Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Ed! I just wanted to write a personal alert that I had nominated the article for FA status.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Ed!

The article has no opposes and three formidable supports, FA juggernaut Malleus Fatuorum and two experienced economists & Wikipedians (Protonk and Volunteer Marek). Protonk suggested that I renew my requests for volunteer reviewers.

The article has a section on probability and measure theory that may especially interest you.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I was blocked I had created an article which TFD saw fit to put up for deletion, [1] I asked the admin who deleted the article to either restore it or move it to userspace, as he has not done this would you please do so? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Selket has not edited since June, so he has not been around to look into your request. I have userfied the article at User:The Last Angry Man/Hamburg Institute for Social Research. It was deleted in June as an A7 and in my opinion it needs some work before it is restored to main space. Happy editing! EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] 18:25 today, which reverted edits made at 17:50 yesterday and which was not contiguous with [3] at 3:07 (described specifically as a revert) It would appear to be 2RR in 14 1/2 hours, which might not precisely be in accord with the specific 1RR restriction you had imposed. I rather think the gaming going on is going to be a major problem unless it is noted shortly. Unless, of course, after 24 hours, an edit is not considered a revert? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second diff does not appear to be a revert, just a rejigging of the lede. Collect seems currently to be targeting User:Paul Siebert. On Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes Collect suggested bringing in Slrubenstein because Collect thought edits to that page by Paul Siebert might involve an issue related to antisemitism. He posted on User talk:Slrubenstein [4] and a discussion continued there and on User talk:Collect, with Slrubenstein not agreeing with Collect's personal interpretation of Paul Siebert's comments to an IP, who had made disruptive edits. This kind of reporting away from public noticeboards without due notification seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "targeting" anyone - the "rejigging" of the lede is what exactly led to the last problems on that article -- but I do not recall seeing you there at all? Do you just have this page watchlisted? As for Slrubenstein, I asked a question there which he provided a thoughtful answer for - and you appeared there as well. And at the talk page on the LaRouche movement as well. And at BLP/N. And Orson Scott Card. All inside a month. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Slrubenstein's talk page has been on my watchlist for several years. So are WP:BLPN and Communist terrorism, which I listed for full protection in November 2010 [5] because of violent oscillations in the article (an article I watch but do not edit). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This sort of following to complain about editors outside one's topic area of interest by Mathsci is what is not helpful. (BTW Mathsci trucked out EEML conspiracy theories at the A&I Race and Intelligence arbitration proceedings for no reason. When there's nothing to see, we see what we want to see.) Националист-патриот ►TALK 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I comment on all sorts of articles over quite a wide range. In general I prefer now not to edit any kind of controversial article. I am not responsible for problems with Collect's editing. What is A&I? Are you referring to some grudge of yours from the distant past? Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that then - I just was a tad astonished that since we have essentially no interests in common that you would run across me quite this often. (We "intersect" on a grand total of seven articles out of about two thousand I have watchlisted now). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made several comments in November 2010 on a request at WP:AE on exactly the same article. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Collect Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which explains one out of six I think -- amazing how coincidences pile up, isn't it? Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo, R&I, corrected. Националист-патриот ►TALK 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci, that was (my response, quoting you)... "WTF?
I am totally gobsmacked (not the first time) by Mathsci's "Involved participants under EE restrictions Vecrumba and more recently Biophys have started editing these articles or their talk pages well after the ArbCom case started; both started editing after having been placed under ArbCom restrictions in EE related matters. Vecrumba has stated that he has had a "life interest" in the subject."
I've "stated" I have an interest? That is innuendo that I'm lying, plain and simple. Mathsci also suggests that Biophys (who is a scientist) couldn't possibly have a legitimate interest in the subject after my happening to mention it as a life-long subject of interest for myself; rather, Mathsci would contend Biophys is joining me in a mini-EEML cabal to assault the Race and intelligence article. This sort of underhanded personal attack introduced as "evidence" proves the "evidence is the evidence." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)"

