User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Thank you sincerely!

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

Strange...

Hi ED, VASCO again,

any ideas as to why (as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm40#Boavista_players), i sent a message in this new account, signed it, and the old user name showed? I still had not changed the name in the INTRO in my user page, but the account was already "admin"-resolved.

Cheers, nice weekend,

Vasco, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vasco, go to Special:Preferences. That page has a Signature section. You can try changing something there, and then go to your own talk page and leave a message for yourself, signing it with the four tildes. See if your signature changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi ED, VASCO here (well, sort of :) ),

The reports on this sockmaster proved conclusive enough and he was blocked; another user (or admin, or both, as you my friend) found another in a related investigation and blocked it also (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas).

Not saying you did anything bad by not blocking when i asked you - this "person" is unstoppable, almost 20 socks now, 20 more to come - and he also has a neverending supply of anon IPs, from which he continues to disrupt. He's an expert at the following: the article's name (a football club in this case) is C.D. Nacional, CD Nacional being a mere re-direct, so you can imagine which one he chooses, ruining everybody's work (proof here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%BDarko_Toma%C5%A1evi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=324621612). I have warned the "person" in some of his socks about this matter (no point in leaving messages on dynamic IPs...); oddly enough, his anon IPs contain the info that he operates from England, yet his grasp of the language is close to appalling.

Could you please (please?) enlighten me as to when/where a long-range block is appliable? Because if this is not one of those cases...seriously don't know which are.

Attentively, have a pleasant week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney

Hi, I went back to check what has happened with the impersonation of Bruce Cairney Wiki User:Bruce Cairney, and the discussion link does not point to it anymore. Can you tell me what the staus of this is now?, what needs to be done to fix this abuse tool for the purposes of defamation of character? This has been going on for years and so far wikipedia does not seem to care about this abuse of this service? Bacmac (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bacmac. There was never an article on Bruce Cairney as such. You must be referring to the October complaint at the COI noticeboard, which can still be seen here in the archives. For the moment, the problem has been addressed, though I would still welcome any clarification from you as to how you are aware of Bruce Cairney. The editor who used the User:Bruce Cairney account did not make any improper edits that I can see, and he has not contributed since May 15, so no action against him is needed. His user talk has been semiprotected to prevent IPs from adding any further defamation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New section

Testing. Does the 'new section' button create the header with spaces in it? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

Corticopia is now just reverting changes in an article he doesn't even care about just to bother and disrupt since you blocked him from the articles he really is interested in.[1] Please note that the article has been stable for MONTHS or YEARS, and nobody has ever "complained" about anything on it (especially not about Turkey). He's just being distuptive for the sake of it.

There's a section on the talk page, created by someone else, that deals specifically with this issue: misplacing Turkey in Europe even though most of its area and population is in Asia. This editor's half-assed response to it is very telling. Good luck with everything else. 69.158.56.19 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a check user should be implemented against the various Anonymous IPs he is using because I am completely sure he's using a registered account to edit the articles about other topics he used to edit (Geeky SCI-FI like "Star Trek", etc) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to open up an WP:SPI report on the subject. I'd prefer not to be the only admin who ever takes action on Corticopia. Be careful of going over 3RR at Newly industrialized country. What registered account do you think he's using? EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response as usual. I'm looking very closely to the SPI to file the case, I've gathered a lot of info.

With regard of the article Newly industrialized country, it's obvious that he's being disruptive because the logic steps towards the "removal" of certain information is (when Good Faith is assumed): the placement of the CITE tag to give the other editors the opportunity to include references, and/or open a discussion in the Talk Page. Information should not be deleted just because he feels it's not "appropiate".

I think his intentions are clear, he just want to be annoying and start a revert war, so I please urge you to act and protect the page to encourage him to behave propperly. After all, that's what should be done even if the vandal was somebody else and not Corticopia. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is obvious is that this editor is simply pushing his point of view onto the rest of us, and fishing to ensure that the article can be 'locked' to preserve a preferred version. Consult the talk page: he commented that "Turkey is geopolitically European. Period." ... without backup. Some other have commentators disagreed. The edit is very clearly not vandalism. Information is not being removed, only 'moved' and reframed in accordance with neutrality policy: most of the country (area and population) is in Asia, and is often included in the Middle East. The current citations do not support Turkey's inclusion in Europe in total (though of course a minor part of it is in Europe), only that it may be a NIC. It is contingent on an editor who wants to retain information to demonstrate why.

