the medical section on a regular basis. Great. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Content matters are hard, but it's easy to spot fluctuating IPs engaging in a lot of reverts. If your cause is good, you can probably think of a better way of pursuing it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All those reverts were in favour of having a discussion and demanding references and having had technical issues isn't what makes me the culprit. Humour me for a second: Ignore I'm unregistered and my IP changed often during the past two days, and look at the actual behaviour. I don't even care you blocked the article for some time, I care about being called the one who stirs trouble, when I clearly tried to do this properly, and clearly did tons of sensible edits the past two days, too. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be cynical: Is it hard to spot an admin engaging in a lot of reverts? If he spots an IP edit in a medical article, he'd rather revert and discard large edits with potentially hours of work in them, all properly sourced, sensible content, instead of applying a minor correction, like moving one sentence a bit or fixing a typo. It's maddening to watch, yet stay calm and collected. And be sure, you'll get called an edit warrior, if you revert his vandalism, and ask for the courtesy of a reason for his action -- because you won't know it's just been a minor issue, and he could just as well fix it instead of vandalise your work. That guy. I'm out. Whatever. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a look at October 2017 of Oxcarbazepine, it took ages to get the article cleaned up and built up all those references. He effed it up for the sake of argument, because he wanted /one particular sentence/ to be in the first paragraph -- by the time he had the sense to say this, he started a full-blown edit war, instead of just discussing it, or, even better, just correcting it with some sensible, explanatory comments added to his edits. Apparently, it /is/ harder to see an admin misbehaving, as opposed to an IP. It's called bias and prejudice. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. That's another two days of my life wasted by, coincidentally, you, and, particularly, James. Same as last time. It's see if I try this again in 2021. I would seriously appreciate you to have an honest look at what /actually/ happened in both these instances. It's what keeps good people away from here, and I actually care. I'd love this hobby, if it wasn't for the likes of this. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. These steps are occasionally tedious, but they work. Are you the same person as the one who left this comment in 2017? If so, my 2017 comment may still apply:
 * EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding green text, I don't see how this applies to me. I did ask to stop EWing and discuss. I did ask straight away, repeatedly, and stressed it increasingly. How else should I have done that? Sincerely asking that. Regarding DR procedures: Bombing my talk page with threats of being banned doesn't illuminate those for me. The respectful thing would have been to acknowledge I am the one who actually tries to perform proper DR by raising it as vandalism, thereby calling it to 3rd party attention that improper behaviour is taking place. Then, to tell me that raising it as vandalism wasn't the right way to ring the bell, and please read up on WP:Dispute resolution. The way it was handled, however: I try to stop the madness, just try to stop it somehow wrong (didn't read up, yet), and get even more madness in return, with complete ignorance towards the actual problematic behaviour, which I tried to point to. "Tedious" doesn't even begin to describe this. Again, it just feels like it's virtually impossible to prevail, if you're an IP (a detail I add because it's better if your registered) up against someone who knows how to work the system that is WP governance. --92.195.216.165 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A report was filed by another editor last week regarding this editor; do I need to file another one?


- Link to last WP:AN/3 one week ago - Current Communism history - Communism talk page section -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a warning for User:Sourcerery against further reverts at Communism unless they first get consensus. It is not clear that he has any support on the talk page, as yet. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have consensus on talk page it is clear in communism on political spectrum section.Sourcerery (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you name anyone who has commented on the talk page in support of keeping the 'Missing information' template? Since 30 March you have added that banner to the article four times; three times it has been removed by others. Banner templates require consensus to stay in the article, just like any other article content. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie92, O3000 were in favor adding content in question (communism on political spectrum). There was disagreement on sources and wording, even user who was reverting my edits at first and tag once, agreed that article lacks communism on political spectrum in article - Aquillion. I compromised and instead added tag so people know it's something article is lacking, and other editors can fix it. Now I don't like pointing fingers and arguing and blaming people, but I suspect Aquillion and Somedifferentstuff are same person.Sourcerery (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Aquillion and User:Somedifferentstuff together have 26,000 edits. I don't believe they are socks of each other. Neither of them supports the 'missing information' banner. I don't notice any cases where User:Objective3000 has agreed with you, though he did warn you once for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'm suspicious and would like someone to check them, they were doing same reverts with very similar wording. Only more aggressive on Somedifferentstuff and I noticed they don't ever edit in same time. O3000 - Agree with Aquillion and others. Political and economic philosophies are complex and come in many flavors. And most of the commonly used words are overused in simplistic manners by politicians and wannabe economists. Let’s not trivialize them. Find good sources - Like I said, this confirms everyone was agreeing that Communism on political spectrum was good addition, contention was on wording and sources. So instead of arguing and edit warring I just added tag, but then user Aquillion moved goalpost disregarding everything he said previously and that is when Somedifferentstuff joined, being completely absent previously. Please have them checked, I'm 100% positive they are same person.Sourcerery (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you withdraw these charges per WP:ASPERSIONS. You are risking an indefinite block. You could be reinstated at whatever moment you succeed in proving that Aquillion and Somedifferentstuff are the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But I can't prove anything? I just have, in my opinion, reasonable doubts. That's why I'm asking you or someone with experience and tools, I don't know how that works, to look into this issue. If they/you after investigation tell me I was wrong, I will accept it and won't ever bring it up.Sourcerery (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcerery, you can't get away with making ridiculous charges. If you tried filing it at WP:SPI, the chances it would be accepted are zero. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * God damn, I tried to make that but was struggling with linking diffs, I'll figure it out. Thank you for your time.Sourcerery (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock and the fact that you've been able to edit-war for this amount of time is disheartening. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your last edit at Communism should be reverted and you blocked but I'm not willing to risk my own account on your behalf. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will take your word for it because sock would tell "Yeah I'm edit warring, abusing other accounts and I'm in massive breach of multiple rules".Sourcerery (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, please tell me what my next move should be. This user doesn't have consensus but keeps reverting at Communism. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He seems to want a banner saying there is missing information. The banner itself is subject to consensus, so consider trying to tally up who on the talk page is supporting or opposing the banner. (In his edit summary, he is claiming there is consensus for the banner). Other possibilities for how to proceed are described at WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The tally is no consensus. Do I need to file another report to stop the reverting? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How many are in favor and how many against? Or are there complex opinions? EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 in favor, 2 against, 2 no opinion (and no longer involved on talk) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider opening an WP:RFC on the banner that Sourcerery wants. This may seem tedious, but otherwise there is a risk that some admin will put the whole article under full protection for a long time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been here for years like yourself I understand when an editor is not interested in respectively building an encyclopedia. I've never seen an Admin fully protect an article when someone doesn't respect consensus, hopefully that won't be the outcome. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hot Sugar


Immediately after a two-month protection (Special:Diff/882515746) expired, the same BLP-violating content has been repeatedly added to the article by User:Path slopu. Could you block the user or protect the article again? Thanks, 153.203.141.172 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider reporting this at WP:BLPN, if you think that the material being restored violates BLP. Unless you can successfully argue a BLP exception for your reverts, you have already broken WP:3RR. There is some prior discussion at Talk:Hot Sugar (musician). Whatever the truth of the misconduct allegations, isn't it correct to say he was dropped by his record label due to the allegations? EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Italo-Ethiopian War (again)

 * Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War
 * User talk:Wizeone2
 * Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War
 * User talk:Wizeone2