Vecrumba is unearthing edits/disputes that occurred during the ArbCom case WP:ARBR&I. That case was closed 13 months ago and all sanctions on me were lifted over 9 months ago. Closure of the case means that participants do not get to redebate it afterwards (if in doubt Vecrumba could ask an arbitrator like Newyorkbrad). None of this is connected in any way at all with the points I was making about Collect and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past conflict is the best predictor of future conflict, that is all I am stating—how quickly you forget your callous disregard for good manners in your treatment of editors with whom you disagree. I only suggest introspection to insure your primary motivation in appearing here is content. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More hyperbolic rhetoric about articles or talk pages that I don't edit and where I have expressed no point of view on wikipedia. It's on my watchlist like Southern Adventist University, which also became a contentious article. I am not interested in either Seventh Day Adventism (I unearthed two images of the Missionary College) or Communism. Please refrain from making groundless personal attacks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned in a report at WP:SPI. You may wish to have a look and comment there.[6] LK (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on Wp:ANI about problematic edits of User:The Last Angry Man. In the report I mentioned advice given by you. Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Esoglou allowed to edit war on the Ecumenical councils article and also on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff article? He put a citation request in on my contribution that there were councils before the Ecumenical councils.[17] THATS after I listed the actual councils and even wikilinked to the wiki articles and on some of those councils and then even included dates as well. So now why would I have to source that World War I happened before World War II? Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Esoglou and Richard do this as a means to frustrate contributors. God knows Esoglou can continue and if he messes up it's oops sorry get over it but I get ANI, blocked or banned . Esoglou acts incompetent when caught violating rules and edit warring everyone should just get over it. At what point does this person's behavior and incompetence finally get called into check or are you going to continue to blame the growing list of editors that this person has racked up, frustrates and continue to allow them to edit war with their buddies against positions and facts that do not put their POV in a good light. With all the complains how is it that it is still everyone but Esoglou's fault? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now Esoglou has opened a complaint on editor Montalban [18] More of Esoglou can do what he wants and he's just a little dense is why he messes up [19] but God help you if you do, cause Esoglou is only selectively dense and he can figure out how to run people off of Wikipedia even though edit restrictions are lost on ol Esoglou. How many editor are you guys going to let him run off, or do this too? Let me guess though this is all me, right. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion. As for LoveMonkey's objection to my taking the dispute with Montalban to the noticeboard, surely it was high time to do so when discussion on the talk page had failed to stop an editor from persistently presenting a statement of his as fact by a) deleting references to reliable sources that disagreed with it, and b) misrepresenting as support for his statement a source that explicitly disagreed with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard's point is already covered in the exclusion of the Church's "teaching and practice". Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at MediaCityUK, it may need protection and maybe some blocks as both Malleus Fatuorum and Rangoon11 have breached WP:3RR on this page today and both know the rule. Mtking ^(edits) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can open a complaint at WP:AN3 if you wish. I have not counted the reverts, but it seems that the WP:MOS favors Malleus' side of the argument, preferring 'England' to 'UK'. It's the question of what is the most specific geographical unit that gives the actual location of this project. It doesn't seem to be a question of which sovereign state the project is located in. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking ^(edits) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you close them then. Mtking ^(edits) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Remember that the usual 3RR report expects a 3RR warning. For an experienced contributor, it might be enough if you notify them you are making the report. This gives them a chance to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to explain what is going on. The MediaCityUK page is being edited by imposters who claim they are improving it. To me it appears they have nothing else better to do than to irritate other editors in a rude and uncivil manner that goes against Wikipedia:Civility. If you want to block Rangoon, then it would symbolise what is wrong with Wikipedia at the moment and why the site is losing contributors. I feel alienated and disillusioned. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the editors working there are well-known for their writing skills and their ability to improve articles. (I assume these are the people you call 'impostors'). If you don't like the result of their work, you should negotiate the matter at Talk:MediaCityUK. If you can't reach agreement there, consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I am mystified by what the dispute is about, but perhaps you can put it into words on the talk page. One idea is to put two versions side by side on the talk page and ask for opinions as to which is better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know where I'm getting these numbers, from the user edit count ex.. User edit count from there go to home then in the right-hand sidebar Automated edits it's from there I use the AWB stat's, as you see you have 26. Thanx for the nod, I was wondering if the stats help and I was under the impression I was accurate. Mlpearc powwow 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, I have *no* edits under AWB. See this toolserver link. But it's fun to see the different ways one may try to find the answer. (AWB is also a company in Australia, and one time I referred to that AWB in the edit summary). One edit I can't explain. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to harden (by either talk page access removal and/or block extension) the block for this IP. See this, this, and this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he's only abusing admins as a group, let him vent. Since he won't file a proper unblock template, most likely he'll get no further response (unless you provide it). He's also making it less likely he'll ever be unblocked. I suggest you unwatch his page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, tpa rmvd by another admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him. Thanks for the heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. I have been told long ago by an editor that if one editor makes an edit on an article with notable sources and another editor disagrees with that editor and the notable source cited and consider it npov, the other editor should not delete the edit and sources of the first editor but instead should make their case underneath with another notable source backing up their case. Apparently this is the protocol on Wiki. Is this correct? I have always kept to this policy and it is quite strange when I don't see others doing it as well. Have I been poorly advised or something? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't mentioned the name of any article for me to review. I do notice one diplomatic comment that you made recently. Thank you for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Halaqah again. See here [20]. This is just one of many. They have also resulted to placing tags without discussing see [21] and [22] and here [23] see bottom in particular as they seem to be confusing themselves about the notability on an author. Instead of justifying why they have placed the tag in the article in the first place when questioned and asked to provide sources, they speedily removed the tag they have placed without even commenting as in here [24]. It begs the question why put the tag in the first place then? They have also resulted in placing numerous tags at the end or middle of numerous sentences such as "dubious"; "or"; "who" etc on the Medieval history of the Serer people as you can see for yourself here [25]. The "who" tag in particular was the biggest shocker because it was very apparent that section was talking about Abu Bakr the 11th century Almoravid. This person is not going to stop what they are doing to Serer related articles in fact, in their own words they "will be back". They even said in the Senegal talk page - the Almoravids didn't bring Islam in the Senegambia without any source when in fact, all notable sources proved otherwise, and in the Serer people article, they provide a source (Asante) which actually proved that it was in fact the Almoravids who brought Islam through wars. If this wasn't serious it would be funny. Lest not beat about the bush, lest call call a spade a spade. The edit evidence is to paint a postive light about Islam and the Serer people's history of strong resistance against Islamisation for nearly a thousand years as backed up by the notable authors in the relevant articles and sections. Sources demonstrating that including the long and bitter wars between Serer religion and Islam religion have been deleted and a more pro Islam edit added. Serer related articles are now a joke and I haven't got the energy nor the time to resolve this person's edits. I have learned my lesson from the last time and will never again make a complaint against this editor. As you can see there is a greater issue going on but I just needed to know specifically whether the advise I was previously given was correct and what are my options (excluding making a complaint).