What is also painfully obvious is that the above commentator has been far more annoying and troublesome, through his whining and POV-pushing, than the original edit to begin with. Sad. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I invite both of you to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Of course, a person who rarely uses the same IP twice may have a bit of trouble being taken seriously. I'm not aware of any barrier that keeps you from creating a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of your response is beside the point. Why should I need to create a registered account? Wikipedia provides for that, and others (registered and not) have commented on this particular issue. If articles are successfully locked up simply because some troublesome editor with troubled history is inflexible and unreasonably screams at your talk page (with false accusations of vandalism, etc.), then there's a problem with the exercise to begin with. And, in that instance, it is not I who needs to be taken less seriously. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

I feel multiple users have worked in good faith to handle all the concerns about the article's "offensive" language and would request it be unprotected. The simple refusal to cooperate or compromise shouldn't mean the article doesn't move forward and improve - there have been ~250 edits to the article, greatly improving it, in the last few months...and now that has ground to a complete standstill while a "whitewashed" version of the page has been protected for a month against consensus. I'd appreciate if we could move forward, rather than backward, with this. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you say more about the multiple users? I personally think you might be able to suggest a compromise to Middayexpress, whose post of November 6 on the article talk did not get any answer. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As Geo_Swan indicated, it is obvious that the threshold for "specificity" is met in his opinion as the terms used were not "assholes" or "bitches", but "niggers" used in the context of a foreign military mission in an African country - and that an article specifically about a black civilian being tortured to death coming a week after the perpetrators complained "not enough niggers are being killed" is relevant...and simply saying "they said bad things" is not sufficient. (And, I would suggest, not adequately covered by adding one of the 150 footnotes to give detail...casual readers aren't going to dig through 150 footnotes to find the exact quote). His post went unanswered (by me) because it seems to be endless baiting, there are three uses of the word, I suggest we remove the one use that seems most "gratuitous" and his response is that "to include most of the words is not a compromise, it is all or nothing by Sherurcij" which seems patently unfair. How is suggesting removing 33% of something "all or nothing"? He is not saying "we should leave in this one use in the prose text", he's saying none, I'm saying 3 out of 3. I suggest I'm willing to go 2 out of 3, and he says no, that's not compromise. He doesn't offer any alternative other than that he wants things exactly as he wrote them, removing the "offensive" words from the prose text entirely. I'm game for more RfCs and outsider input - but everything we've had come in so far seems to support me in saying that WP policies suggest the terms should stay i, and I'm reticent to sit here arguing for a year since it seems neither side is going to "agree that the other guy is right", all we can do is go with consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I perceive that there is bad blood between you and Middayexpress, which could be why neither of you wants to budge since the last exchange on November 6. How about if you and Middayexpress would both agree to stay off the article and the talk page for 30 days, and let others work on the article during that time? Protection would be lifted to permit this. Other people would continue to work on the article. They might come up with compromises that would allow the article to move forward. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that, though I'd include Scooby/Midday both on that list. But I don't mind "taking a break", I have for a couple weeks already - it's just that I'm sorry to see the article suddenly stagnate over this dispute when it really should move forward regardless. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am not "good with that". A simple look at the Somalia Affair talk page shows that editors who have never even edited the article to begin with much less any other Somali-related articles have a habit of "appearing" out of nowhere. Looking at their contributions, they also have an extremely short history of editing on Wikipedia as it is (e.g. 1, 2), which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Unlocking the page will just invite more of these apparent "newbies" to surface and, judging by the remarkable consistency in their talk page comments, it's a forgone conclusion just what exactly their edits will be. What Sherurcij needs to do is quit trying to coax administrators to unlock the page behind the scenes while rehashing arguments that have already been completely dismantled on the article in question's talk page, and answer (if he indeed can) the challenge that has been put before him in my post dated 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC) on said talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are aware the purpose of the RfC, Third Opinion and large template on the main article was to get "editors who have never even edited the article" as well as readers just passing by to voice opinions? Since you seem to agree that it's a foregone conclusion that every uninvolved voice seems to support leaving the "offensive" words in the article in their proper context...I am troubled to think why you consistently pretend this is all about posturing and loud rhetorical speeches without substance. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thanks for information. I am disgusted Faustian behavior, he wants to close my mouth.--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here Birczanin accused me of lying. I have found today this information in this page: 385. So he is one who lies. And he removed source. I can provide scan from Motyka's book - p. 385 to prove. Birczanin should be banned.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO here again,