Hi, do you remember me? We still have problems with the page First Italo-Ethiopian War. If you look into the history, 17,000 Ethiopians and 9,000 Italians would be reported before being changed by another anonymous user without explanation. I restored it with sources but Wizeone2 still undid my revisions and the "page needed" issue. Also here the source at page 203 (if it doesn't load on the cell look on pc or ipad) clearly says “Total Italian, Eritrean and Somali deaths, including those from disease, were estimated to be 9,000" .. and that 10,000 Ethiopians were wounded, but Wizeone does not want to reason and prefers to keep his version. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified Wizeone2 and suggested that they follow dispute resolution. If the two of you can't negotiate I would consider full-protecting the article. If you open a WP:Request for comment it has the potential of bringing in other people who are new to the discussion. Also WT:MILHIST might help. You do get some credit for opening the discussion on the article talk page on 26 January, and it is actually hard to understand Wizeone2's response. The use of personal attacks on a talk page might cause admins to take action, so I hope he will keep a good temper this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ezharappallikal
Page in dispute: Users involved:

Hi There. You were involved in one of my report on administrator noticeboard.I am not able to see the report now.Is it removed? As adviced by you the other day,i had opened a new talk page. Joythommi13 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been archived. You may be thinking of Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388. This was your complaint against DVIssac regarding the page at Ezharappallikal, Hope this is what you wanted. If you want to make statements as to which is the oldest church, you should provide WP:Reliable sources for your claim. Church web sites may not be sufficient. Scholars are better. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * HI again.Thnaks for replying.
 * This guy DVIssac is again edit warring without any proof.Nor does he come for discussion in Talk page of said wiki article. Kindly advice. BTW,i have edited the wiki talk comment with addition of link to books by authors. Mr Thomas whitehouse visited bith churches and reinforces the claim of palyoor as church established by St Thomas. Kindly go through and advise whether i should report the same agin on wiki noticeboard Joythommi13 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a message for DVIssac and asked them to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

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

DVIssac (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you undo your last change to Ezharappallikal. You are edit warring, and you are adding unsourced information. It is not up to others to refute what you add (if it's wrong); it is up to you to find WP:Reliable sources the first time. Speculative history doesn't belong in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed the claims by Arthat Church ,Malayatoor Church and Aruvithara St. Thomas Church. Recommending Joythommi13 to add more historical evidences and refrences for the claims by 8 other churches which remain in the article as it is said as Speculative history by many of the indian Historians including M. G. S. Narayanan.
 * need your help in removing the claims of been established by St. Thomas and part of ezharapallikal from the wiki pages St. Mary's Cathedral, Arthat ,St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Malayattoor and St. George's Syro-Malabar Catholic Forane Church, Aruvithura as these are claims with out WP:Reliable sources and as Speculative history doesn't belong in Wikipedia - need to be done to make sure that wikipedia is providing similar information accross different pages on the same suject.
 * DVIssac (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi EdJohnston, Joshi punekar is crossing his limits and vandalising too much on Maharashtrian Brahmin, Saraswat Brahmin, and Deshastha Brahmin pages. I think you should take action on him. MRRaja001 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Operating Systems Design and Implementation

 * Draft:Operating Systems Design and Implementation

I'm very disappointed that you restored OSDI into Draft, creating more WP:REQUIRED work for me or others to do to sort it out to undo the damage caused by User:RHaworth when he mistakenly deleted the article without much adherence to WP:BEFORE. Please undo your restore, or do it properly and unbreak other things that depend on it. See Special:Diff/893264398. I don't think it's too much of me to ask for consistent application of the policies to all conferences; I'd also ask you to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not try to argue that the article wouldn't survive an AfD as a pretext for restoring it as a Draft when it was never a Draft, and the content is actually above average compared to many other conferences that have their own page in mainspace. MureninC (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit strong for you to critize RHaworth when the page was already headed for deletion via WP:Articles for deletion/Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Your other arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfDs are handled one at a time, and the quality of articles can vary without that becoming a concern for AfD voters or closers. If you can find any substantive references for the conference, not just list rankings, it would improve its chances. Stepping outside the letter of policy for a moment, how does the present draft serve as a testimonial for the conference? It is such a poor article. Better to change it into a redirect to USENIX. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Favor
needs to be indeffed. Check his last edit at Deshastha Brahmin, which is textbook case of long term edit warring and re-introduced the very stuff, that was deemed by 2 other discussants over the t/p, to not belong at the article. And, the mania 'bout veg/non-veg and fishes continue. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left a last chance warning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor is now blocked per an explanation on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Jorhat City


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

Read page 18

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

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

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

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

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

Jorhat is the 2nd most developed city of Assam. Please help us and Thank you. God bless you always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.76.100 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make your request at Talk:Jorhat City. Be aware that you are risking a block if you keep on calling other people 'stupid' and 'assholes' in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

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

Protection
You should remove the semi-protection in the article Ezdiki language, because some users have requested this semi-protection and operate source forgery. In the source of this is nothing about Semitic language. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. 118.104.0.153 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been socking on this article so the semiprotection appears justified. Please make your arguments at Talk:Ezdiki language and consider logging in to your account to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

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

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

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * , thanks. Not sure though because the geolocation is different, Spain vs. Greece, though from a quick look at the edits they appear similar. maybe you could take a look? Seems EdJohnston has been away for a while and isn't answering. I got a 12-hour block on Special:Contributions/94.69.63.239 through AIV, but they're back at it again today. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reblocked both ranges.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with IP edit-warring at "No true Scotsman"
Hi Ed, an aggressive IP, address 66.58.240.81, is edit-warring at No true Scotsman and has declared that No true Scotsman "is not a real thing and I will keep editing this forever #cantstopwontstop LOLOL". 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstak (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected No true Scotsman. The same disruption was coming from more than one IP. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

User:Mohammed(34567)$
I noticed your warning on this user's talk page ... after they received multiple warnings for their disruptive editing in the Descendants articles. They are continuing with it - I just reverted their most recent edit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they're attacking my user page . MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeon So-mi
Please change somi Wikipedia picture to a proper formal picture and nice picture than current one. Smilee111 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Smilee111. If you can find a picture of Jeon So-mi that has a license compatible with Wikipedia you can add it to the article yourself. Though I am not sure why you don't like the current picture. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user familiar to you


Hello Ed,

I was wondering if you could have a look at this report. The report has been open for a few days now with no response from admins. I am getting in touch as this is a user that you have had history dealing with for disruptive editing  , and continues the same disregard for 3RR as noted in the report in addition to canvassing other users   in what appears to be WP:VOTESTACK. Koodbuur (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Aqooni has not edited since 5 June, so there is nothing to do at the moment. Any readers of this talk page might also look at the ANI thread from 5 June and the comments by User:Oshwah. I was probably asked about this because I had blocked Aqooni a long time ago for some 3RR violations. Recently, there was a move war in which Koodbuur had tried to move Dilla Massacre to Battle of Dilla. This led to a week of full protection on the article and indefinite move protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Can a banned user use the talk page for requested edits?


Regarding your Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If a user is banned (or twice indefed in this case), can they use the talk page of the article about them while editing as an IP, to suggest edits? Generally I'd have assume banned is banned, but perhaps there's a BLP exception I'm not aware of? Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow he is being allowed to participate at BLPN. I won't block his IP but someone else might. We seem to have the archaic notion that the BLP subject should be allowed to comment so long as we are keeping an article on them. The EC protection on the article should deter any more sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It should protect the article, but how much time will be wasted - they've been at this for over 13 years already. If they were working co-operatively ... maybe. But their instant reaction is to assume bad faith, and accuse me of malice and some kind of revenge related to things I'm not even aware of. I can understand a blind eye might be turned, but I don't think we should be telling editors we know to be blocked (and banned per an Arbcom decision) to be making IP edits on talk pages. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that Mark Bourrie is mentioned in WP:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Can you draw any inferences from that decision that apply to the present situation? It appears that the person editing as User:Arthur Ellis is restricted to one account, and is limited as to what he can edit. There is a ban notice at User:Arthur Ellis but I am unclear if it was placed by an administrator. Ellis is under an indefinite block but it appears to be self-requested. If you see a likelihood of further time being wasted, will a block of the IP prevent that? EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Restricted to one account, but given how frequently this was violated (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis), after that self-requested block, then presumably it's still indefinite despite being self-requested. Looks like the final 100% confirmation was in the 15th request in 2008. Later on they were also banned for a month as per Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden which remained logged at Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella - which is probably moot at this point. To make a long-story short, the "self-requested" seems to be a red herring at this point! Nothing simple in this one.
 * Let's see how this plays out ... there's no question that the article has been a battle-ground for a triad of Ontario political bloggers who all seem to hate each other for reasons that I don't think most people care about or understand ...! It's part of the reason I thinned the article down so much ... it really needs to be improved by those who are neutral. I'd had hoped that past editors would have stayed out ... but perhaps if we can show some good faith by making some improvements that make sense, we can (after 13 years?) walk him off the ledge. But an IP block of the talk page might ultimately be necessary. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know if that point is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Tvx1
Hi EdJohnston.