ThanksTamsier (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The location of this dispute seems to be Serer people. You are participating at Talk:Serer people which is good. Extremely long posts make it hard to see what people are disagreeing about. Consider going one step at a time and see if you can get agreement on one small section. For instance, offer two alternatives on the talk page for a particular section and see how many people support each version. See WP:Dispute resolution for other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tamsier (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party [26]Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Please note the following comment by Atabey [27]. It is directly inflammatory against Kurdo777 where he is generalizing about a country. The comment is actually meant to be inflammatory in a discrete way. He has been warned numerous times and I believe it is time for him to be banned fully from all AA (widely construed to include Iran, Turkey , Caucasus). I am not sure how long Wikipedia is going to tolerate such behaviour. I believe since you have had experience with this, you can take care of this without me reporting him to the current Arbcomm. Recall here: [28]. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad accusation. I just said that WP:RS sources exist mentioning those flags (in response to Atabe's comment to Kurdo777). Howevr, Atabek's comment to Kurdo777 above was inflammatory. As per Arbcomm, it has not been declined or accepted yet. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[29] and [30] appear to me to be rather improper edits by "Count Iblis" and "Russavia." The latter seems oblivious to any thought of acknowledging any misdeeds, and the former seems quite encouraged by such acts <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that anything we say will influence their thinking one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you please unprotect The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song) because it officially charted at number 87 in Australia Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not protected because users seem not to agree it was released as a single, it was protected because it didn't chart yet, and thus didn't meet WP:SONGS, but now it has officially charted in Australia. Nobody ever said that it's not a single, it is a single, go see the revision history on the page, the only reason it kept getting redirected to it's parent album, is because it didn't chart at the time, but now it has officially charted in Australia and in New Zealand, and has been announced via numerous sources that it's the sixth single from Teenage Dream and it deserves its own page. Here are some sources: Katy Perry's official website announces it as a single Billboard.com announces it as a single.

Please unprotect the page. It has now entered the New Zealand official singles chart, so it's automatically encyclopedic; it's been released on 28th September btw source ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make this proposal at a suitable talk page. For instance at Talk:Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album)#Anyone working on page for The One That Got Away? See if the others agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release as a single (as you said at my talkpage) is not a justification for creation, but the charts are, and now it charted. The problem now is that Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk · contribs) made a copy-pasted move to The One That Got Away (song). The One That Got Away (song) has to be redirected to The One That Got Away because there are two other songs called "The One That Got Away", if you could do a history merge that would be great. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be at least six hours until I can look into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your redirect takes care of it no merge appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, You have been involved with this case before: [31] and put the last enforcement. Please see the request for enforcement [32]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]