Sorry to be bothering you (as i have already told you, believe me if i could block vandals i would not ask anyone for anything), hopefully now i will get an answer,

There is this vandal from Norway who has been removing important info in player infoboxes (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guti_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=prev&oldid=325657405, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Barrag%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=320265044 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andoni_Zubizarreta&diff=prev&oldid=324533902 for example), and the IP seems quite dynamic to me ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.108.143.34), my only doubt is if it is the same person behind all those edits, although most likely, as ALL of them consist of soccer! The person has been warned already (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.108.143.34), yet continues.

Would greatly appreciate your input, keep up the good work,

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is too hard to tell if his changes are correct. A number of his changes have not been reverted. (Does that mean nobody disagrees with them?) This is not a case of obvious vandalism, so I think it needs a better summary, with more data. He has only received one warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, mate. Yes, i understand your approach, but believe me, even if some of his changes are accurate and good, he has no business removing stuff that is "good stuff". I also see there is a great deal of logic when you say that if a good number of his edits have not been reverted they must be correct, but i think it can be due to two things: First, i repeat that some edits may be actually good, and second, the bad ones that have not been reverted may be due to lack of attention (so many articles out there!) from "good" editors. I will continue to revert his stuff when i feel the edits are - if i cannot call it vandalic - not proper, and the guy (Jaellee) that warned this user has done the same i believe.

Thank you as always, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR oversight work ♥

Hello--
This'll be odd, but I wanted to thank you for handing this[2] case at 3RR. If I had known it was going to get so--um--involved, I would have put it on ANI where there's more user and admin traffic. You good sir, have earned a cookie... which sadly I can't actually give you. Unfortunately, I also must inform you that I won't be reading the discussion per self-imposed WP:DENY 18 hours ago. Really, poking you head on this stuff appears to be suicidal admin actions from what I see on a lot of talk pages. It's awesome! Shaking people back with a mop stick is an amusing image. Erm, ok, I have a fringe view, I admit. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.141.100.115

This may be too late to matter, but I wanted to answer you anyway. I became aware that this IP wanted a user page when he posted a request on Gogo Dodo's talk as I have it watchlisted. I saw MBisanz comment on Jimbo's talk about there being nothing wrong with creating a user page for an IP, so I went ahead and created it. Hope this helps some. Best, –Katerenka ^☆ 10:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That does make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad that we could clear that up. :) @Kate (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

JZ KNIGHT

Hi Ed.. Thank you for letting me know the discussion was going on about the JZ Knight Article. I have left another response on the notice board and today I notice that Jujimufu has made big additions to the article in a negative way against JZ Knight and what Ramtha teaches. I would like Jujimufu to be reined in a bit.. This user obviously has a definate stance and opinion he/she wants to let people know about and you have not asked for that to be kept in check.. I know that this sort of subject can be tricky as it crosses so many boundaries and belief systems but we should be able to get through all of that. Potentially we now have users in place to provide pros and cons and yourself to over see the way its presented. This could create a great article and present information in a balanced way..

There are some changes required to Jujimufu latest edit but I am not sure if I can go ahead..

Example: where Jujimufu writes that Glen Cunningham "has accused the School of being a cult. Well I could say "that the school is an advanced teaching facility for the mind" but it has no reference and would be removed, same goes for that 'Cult' statement.