Bring back Daz Sampson only edits infrequently (apparently only on the weekends). The recent discussion they are referring to is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012. If you check the page history of ANI, there was lots of revision deleting going on for some reason, so it's going to be hard for anyone other than an admin to get the diffs or certain posts. I started the discussion on 15:12 3 June 2019 and the revel deletions go back even further than that.I did redact part of my original post with this edit, but I wouldn't call that "swathes" of text. I stuck out part of a statement when pointed out that it was incorrect and explained this in my post. There was a post made at 07:00 5 June 2019 that I self-reverted on 06:56 June 2019, but I didn’t do so because I believed I posted anything wrong. It basically was along lines that Bring back Daz Sampson should be given time to respond, but that a response was going to be needed. The post was caught up in the large revdel, but you can probably see it. I self-reverted after the fact because it didn’t seem necessary for me to say the obvious. Nobody had responded to it so I removed it. The post where I am supposed to have admitted to edit warring is probably this. It was made in response to comments made by Tvx1 (who got pinged into the discussion by Bring back Daz Sampson). I don't think it was an admission of edit warring, but rather an attempt to summarize the disagreement with Tvx1 and the understanding that any consensus established via FFD/NFCR is still considered to be in effect until it's somehow formally overturned. That seems to be the crux of my disagreement with Tvx1 in that they believes (believed?) such a consensus can edited out as part an "in most cases" exception to WP:CCC, whereas I think something more formal should be needed per WP:CONLOCAL. I also think that item 5 of WP:3RRNO does consider the removing a file previously established to be a "unquestionable violation of the NFCC" per a FFD/NFCR to be an exemption of 3RR, but Tvx1 and I also disagree on the meaning of "unquestionable". Tvx1 seems (seemed?) to believe that a re-adding of the file (if supported by some new information that would've affected the original close) makes things no longer "unquestionable" and thus reverses the close, while I think the new information should be presented to the closing admin per item 3 of "Deletion review may be used" of WP:CLOSE or item 1 of WP:CLOSE. The closing admin can then reverse/amend their close, suggest a new FFD to establish a new consensus, or reaffirm their close. Tvx1 seems (seemed?) to think that a new FFD should be started by anyone wanting to apply its closes each time the close is challenge by another editor, but I think the opposite particularly when it comes to non-free content use as pointed out in WP:NFCCE. Anyway, Tvx1 appears to be now leaning towards accepting the latter approach in response to comments made by you and some other admins.My first interaction with Bring back Daz Sampson appears to have been User talk:SevcoFraudsters. Then, there was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha/Archive (which involved socking to !vote in FFDsamong other things). I wasn't involved in the SPI for Bring back Daz Sampson. After Bring back Daz Sampson was unblocked per by Bbb23, I had no interaction with them accept to ask for clarification about an image here. There was no respones, so I didn't comment again. I did, however, respond to posts made by Bring back Daz Sampson at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 125 (note that exchange was hatted by Tvx1 with this edit). Before going to ANI, I asked Bbb23 to look at things here, but there was no response and I moved on. I asked once again User talk:Bbb23/Archive 48 and Bbb23 suggested taking my concerns to a different forum, which is why I went to ANI.Once the ANI discussion was archived without being closed, I figured that meant that it was time to move on. It was a long thread that branched off into all kinds of directions by people trying to resolve multiple issues. I didn't see it being archived as a vindication of myself, but also didn't see it as a condemnation of myself either. I didn't respond to Bring back Daz Sampson here even though he could've made the same statement in favor of the file's use without trying to re-hash his disagreements with me or making more unsupported claims about me (which is the same thing he did in the two WT:FOOTY discussions and his post on Tvx1's user talk). None of the claims made by Bring back Daz Sampson about me are ever supported by diffs, but if he feels that the ANI I started about him should be re-opened, or wants to start a new one about my long-term ignoring of consensus or otherwise disruptive editing, then they are free to do so. I only ask that they provide actual diffs in support or at least which they believe show support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to further clarify (see underlined content) — 08:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)]
 * I see you unblocked Tvx1. That's fine and I am ready to move on from that. I was typing my above post while Tvx1 was being unblocked. If you think it's best to move on from that as well, then I can do that too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just going to add that I wasn't involved in the adding of WP:NFC to the NFC guidelines. I wasn't the first to start a NFCR/FFD discussion about a file based upon it. I'm not the only editor to ever !vote in a FFD/NFCR discussion that a file should be removed from an article based upon it. I'm not the admins closing discussions which have led to files being removed; if they disagreed with its application, they could've !voted instead of closing. As recently as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/June, an admin (who works a lot at FFD and with files in general) cited UUI#17 as the reason why a file shouldn't be used in a particular article. So, I'd appreciate it if Bring back Daz Sampson would stop trying to portray me as the person behind all of the problems associated it with it and its application. If he/she really has issues with my behavior and think the time has come for something to be done, then perhaps someone other than myself should advise him to do so at ANI. If he/she thinks that the close of NFCR/FFD with respect to a particular file was wrong or that UUI#17 in general needs a complete review, then perhaps someone else could suggest what to do in those cases as well. If Bring back Daz Sampson thinks that nothing is going to change even if he/she follows any of those suggestions so why bother in the first place, then they should perhaps be advised to simply drop the stick and move on instead of showing up on weekends and trying to re-argue these things in various other discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There might be a real issue here, but the dispute would have to be documented better. If an admin can't understand what the dispute is about without reading 1000 words of text, they may not want to look into it. For this reason, simply going to ANI is unlikely to get the result you want. You would have to produce some material that is better focussed.
 * While saying this, I do observe that some valid points were made in the archived ANI at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012.
 * While there could be some lurking behavior issues in this domain, the center of the dispute seems to be interpretation of the WP:Non free content criteria. So it's a question of how to interpret the policy. This kind of a problem can benefit from an RfC, if there is disagreement. The alternative of handling it as a behavior issue is likely to consume more time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

North Italy IP range again
At Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008, you reported that you blocked this range back in April: Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21. FYI, they're back at it. Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-blocked for another three months. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Our "mutual friend" is back once more
Hi Ed, hope all is well. You blocked this IP on two occassions for persistent disruptive editing (unsourced category adding without edit summary). He's at it once again.---- - LouisAragon (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for another two years. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you for dealing with the disruption. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Superbrickbro
Hey Ed, it looks like we block-conflicted. Sorry about that. My block was harsher than yours, but despite it being their first block, I felt a longer block was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Some kind of action was obviously needed and there is a case for a longer block.. It seems that in some months AN3 goes a long time with no admins and then other times we all come at once. Maybe it's the holidays! EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * Accusations that can easily be backed up (heck, even a neutral random user had the same suspicions about you from the get-go ). It's no secret that you have been strongly warned in the past for pov-pushing . Also, you keep making pro-IRI edits, ("gender appropriate")? You have already tried to censor the lack of women rights in Iran  and now you're trying once again. Also, what has the amount of times I've been blocked to do with anything? I've made contribitions to this site 100x more than you if we're gonna talk about stats. Also, keep the harassment accusations for yourself, thanks. Keep this up and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would encourage Saff V. to keep in mind the warning left by User:Vanamonde93 after a discussion at ANI last March. The question asked at RSN seems like it refers to an action for which documentation would easily be found elsewhere. It is asking what decision was announced in November 2018 by the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee. The source text of this resolution can apparently be found at this UN link and you should be able to figure out from mainstream sources whether the resolution was adopted or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


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

Exophthalmus vittatus listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Exophthalmus vittatus. Since you had some involvement with the Exophthalmus vittatus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Taketa (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to support deletion of the redirect, for reasons I'll explain there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Rump state


I noticed in User: Matt Smith that he had some problems with Taiwan's political status (back in '17). I am currently working in the Rump state article, and he has reverted back in that Taiwan is a disputed rump state. It's a single edit, and he is using the discussion page, but because he chose to revert and then discuss, I thought I should offer a heads up to the admin who blocked him for activity very similar to this. Could I trouble you to add it to your watchlist for a few days? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous problem ('Edit warring about the history of Taiwan', from January 2017) was reported at this link. There was a complaint at AN3 which I closed with a warning. At that time I told Matt Smith that . EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear that, Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have, more than once, offered you an 'out', Matt. No one can help you if you choose to instead fight about it. No one wins a revert war; in fact, everyone loses, including the article. I'd say that you should use the discussion page, but you've already disregarded my advice and I was forced to report you. You have only yourself to blame. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to admit that you disregarded WP:Consensus and kept removing the long-time content without getting a consensus, I cannot help you. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Matt, please understand that I am not here asking for your help. I am hoping you are not too far down the rabbit hole to miss that.
 * I guess my concerns were justified, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You of course can have your reasons of editing articles, but when your edits of a long-time content are opposed by other editors (I and User:Dentren, in this case), you should get a consensus with other editors first, not keeping doing what you think is right. Unfortunately, you failed to do that in this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 at it again