Please get involved Ed, it needs a neutral observer to captain the ship and I think you may be that person. Mindgladiator (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry to butt-in like this, but on the issue of Mindgladiator's recent behaviour with regards to the article J. Z. Knight, I would like to bring to your attention his most recent edit, which involved removing the whole of the section "Controversies and Criticism" without prior warning or discussion on the matter.

I have left a warning at the user's talk page that if such behaviour continues he will be reported for vandalism. Another user reverted his edit, but that's not the issue - I have failed to receive clear and grounded communication from Mindgladiator's part, which is why I cannot continue argueing anymore. I feel this issue has to be brought to the attention of more editors/administrators, in the hopes that maybe Mindgladiator will be able to summon some arguments to defend his position; otherwise I see no reason why he should be allowed to edit the article in such a harsh and un-decided manner, without consensus with other members of wikipedia, and especially after what has followed.

Thanks a lot - for taking some of your time to contribute to the discussions with regards to this issue, and for being very helpful in its resolution so far. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi and Badagnani

Hi EdJohnson, it looks like we both responded to this around the same time; sorry, I didn't mean to be stepping on your toes, it's just that I had received a message about the edit war and wanted to give them a warning. I will defer to your judgment here; personally I think no block is necessary unless they start up again (even though the recent edits have been quite disruptive), but if you decide to block them anyway I certainly won't have problems with it, given their histories and how recently both of them have been involved in other editing disputes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

SGAUS

3RR warning. I read your message. I have continued to work on the page with very limited incremental additions. I have not seen any feedback from the Todd Gallagher since seeking assistance. Please let me know if any of my edits breach Wiki protocols. Respectfully22015va (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up question: What action is required to have the COI banner removed? Who does this?22015va (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to find newspaper or magazine articles commenting on the idea of state defence forces, or discussing particular episodes regarding these forces. It is hard to believe that there are have been no controversies regarding them over the years, and the present SGAUS article gives no hint of any political disagreements. When an article includes some criticism, that makes us more likely to believe that its coverage is balanced. If a COI-affected user can write an article that ends up sounding neutral to other editors, we usually assume that the COI tag can be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I have added a reference section which contain a DoD report to congress, a U.S. Army War College paper and an American Legion Article. Is this the kind of third-party sources you are looking for to provide balance? Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you found these references. It would be even better if you could extract some relevant facts from these references and add them to the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, the references I added do not mention SGAUS. I added them to provide third-party information about state defense forces and to help show that 32 USC 109 forces have no relationship with private "rump/militia" groups. I am not sure what I could extract from these references that would not compete with Wiki's existing State Defense Forces article. I do believe that they are relevant to the extent that they show that other organizations are also looking at and supportive of expanding 32 USC 109 forces to assist with expanding domestic missions that place such a heavy demand on already over-tasked federal National Guard forces. 22015va (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See some ideas I listed at User talk:Todd Gallagher#How to improve the articles. I welcome any suggestions you may have. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I have read your suggestions and do not disagree with any of them. I have posted comments on the article's discussion page as directed by the Sr. Wiki members - in hopes to develop discussion and consensus. I believe that if the article were to be deleted, user Todd Gallagher would reinstate it anyway. I do not believe that the SGAUS content should be merged with the State Defense Force article as I believe the efforts of the group carry enough merit for an independent article.

My efforts (post 3RR and request for editor assistance): I have limited all of my edits to small incremental changes (so if there are objections they can be discussed). Added numerous third-party sources links. In an effort to meet user Todd Gallagher in the middle I added the section on private groups. However, his charge that SGAUS supports private militias is out-right wrong. SGAUS will recognize lawful groups seeking to establish or continue support for lawful SDFs [3]. SGAUS is an independent organization and does not have control over other entities. I added a column to the states table that includes links to state corporation records to show that the individual state-groups are independent entities (separate from SGAUS). I have emailed the SGAUS group and asked for a current list of recognized state-level associations. Once I have that, I will add them to the table. I am not sure what else I can do to reach out to this user? The said part is the history and discussion sections are so filled with arguments, any article will be meaningless and have little credibility. I will post an "olive-branch" on user Todd Gallagher's talk page. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I wanted to check with you to ask when/how the COI tag can be removed from the SGAUS article? I have been adding comments to the discussion section as directed and have left messages with the other users in an effort to open dialog but have received no feed-back. I have also added additional information and links about the individual state-level associations (including links to state corporation records). Not sure what the next step is? Happy Thanksgiving, Respectfully,22015va (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eiður Guðjohnsen vs Eidur Gudjohnsen