You have warned me for edit warring with this user before when I stated I was merely reverting his POV pushing, well guess what? He is at it again...and has now transferred the same dispute (Hrvatinic family) on to the Croatian nobility article. He is also showing the same "pattern" on other articles (removal of anything connecting medieval Croatian state with modern-day Bosnia), f.e. also on Turkish Croatia. He is also doing with Serbian-Bosnia related articles as well. All in all this user is a POV pusher vandalizing articles and removing sources and content without proper discussion. What am I supposed to do here? Revert him again and be accused again of edit warring with this troll? Shokatz (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you opened a discussion somewhere on an article talk page to resolve the content issue? In the last six montha you've Santasa99 has received a surprisingly large number of warnings, though they do get credit for keeping them in their archive rather than deleting them. Instead of reverting again, both of you should consider the options presented at WP:Dispute resolution requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you have mistaken me with the said user. I am warning you about him as it was you who handled with the last dispute I had with him (as far as I am concerned), not the other way around...and yes, he does have a surprising number of warnings for edit-warring in the last six months and it is even more surprising he is still allowed to carry on with his shenanigans on Wikipedia. As for me, I am not even active enough in the last six months to receive "surprisingly large number of warnings". My only recent warning comes from the close contact with this person i.e. for the reason I've been reverting this persons POV-pushing and blatant removal of content and sources without proper discussion on Hrvatinic article earlier this year, in March. Now I come back again on Wikipedia few months later and find him he is still doing it and carried it over on other articles...few of which I mentioned above. Shouldn't this fall under the WP:ARBMAC already? I've seen people falling under discretionary sanctions for much less before... Shokatz (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I would still like to know where you, User:Shokatz, have attempted to discuss this on article talk. Neither party should revert again until this is attempted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you are not interested in (article) Talk page discussion, which I started (you asked the user twice, and after the second time, he run, without giving an answer), I have to respond on this one here. If you are interested in this particular dispute, or with mentioned previous one with this User:Shokatz, than maybe you should check my large number of warnings once again, by taking a bit closer look. I was reported by this editor over dispute on article Hrvatinić, where he resorted to variety of baseless accusations and personal abuses, just like here and on article Talk pageTalk page where I started discussion. You should check his reply there, because if that's what common Wikipedia practice is, than I am a guilty one. Prior to that report and subsequent warning issued by you I have never been reported or warned for anything in my 12+ Wikipedia-years, because I never reached that point in any dispute (another warning was issued in connection to that same dispute as I mistakenly reported him to ArbCom which made some admin quite upset) - unlike this User:Shokatz, whose logs present clear picture of ethno-national POV, for which he was in dispute with just about everyone except like-minded members of that particular ethno-national group. Just like today I either disengaged or made persuasive enough argument to "win" debate, but nobody ever reported me nor drag me into edit-war so persistently enough to reach the point of no return. Besides, you should, maybe, check User:Shokatz loaded language little bit too, in our and his previous disputes and edit-wars (isn't he just called me a "troll", right here on your very own Talk page?!), which are aplenty, it's deliberately designed to provoke reaction - user is obviously well versed in this kind of engagements. I hope you are going to drop by on Croatian nobility Talk page.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We had the discussion about this (regarding Hrvatinic being Croatian nobility as much as Bosnian - these things are well sourced and not mutually exclusive to each other) and the user in question could not prove his points. Now he is carrying this issue on other articles...specifically Croatian nobility article...and from what I can see on few other articles as well. I am not even involved in the other articles and I can see him clearly edit-warring there as well (Turkish Croatia, Donji Kraji, etc. and several others). As for the "discussions" themselves you can actually see with what one is dealing with when engaging in such extreme activity by his reply. Walls of text hiding ad hominem fallacies, offensive language and just pure simple dismissal...I can see when someone is not in the "mood" for consensus but purely and simply pushing their POV and agenda. How long should this person be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia? Three months, six...a year? Two years? I am quite a long time on Wikipedia and I remember users such as PaxEquilibrium (just to give an example), a user I was warning admins about his POV pushing and Wikipedia-abusing methods...only to be dismissed at first, but then I come back a year and a half later to find him banned for the very same thing and even having numerous sockpuppets (proven abuser of Wikipedia policies)...I know a troll and POV-pusher when I see one and this guy is most definitely a prime example of one. Shokatz (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't discuss this issue on three different page. If User:EdJohnston is willing to offer further assistance, than user should join conversation on article talk page, so that all current and possible future interested parties could see discussion and maybe take part themselves, if they chose.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, who had a discussion, when and where, with myself unable to prove my point, whether the Hrvatinic and Hrvoje Vukcic in particular is or isn't Croatian as much as Bosnian, to whom, exactly - point at it, at both, a discussion and one who decide(d) that I was unable to prove my point ?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Santasa99 and User:Shokatz. The word count of these complaints is high and the clarity of the issues is low. Can I ask first about this revert that User:Santasa99 made back on 11 March at Hrvatinić? This led to a whole series of back-and-forth reverts that ended on 30 March. Can anyone tell me what points are still in dispute there? Or is it resolved? I remind you that Wikipedia doesn't need to persist in a quest for the ultimate truth on a confusing situation. If reputable historians disagree we can simply report the disagreement and leave it at that. 'Some say the kingdom was called A&B, and Prince C owed allegiance to the King of A. Other historians disagree.' If you can tell me what the issues in the Hrvatinić dispute were, preferably in point form, I may be able to propose an RfC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no disagreements nor agreements among reputable historians vis-a-vis this issue - the family and its most prominent member Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic is simply referred across the historiographies as a Bosnian - nobleman, duke, grand duke, king-maker, etc. He had episode of some 20+ years in ruling over Split Commune". The most telling fact is that even contemporary reputable Croatian historians refer to Hrvatinic as Bosnian - no one, nowhere, refer to Vukcic-Hrvatinic as both Bosnian and Croatian. Croats at the time didn't have institute that could give and take title, while in ethnic sense there were no Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs at the time. And finally, about my first removal on 11 March: Engel Pál is self-trained historian (I believe this info is included in his own Wkipedia article) with shoddy reputation even in Hungary, whose scholarship, among other themes, is subject of a study "Narratives Unbound: Historical Studies in Post-communist Eastern Europe" in which authors critically describe how post-communist Hungarian academia degraded from left to right ideological spectrum (from communist cosmopolitism to right wing ethno-nationalism) - anyhow, why use self-trained Pal Engel, while having plethora of Croatian and English language reputable historians, like John Fine, on our disposal? (Here's how Gordan Ravančić, director of "Croatian Institute of History" refer to Vukčić-Hrvatinić by title: "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split".
 * Regarding these that other visible removal in link - vassalage to Subic on the part of the family's early days was short-lived from historical perspective, so it's really beyond point to include that info both in lead and in Infobox. In the body of the article issue is taken care of, with early family members vassalage to Subic described in second paragraph, so there is no need to have it all over the place - it doesn't belong in lead and Infobo per notability, nothing else. You can check my entries on all these articles Talk pages, where I tried to explain myself, and where editors who reverted my edits joined after edit-war already commenced - and even than they contributed little or nothing constructive to TP discussion - just like today and day before.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have one more suggestion - how about we try to get some senior editor with experience and some knowledge in Balkan's medieval history to give us their inputs, while you are here and willing to engage into this problem with us? User:Surtsicna is pretty versed in promoting article on Balkan's medieval history to GA class, such editor must have some credibility.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That edit you linked there shows on what level this user operates. He is in fact "evaluating" linked sources provided for the claims made in the article. Correct me if I am wrong but he (or anyone) on Wikipedia is the last person to do so. He even goes so far to claim incompetence on one of the historians, a claim he now repeats even on this very page. Is this person qualified to do so even? Even mentioned John Fine talks about Hrvatinic (Hrvoje most of all) as a member of Croatian nobility. All in all his "arguments" are laughable and border on complete WP:OR. As far as Hrvatinic family goes, this family held territory within Croatia and passed into Bosnia (note that Bosnia as a whole was at one point part of Croatia) and also that a large part of modern-day Bosnia-Herzegovina was part of the core of medieval Croatian kingdom. Claiming they were exclusively one or the other is wrong, it would be as if one claims that Norman families that invaded and established themselves in England were not English nobility. Furthermore the person in question (Hrvoje) was named Viceroy/Regent of Croatia as was his brother after him...so claiming this family had absolutely no ties with Croatia and was not Croatian nobility when it is well documented they at one point had enormous influence on the political situation in Croatia is a blatant lie and completely ignores historical facts. And lastly the most hilarious and ironic thing in all of this is that the Hrvatinic family itself derives from a name Hrvatin which itself derives from the name Hrvat (Croat/Croatian) and even the name Hrvoje is a modification of that same name. So he is literally denying that these people whose family names derives from the national name of Croats, were feudal lords in medieval Croatia and held official titles (Viceroy of Croatia and Duke of Split) had nothing to do with Croatia...it is hilarious beyond belief. But all this isn't that funny when you look into the edits of this person, just go through it and you will see a pattern...he goes around and removes any mention of Croatia (and recently also Serbia) with Bosnia. If anyone is "ethno-centric" as he accused me several times in his gibberish wall of text rants, it is this person. He is a text book POV-pusher, troll and well documented abuser of Wikipedia policies...just look at the number of edit-wars he was a part of (as you said yourself) in the last six months...how long will such behavior be tolerated? And what is one to do about it? If I revert him then he is reverting back and then what....you have two people that revert each other and neutrals see it as an edit-war. If I try to discuss it, he goes into this mode of ranting (but saying literally nothing of meaning) and arguing so if a neutral looks at it again, he sees two people arguing on the matter they (neutral observers) know nothing about...I guess that old saying "Never argue with an idiot because people won't know the difference" rings extremely true for me in this case... Shokatz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is fine to contact regular editors who may have content knowledge about Eastern Europe. But why not first try to phrase some of the questions in single-sentence form, where a question can be answered yes or no. I see why you might want to consult the work of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., one of whose books is linked at this URL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, but not just because that one book, also his entire opus is connected to western Balkan, former Yugoslavia region, and Bosnia on particular, while being something of a "gold-standard" for reference in all articles on region's history. But as I said, he's not the only one - any contemporary Croatian/Croat historian whose reputation hasn't been tainted with ideological and/or ethno-nationalistic undertones is acceptable across the articles on history of Balkan.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not an "idiot", I do not "trolling", so I am not a "troll" either - I am your peer-editor, kinda. Name Hrvatin is all-Slavic name, not just Croatian, so that's etymological falacy as it doesn't takes root in ethnonym Hrvat (Croat) - Serbs are also named Hrvatin, so Serbian lord Hrvatin held Rudine near Gacko while his brother of Vojin held Gacko (1327)-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal persistently blanking most of the James Dean article
Hi Ed, hope all is well. An IP just won't give up and has blanked almost all of the James Dean article 25 times in the last 24 hours. This has really gotten out of hand. Carlstak (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has now been blocked three years by another admin. Let me know if you see him continuing with another identity. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out, thanks for your reply. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I need some advice


Hi EdJohnston, I'm a bit uncomfortable approaching you here but seeing as you unblocked me recently I do hope you could give some advice on how to best deal with an uncomfortable situation which I have ended up in. Over the past few days another user has launched on a personal crusade against me. It all centered on this discussion. I felt it had run its course and that there was a clear support for the proposal and so last week in good faith. This was quickly reverted by the other user and they took immense offense to that edit and launched on their crusade against me ever since. Shortly afterwards they started a dispute resolution thread which they, counter to its regular goals, merely used to simply continuously criticize me. They even tried to game the system by directly approaching directly approaching the DRN volunteer to try and poison them against me. Thankfully the DRN volunteer had none of it. Despite repeated request by the volunteer to stop, the other user continued to post their criticism at the DRN thread, causing it to be closed without success. Following that and seeing that the DRN didn't yield an new agreement with the other user, I decided to the contested edit in good faith. It was reverted by them again and I focused on the article's talk page since. Unfortunately that turned out not be the end from them. I found out that they approached the specific administrator that recently imposed an indefinite block on me (which cannot be coincidence at all) to further vent their frustrations over me just posting untruth after untruth about me. The editor has not been honest to that administrator about their own behavior so. The originally contributed to wikipedia as during which time they were blocked six times for disruptive behavior. They have painted a false image of me there and most worryingly the administrator (who unfortunately apparently still has an overly negative impression of me) judging by their replies seems to fully believe it. I don't know why this administrator accuses me once again of battleground behavior when all I did in this case are two article edits an couple of talk page edits. This has gotten me extremely worried that I might end up at the receiving end of yet another indefinite block. This I why I reached out to you. I want to defend myself against these false accusations but I'm unsure what's the best way to do so without making things worse. I was hoping you could give me some advice on this.Tvx1 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dealing with your repeated campaigns to exact vengeance on editors you have grudges with is exhausting. Consider yourself warned; you know what happens next if you keeping acting out.  -  F ASTILY   02:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There ought to be a limit on how much admin time User:Tvx1 uses up. Perhaps he could go edit some very quiet topic where he won't constantly be getting into disputes. He was unblocked on 6 July, yet here he is again, and we have a whole new set of problems. Per the recent thread it appears that Tvx1 does not even have the skills or patience to use WP:DRN properly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is this? I'm not at all "trying to extract vengeance" on other users. That's what Mclarenfan17 is trying to do against me. I had and have the patience to use the DRN process properly. I (you can ask  if you want a third party stance on that) and I'm even fully willing to use DRN again if it is properly used to try to solve the content dispute. I have no intentions whatsoever to extract revenge on anyone. I can actually prove that all these accusations thrown against me by Mclarenfan17 on Fastily's talk page are false. I have no grudge with anyone whatsoever. I have no threatened to take anyone to ANI over this at all. I have no problem whatsoever to limit myself to contribute constructively and collaboratively to the talk page discussion. I only reached out to you for some general advice on what steps to take next in order to avoid getting into serious trouble. You've completely misunderstood me.Tvx1 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Please protect Thayne McCulloh as you did Gonzaga University
Protecting Gonzaga University has already started a very productive conversation on the start page. Trouble is brewing at Thayne McCulloh. Also, if you look at the talk page for Thayne McCulloh very serious incivility and transparently false allegations have been thrown at me like monkey poo by Dennis Braitland. I can prove all those allegations false with diffs. If you go over the history of the article you will see that I have been working very hard to make it NPOV and just a higher quality article in general. I don't deserve to be verbally abused for working hard on something and doing it well. Thank you. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP should have been blocked for unambiguous 3RR violations. Instead the page was protected. This person is waging a whitewash campaign, intent on erasing any mention of embarrassing information related to Gonzaga University or associated people. I posted a final warning on the IPs talk page, and my next step will be seeking a block at ANI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected Thayne McCulloh. Please use the talk page to get agreement on how to change the article. If you believe that BLP is being violated you could post the issue at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
You've got mail

Comment about the dispute at Alfa Romeo 166
And what about the other user? I think hes closer than me to be blocked. He is reverting it continously, I think he should persuade hes table is better than the article used, thanks, I have already told my opinion he only told its "crap" -- >Typ932 T·C 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The duty to get consensus applies to both of you. See WP:Edit warring if you are not familiar with the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This is about a dispute that was reported at WP:AN3. See also a thread at User talk:Typ932. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So i get blocked if I restore the article? what about the edit warrer? he should also get blocked, I havent done anything more wrong than he has.  I have already talked about case so much Im tired, Its not me who needs consensus its the other editor. Warn him also, this isnt right , he has no reason to revert my editings all the time , hes edits is not doing the article any better, he is just causing troubles here for fun - Wikipedia cant work like that , that 1st complainer gets without any pusnishment and its others fault all, just think what you are doing here, you seems not to be neutral admin.  If that guy still reverts the article I will also complain him , anyway couple of these cases more and Im off from wikiepdia after 10 years, Im really sick of these kids. This is just horrible fighting weeks after weeks, when people cant read or understand the rules.  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary
I write to that users talk page very clear message, so it seems that you are again wrong. pls stop that blaiming others or soon you are risk of being blocked by wrong accusations again, it would be whole better if you dont try to teach others if you cant behave yourself. -- >Typ932 T·C 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to whatever this is about. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bad protection request
Hi, EdJohnston. You recently protected Richard Spencer (a dab page) via this request made by. A quick look at the page history makes the rationale of vandalism dubious at best, and disingenuous at worst – rather, this is an ongoing content dispute (there's even an ongoing RfC (without clear consensus emerging) at the target page regarding this labeling). Therefore, I'm requesting a removal of the semi-protection. I also want to draw your attention to NBSB using WP:ROLLBACK to revert various good-faith IP edits in contravention of its intended use. Thanks for your time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IPs engaging in unexplained and undiscussed revert-warring of well-sourced material is vandalism. The unexplained revert-warring is self-evident in the page history and there is nothing "abusive" about using rollback in such situations. That you would describe such edits as "good-faith" tests the boundaries of credulity. Good-faith editors use edit summaries, explain their proposed changes on the talk page and engage in discussion. None of the IPs did any of that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, edit warring over a content dispute isn't vandalism; rollback is only for blatant vandalism, and you know it's not that because of the contentious RfC over at the target article, which wouldn't be so contentious if it were so well-sourced. You had no problem with the IP that added "neo-nazi" without explanation in the first place, yet you reverted the next IP that removed it without explanation. Applying protection was inappropriate per "nor should [page protection] be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Deacon Vorbis. The RfC is at Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Maybe the RfC can be closed somehow. Getting a result might be enough to settle the 'neo-Nazi' question both at Richard B. Spencer and at the DAB page. I wonder if User:Nblund has any ideas for how the RfC could be closed. (He is the person who did the last re-listing). If someone were to close the RfC based on a head-count it is likely to favor 'neo-Nazi'. I take it you favor calling him a white supremacist in the DAB but NOT a neo-Nazi? EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP that added it explained it with an edit summary, and made the disambiguation page consistent with the main article as it is now, which contains the "neo-Nazi" label. IPs then began attempting to revert-war it out of both the main article and disambiguation. If the RFC closes with a consensus to remove the label, then of course it should be removed. But removing it prior to the conclusion of the RFC is entirely improper and prejudges the result in the IP's apparent preferred direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Diaz is the person who opened the RfC back in April. Since he didn't express an opinion, maybe he could be considered uninvolved? He might be persuaded to close the RfC himself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Never mind. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the dispute has continued, I'm fully protecting the DAB page at Richard Spencer. Try to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * edit conflict I have no idea on a close - I think the not-a-votes favor keep, but I also think my views count quadruple, so... In any case: I haven't been following the article closely, but the page is a long-standing target for vandalism, socking and other disruptive behavior, and this doesn't really look like anything different. Nblund talk 23:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that a new RfC is running at Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Anyone interested can participate there. My full protection of the DAB page at Richard Spencer will expire soon, so it seems unnecessary for me to follow up further on Spencer-related matters. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I need some help



 * Hello Ed, I found your name and account through the admin page. You handled a case there, so I think that you are an admin.
 * I see a situation that I strongly believe is an attempt to purposefully make the page(s) about the Hong Kong demonstrations portray it like a simple riot.
 * I can be wrong. I admit that I wasn't friendly. On top of that, I have definitely spoken my mind. Which has created a situation that I look like a disruptive element.
 * I need someone to monitor the situation that I will explain below concerning 2 user accounts and the topic concerning the 2019 demonstrations in Hong Kong.
 * The situation is that 1 account keeps editing a lie into the article (that the demonstrators are violent concerning 1 particular event).
 * The event was captured on live video, showing that men dressed in white (coming from mainland China) forced open a shutter and suddenly attacked unaware, unarmed and peaceful demonstrators. Other live video footage shows the police purposefully walking away from the event. Even worse, the attackers are shown to be triade by every source that I saw.
 * Demonstrators in Black, Triade in white.
 * Source1
 * Source 2
 * Source 3


 * Anyway, here is the BBC. While in 2019, the police walked away and arrested no one, in 2014 the same thing happend: a group of men dressed in white attacked peaceful and unarmed demonstrators out of the blue. Police did make arrests at the time, showing 19 had known triade background. In this event, the police is shown to walk away from the scene of the crime (again by live video footage), so 0 arrests were made. However, the events have been so similar in the way it happened, and the clothes people wore and have happened time and time again that even the BBC is calling it an attack by triade members.