According to The National Register of Persons in Iceland his name is Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen, so Eiður Guðjohnsen is correct. Then, why the IP is considering to use the WP:Requested moves process? Archibald Leitch (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is not how he is referred to in Icelandic sources, but in English sources. From WP:NAME, "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language source". (For example, how his name spelled in the local newspapers of the city where he plays). EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. In that case, all the articles about Icelandic players should be spelled to the local lenguage. That rule is kind of wrong, but if that is the rule I don't have any problem about that though.Archibald Leitch (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:82.36.17.10

This IP was discussed at AN/I for changing their sig to that of an admin, and !voting multiple times at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_McElderry. You asked them to explain and their response was that they really wanted the article kept. I advised them against this. They have now done the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Daniels (singer). As this is sock-puppetry, could you follow-up appropriately? Non-IP user is User:Hassaan19. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for resolving! I42 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Goa in troubled waters?

Check this out, don't call this POV ! [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.17.155 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose ideas for improving our articles on Goa. What you linked to in the Times of India seems to be a legitimate article. Where should the info be added? Perhaps Deepak would add it for you, if you specified which article needed to be updated. If you are a sock evading an indefinite block, you should try to be on your best behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be spamming entirely random people. I checked the history for Goa and couldn't find any of the people I searched for who he spammed. I've reverted all of them but this one. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not random people, but editors who call my article POV. It was very important to send the news to them. Kindly undo the same. --59.95.25.12 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is "no" an acceptable answer? You still appear to have spammed to me, regardless of whether they were random or not. You also provided absolutely zero context to your edits. Also, if you are who you appear to be, you're indefinitely blocked. Shoo! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting this editor's comments seems correct. If he wants to be unblocked under his main account he can write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Until then we should have no patience with him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

user 81.151.103.174

You blocked this anonymous IP above today for a period of 24 hours. I request, if you have the means, that you get the entire IP range for this user blocked permanently. Blocking this user has been done so many times, and it has NO effect, because he has a rotating IP. Because of this, he has been at this for over a year now because no-one has taken the initiative, or because no-one has the means to stop him. Either way, just informing you, hoping that you can end this boring ordeal or possibly get someone else to do it. FYI, I have complained to his ISP, and as I suspected: Absolutely no response, apart from an auto-response. I really don't intend to spend my time on Wikipedia sending complaint letters to ISP's because we cannot handle disruptive users, neither do I intend to keep at this silly reverting for as long as this user intends. So where does this leave the users who try to fend off this vandal? Eik Corell (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Notice Board

Hello, Can you tell me how long it takes for an administrator to address a complaint regarding edit warring? I put a notice up regarding an editor on the Karl Rove page. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the recent history of the Karl Rove article I do not see more than three reverts by either party, and maybe not even three reverts. Also some edits might be justified by WP:BLP, so it's hard to imagine that an admin will rule against either editor; it would most likely be closed as No Violation. What are the chances that you and Chhe could negotiate this on the article Talk page, and reach a compromise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm sorry to say that Chhe and Jusdafax are very much not amenable to cooperation. They've been hostile, especially Jusdafax, right from the beginning. You'd have to wade through the tortous history to see that. But, I've learned hard lessons over the summer. Fortunately, I've had some tutelage, at my request, from Moonriddengirl and JP Gordon, both very helpful and I learned alot from their suggestions. I think with the tag team of Chhe and Jusdafax it's best to go the legal route and report violations as they occur so a history is built that others can see. Any suggestions on the Karl Rove talk page would be welcome if you care to comment. I saw your comments from an earlier post and that's why I contacted you and discovered you were also an admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not really any higher law than the article Talk page, for content disputes. I'm not sure why you think that admins would have any special ability to solve this one. (We only ensure that people are discussing properly and not trying to force their views into the article by excessive reverting). Maybe you can open an RfC or find some way to bring in editors from one of the WikiProjects, to find a solution that has wider support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that an admin could help make sure that no one is forcing their views on each other with reverting, etc. Sorry, I don't know what an RFC is. I will contact the Wikiproject editors, I hadn't thought of that. That's a good suggestion. It would be nice if the page could move beyond the scandal sheet it is now into a real biography. I was also thinking an admin checking on things might be enough to tamp down some of the anger Chhe and Jusdafax have and use it regularly to chase away new editors. Wikipedia needs a little work in that area, I think. Thanks again,Malke 2010 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What is an RFC? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comment. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Down 30,000