 * So, the article is being edited to show the exact opposite of what live camera footage is showing. After I noticed this, I noticed one of the users keep editing the same into the article, even when rolled back time and time again. Looks like an edit war. The most experienced user takes the side of that user. I tried reasoning with that user, but to no avail. I didn't get it, until that user accused me of accusing him/her of being paid by china. Then it clicked. I look and indeed, the user is a communist, ties to China. But, the Wikipedia is blocked in China, no one can use it and the stuff that is being added is definitely Chinese propaganda. I can find sources if you need them.
 * It is possible that I am seeing this wrong, but I need people to keep an eye on this. This is wrong on so many levels.
 * As said, I already behaved badly and this second user simply outclasses me in Wikipedia behaviour. I can't win. And that mean truth loses.
 * I think that I should but out of the situation and make you watch without their knowledge. Just look at it.
 * That is why I did not mention the names. Here are links to the accounts:
 * The initial user that I saw making strange edits:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ltyl&action=edit&redlink=1
 * The experienced user that is making me look bad, rolling back my attempts at a normal conversation (again, I admit to having been unfriendly, but I am really trying to work it out).
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonm223#Hong_Kong
 * The main reason that I am deeply concerned is that I can't find the following part of the article anymore:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extradition_bill_protests&oldid=912301879#Chinese_government_and_media
 * On 19 August, both Twitter and Facebook announced that they had discovered large-scale disinformation campaigns operating on their social networks.[252][253] On Facebook, images and videos of protesters were altered and taken out of context, often with captions intended to vilify democracy activists and their cause.[254] Offensive posts called protesters "cockroaches" who were afraid to show their faces, and compared them to ISIS terrorists.[255] Many of the Twitter posts were written in English and intended for a broader global audience.[256] Some of the blocked accounts appeared to be targeting Americans specifically, claiming to be based in locations such as Chicago and Long Beach.[257] Some of the accounts posed as Chinese dissidents; one bio stated, "Born in 1970, experienced June Fourth, now living in China", referring to the Tiananmen Square massacre.[258]
 * Will you help me help the Wikipedia?
 * I'll apologise to all those concerned (again) if I am wrong.
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello User:2019OutlaweD. You are raising similar concerns on multiple pages. Please continue your negotiations with User:Simonm223, who has been providing good advice. I am unfamiliar with this topic and notice that your history here is quite short (August 14). So I don't wish to investigate further. New users who wish to edit controversial articles need to be especially careful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not editing the article.
 * I am pointing out that edits are not equal to the sources.
 * I will follow your advice first.
 * But I would like to know at what point I should ask you to look at it a second time?
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Addition
 * I did translate it to Dutch, and I did edit articles adding current events, like the Hong Kong Way (in the Baltic Way article). It has, in fact, been locked while I was translating, it would have been impossible for me to edit it. It only became unlocked in order to split it up.
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't violate WP:FORUMSHOP. Please listen to the advice you've already received from others. It is unnecessary for you to ask me follow-up questions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

POV-push on Greek Macedonians and Macedonian language naming dispute


Hi Ed. This is to notify you that brand new account is POV-pushing badly sourced or unsourced OR on the articles  and. They have also reverted twice at Macedonians (Greeks) and opened a discussion at the talkpage where they use PAs on the section heading like "negationism". I have already warned the account but I think that may not work, given their attitude so far. Therefore, I am making you aware of this situation. Thank you. Dr.  K.  04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_(Greeks)&diff=910302497&oldid=910302391 solidify my allegations. I recommend Ed has a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonians_(Greeks) and sources provided in Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. The page on Macedonian language naming dispute is unencyclopedic and horribly biased, and sources were used unlike your allegations suggest --Beat of the tapan (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that this issue is adequately dealt with at Talk:Macedonians (Greeks). I am not planning to participate on these issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Palestinian Museum


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

The museum just won a major architecture prize, so the media attention is beginning to ramp up. With that will come a good opportunity to build up the article with new source material. Is that going to break the rules in any way? (And I just made a small edit to the article -- hoping that I'm not breaking any rules!) Your guidance will be much appreciated. -- Aylahs (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:ARBPIA3. Journey of Learning is too new to be editing The Palestinian Museum directly, but can post on the article talk page. Since you have more than 500 edits, you are free to edit the article. If you agree with the changes proposed by Journey of Learning, you are in a position to add those changes to the article. You should be alert to whether consensus favors the changes, though. Disagreement is common with matter that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply EdJohnston. I see this will have to be managed carefully! I'll broadcast my editing intentions on the article's talk page; hopefully others will do the same and it will reduce the chance of disputes. I don't mind publishing some of what Journey of Learning has written, but I feel badly getting credit for someone else's edits. It looks like they put honest effort into it, and it would be discouraging for a new editor to have that work go unrecognized (and for a very confusing reason). Any suggestions on how we can help keep Journey of Learning feel engaged and positive out of this mess? -- Aylahs (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be enough that you gave Journey of Learning the credit in your edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo issue


Hi EdJohsnton. is a new editor who is removing the word "Kosovo" from articles or replacing it with either "Serbia" or "Kosovo and Metohia". I reverted some of their edits and placed a message on their talk page. They responded by saying Hi my Albanian friend ! The real name is Kosovo and Metohija, and that territory is a part of the Republic of Serbia by Resolution 1244 of UN. Greetings from Serbia !. What should be done now because they continue the disruption? Not to mention that they are not supposed to assume about other editors' nationality or ethnicity. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've alerted them to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. You might consider making a report at WP:ANI. So far, the behavior is quite blatant. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you EdJohnston. Similar cases happen very frequently and newbies are more likely to listen to advice if they take it from more than a single editor. If the disruption persists, I will file a report. Would WP:AE be a more appropriate place than WP:ANI since discussions in the latter tend to become too long and messy sometimes? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just notified Matke.j of the discussion here. Perhaps they will respond. Meanwhile I suggest you avoid edit warring with Matke.j. It is likely that consensus will prevail before long. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, edit warring is never a solution. They have never reverted on any article so it is very likely they will reflect on the issue and decide to gain experience and learn how disputes are settled on Wikipedia before they make more controversial edits on controversial articles. Some Balkan topics are too messy for many newbies. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The warning

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

I really don't understand how I was warned on my talk page, when all my edits (and their subsequent edit summaries) directed the user to the talk page on the article in question, where I encouraged further discussion the changes. What would have been a better solution? I seriously want to know.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unclear why this would be a defence. Edit wars take place when people keep on reverting instead of waiting for the outcome of discussion. Discuss-while-revert isn't a useful pattern when it gets up to a total of six reverts each. If there is a question of sourcing, it may help to refer the matter to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

page move request
Hi EdJohnston, I had requested page move protection on Delhi Dynamos FC page to stop recurring vandalism before official announcement. Now the announcement has been made and there's a request for page move, can you please look at it at Talk:Delhi Dynamos FC? Thanks. Coderzombie (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This move is likely to be approved, but WP:RM still has one more day to go. The simplest is to let it expire normally and then I (or some other move closer) can do the honors. The club still uses the old website and the old Facebook page, so some details of the move are not complete. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yelyzaveta Oshurkova
After a quick search I found those sources: even wikidata. Regarding your site, perhaps they did not update her profile?--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those mentions. Do you want to add them to the article? It is often worth checking to see what Wikidata says, but it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added two external links.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Other RMs
Thanks for your edit on the Bluetooth mesh networking "uncontroversial" RM. I don't contest your contesting the non-controversiality. :) I'm not convinced there's a need so much for experts, I would say there's more of a need of people familiar with how readers expect to see a difference between branded technical names versus ordinary English.