I read an article today about Wikipedia written by a major newspaper. It says that Wikipedia user count is down 30,000 from 2-3 years ago. It says that 25% of edits from newer users are reverted up from 10%. It says that drama (using a different word) is up. The article discusses that people are beating up on users citing rules (so this could be wikilawyering). We should be mindful of what this article says about us.

If this IP is merely giving us references to newspapers, this is good behavior, not bad. Disruption is bad, giving a few (and in this case, only one) posts with a link to a newspaper is not disruption. If this IP left a message with you and you don't want such information, just leave a note on the user page.

This article that I read was a real eye opener. It says that edits are way down. It says that real experts don't want to write here. It didn't say we are bad but that we bite newbies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

another error

Oh my! I just found a huge error. I am writing about a Finnish tire company, the largest. The article says it was founded in 1988. Decades wrong. This is what we need to do, search and destroy all errors! Let's go and fight! You may stay behind but this is what I'm doing for now! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve IP editor

I offered to help, but my offer was rejected. The editor, under his new IP (Special:Contributions/71.174.142.108), is beginning to push his POV to other articles - in and of itself OK, but his style is could be better, and his comments on the various talk pages (both before and after his block) suggests he hasn't really accepted the process here. Even WP:AGF, at best it seems he's used to the anonymous, somewhat combative editing style of blogs and news site reader opinion sections. I do think he needs some careful oversight. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a fairly long post on the IP's old talk page, trying to give some more detail about what is considered wrong about his earlier posts, and some better guidance towards what is expected of him. While he's generally polite, I agree with 4wajzkd02's characterization of "combative". Appreciate the checks you've made though! Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following addresses most of Ravensfires concerns - and shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02 (who admits to knowing nothing about this issue in his talk page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Cites_supporting_my_position_-_showing_it_is_not_OR_or_SYN71.174.142.108 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02" - this is not exactly an example of how to win friends and influence people, let alone look for help in your quest. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Being harrassed by Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02

Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02 keep following m around and deleting everything I add. This includes material on talk pages.

I believe that they are intentionally trying to provoke me so that I do something uncivil in order to get me banned yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nullification_Crisis&diff=327606424&oldid=32760399471.174.142.108 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.142.108#Nullification_crisis_talk_page71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for the message. About recent change patrol, I have been doing it so why isn't it showing up? Is there more to it then just reverting vandalism? BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I got worried my edits did not count! Thanks for fixing the misunderstanding!BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

News Item related to your continuing misguided restrictions on me

I've been editing wiki articles on and off for about 3 years and I have to say that wiki editors has gotten MUCH more asinine over that period of time. In my case I have two editors (using term LOOSELY as they are more closely resemble censor then then editors) who have been to following, hounding and harassing me. This harassment includes multiple case of deleting TALK PAGE material. Considering my treatment by those two and yourself I would sooner join a band of rapists then become a registered wiki editor.

You reap what you sow brother!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6650077/Wikipedia-project-losing-contributors-in-record-numbers.html

Wikipedia is losing tens of thousands of volunteer editors a month, according to a study that suggests the pioneering spirit of the collaborative encyclopaedia is in decline.

“The articles are very tightly controlled by others now, and that makes it hard to jump in and contribute.” 71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)