On a more immediate note, Talk:2018–19_Sudanese_protests and Talk:Sovereignty_Council_of_Sudan are waiting for uninvolved editors to close the debates. My opinion is that closing these should be easy, but I'm an involved editor, so there's no guarantee that you'll agree with me. Boud (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did close the one about Sovereignty Council of Sudan. The other seems like a harder question. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

hi please delete, after previously (odisha fc) and revert edits on isl 19-20, remove delhi from brackets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.23.20 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no idea what you are requesting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming)
Hello, do you have a change this is Protection this Template on Template:GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming) this is Semi Protection on Template autoconfirmed or confirmed editor access not template editor access, Change the Protection, thanks. LG-Gunther : Talk  04:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now semiprotected, per your request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

John of Kronstadt


Hello, can you help as an administrator to resolve the dispute for the page John of Kronstadt. Users Nicoljaus and ‎Wlbw68 write the word "moreover" in this phrase, ). But it is not correct and no need as I showed on the  Talk page and two third party users, as I consider, agreed with me. Aleksei m (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue of the word 'moreover' does not appear very significant. But if it bothers you, consider opening an WP:RFC. The stylistic problem is how to make a smooth transition from the canonization of John to the rehabilitation of the Ioannites by the Orthodox Church. Without knowing any details, it is easy to imagine that those favoring the canonization would also think that the Ioannites were good people. But if anyone wants to make a definite connection between the two (and state their conclusion in Wikipedia's voice) they would probably have to read some references, perhaps Kizenko's book. The appeal of using the word 'moreover' is that it's vague, though it does hint that the two events were linked. You seem to be objecting to the hint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why there should be a non-consensual version. Why should I open a discussion, but not who wrote this word and this phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the thread at Talk:John of Kronstadt, three editors seem to favor the use of 'moreover': User:CaptainEek, User:Rosguill and User:Nicoljaus. Are you able to find *more* than three people opposing the user of 'moreover'? You seem to think that 'also' would be an improvement, though to my ear it is almost the same thing. The words 'also' and 'moreover' would serve almost the same role as neutral-sounding transition words between two topics. Your position is hard to defend. I am starting to agree with the other commenters at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". I gave an example when a word "moreover" does not fit and user Rosguill agreed with it . Why then does it fit the phrase "John was canonized. Moreover, after the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started"? Aleksei m (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosguill did not agree with you, in fact he said just the opposite of what you said. There is consensus to include "moreover". Also, this discussion should be happening on Talk:John of Kronstadt, not here. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ultranationalism article


Hi,

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

Please have in mind I immediately informed by my very first entry Wikiproject Hungary along with  the problematic fact the user recently engaged and modified many political articles, though he is openly advertized his involvement and certain political views, that he blanked instantly  on his main page, this concerns me more regarding NPOV. Thank You for your assistance!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * See also an ANI discussion opened on 9 September, involving Jay Hodec rather than Jeff6045. However the topic of Fidesz seems common to both. A fairly confusing situation. But having seen that, I am not intending to do any follow-up myself. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I have filed that ANI discussion, later on by mistake a user in the ANI started to accuse me improperly referring to the article I draw your attention, but soon another administrator gave me right and that inline thread has been deleted and the accusation has been retreated, but before not recognizing his mistake the user pinged in User:Jeff6045 there because he mentioned him there. The topic is similar, but technically totally separate, should not be confused, you don't need to follow up that (practically the accuser cherrypicked from my user contributions and draw in there something unrelated of the partuclar issue). Just follow the events in this article please, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * User:Jeff6045 and User:KIENGIR have reverted about equally much in this dispute. I hope somebody opens an WP:RFC or finds some other way to get broader review of the 'ultranationalist' claim about Fidesz which is supported by Jeff6045. Normally, you would expect that Fidesz's own article would be the place to work that out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, I did not make yet any further since I follow the usual DR process, but soon I will follow up. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Please give a edit warn for User:Chandy of Pakalomattom


There's a user named Chandy of Pakalomatton I give me wasting my time at the Mar Thoma Syrian Church for the last two-three months over the classification of the Church's identity, like that user is still proclaiming its Eastern Christian due of the Syrian christian origins, despite both its website's history page seen here and even its page has contrast its claim due of his naive biases over by its own historical facts. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Chad, if you are having a disagreement with this editor, why is there nothing from you on his talk page? See WP:SIGN for how to sign your posts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, because he repeating undoing my and now couple another users edits for months, just over the main classification, with its only attempted to backing up his own claims, but failed due of how its using a incomplete "website" version of the Church from within a third-party site Weebly to backing up. And also I'm sorry that I forgot to used my signature for my question, so I'm sign it now. Along fine, I will try to edit warn him now, but I worry my constructive edit warning won't convince it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit: It has respond, and it still seemly don't understand that its page is direct see its current identity as a bit different from the other Syrian Christian Churches, while still making claims its still the same Church prior to its identity reformation. And it still disruptive editing without good justification by this point with this | horribly edit with "Reformed as per Holy Bible" without specifically tell what it means. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Chad and Chandy should be following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just try convinced this Chandy user (and also I knew from weeks ago that the user's name is definitely mock my username), just accept it and move on its not that hard if it just go to the official church's website to go the "Heritage" page that I was right, but still it (and its log-off clones of anonymous users who likely the same person, during the previous edit war) can't accepted regardless the evidence its on it's face. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your English is hard to understand. Are you producing it using a mechanical translator? EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm suffer from Autistic Spectrum Disorder [in its worst state right now] for the occasional bad grammar, unlike that User I guess, but I just send out a request at |the dispute resolution noticeboard just now. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your report at WP:DRN is also hard to understand. If this is the best you can do, you may not get a favorable response. Do you know any other user who is also interested in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church who might help you draft some posts? Or, can you write in Malayalam? We have an article on the church at മാർത്തോമ്മാ_സഭ. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes unfortunately, this is best I can; and no I don't either speak or write Malayalam, but I do occasionally speak and mildly write native French due of my disability; as my technically semi-second language. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed the DRN because there had not yet been discussion on either the other user's talk page or the article talk page. User:Chad The Goatman should allow User:Chandy of Pakalomattom to reply.  DRN should only be used after discussion has been tried and has been unsuccessful.  If the other editor does not reply but persists in editing, read the discussion failure essay, and report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear All I have difference in opinion with some editorS because they are repeatedly classifying Marthoma Church under the category of Protestent. Marthoma church did reformation on the lights of Holy bible and has decided not to follow certain practices like intercession to saints and prayers at graveyard. That donot mean that they have accepted any reformed or protestant theology. The schism of 1961 which resulted in a sister church STECI(St thomas Evangelical church) was over this. Marthoma church has never defined any Dominical sacraments unlike any protestent or catholic church and is believing all which cannot be explained in bible as Divine Mystery and has to be followed as per the teachings of first three ecumenical synods.Since Marthoma church donot have prayers to saints and statues of them it cannot be straight away included in protestent group.

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

Dean Winchester page vandalization


Hello, this page is again being vandalized (you locked it up back in August 30th) now that it's again opened, though the last change was done a couple of days ago, I wouldn't rule out happening again. Thank you. DarthJenny (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to the vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

My addition to Evil Dead Trap article was just transposed from the "Evil Dead Trap 3" wikipedia article.
Hi Ed; When I edited the "Evil Dead Trap" wiki article, I merely transposed the sentence that said "The film released internationally as Evil Dead Trap 3: Broken Love Killer has no connection plotwise to the two earlier films" from the wikipedia article that already existed on wikipedia about "Evil Dead Trap 3". (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Dead_Trap_3:_Broken_Love_Killer). That information was already in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article, I didn't come up with that information. I just transposed the sentence over to the "Evil Dead Trap" article, that's all I did. I assumed if that fact had been in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article for such a long period of time, it was apparently considered accurate or else it would have been removed. I thought the info already in the wiki articles was considered accurate, so I just transposed it into the other article. But I realize I shouldn't have done that now. I was just trying to give the three articles a little unity, that's all, just to kind of tie them together a little more.68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm moving your comment to the archives, since we have had the discussion already at User talk:68.129.15.71. Please continue there if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)