| Revision as of 08:24, 9 August 2008 editNoclador (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users66,378 edits →Generalmesse Return← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:10, 19 December 2024 edit undoEmiya1980 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,779 edits →Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | |||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | ] | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] | |||
| |} | |||
| == Strange IP address editing == | |||
| Please revisit ], {{User|Leedryburgh}} and ]. Thank you. — ] (]) 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Edit conflict at ]: | |||
| :Ed I was in the process of leaving a block notice at the same time you left the warning. | |||
| :Normally I'm very slow to block, but given the history of this edit war and the timeline of the last 24 hours' events, it was clear that this IP belonged to one of the participants. It seemed easier to just block that IP than to try to figure out who was using it. The IPs that abused recently and those in the past were Austrian and Egyptian; one of the participants is in Scotland. Both participants are experts on the public switched telephone network and IP networking (one wrote a 700-page book for Cisco), so I figure either party is perfectly capable of somehow conjuring up a sock-IP wherever they want. If this continues with other IPs, then I'm thinking of semi-protecting these articles for a while. | |||
| :I could blacklist the domain, but based on my experience with ], I figure there's a chance that it's being ]. | |||
| :If you've got better ideas, I'm very receptive. The whole thing reminds me of an ], except I'm no Captain Kirk. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I completely support your action. It sounds to me that the regular editors who've been following this case have been more than patient. We expect that a word to the wise will be sufficient; if it takes ten thousand words, there is less reason to be sympathetic. Regarding a joe job, ] had the chance to dissociate himself from the IP's action but has not chosen to so far. ] (]) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What to do after "no consensus" closure == | |||
| Re the ] about renaming ]: Thank you very much for closing this, and I'm sorry to take up your time with a further related issue. | |||
| I'm wondering whether it was wrong of me to not to bring up again the subject of renaming the page (in response to his comment ). My reasoning was that since the discussion had been closed, we shouldn't waste editors' time re-opening the discussion unless there's new information or new arguments. However, that since it was closed as "no consensus", that discussion should continue until a consensus is found (or something like that). I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Since there was a majority *against* moving the page, we should expect to see at least some changes of position in previous voters or new participants favoring the move. It is less than a month since the previous debate. I wonder if anyone who opposed the move in June has changed their mind. ] (]) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Ed. I think that answers my question. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:1.4em;">☺</span> ] (]) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Test of substituting the 'resolved' template == | |||
| <div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: This is a test; it is only a test. You can't see what happens to the wiki text unless you save the file.|<span style="font-size: 85%;">This is a test; it is only a test. You can't see what happens to the wiki text unless you save the file.</span>}}</div>. ] (]) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| Even through I feel it rapes me, I did do a semi-self-revert, by placing the tag on the page, but where it normally goes, below the Reference section, not up high, per precedent with similar articles with similar formatting style.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I am officially raped, and now the disruptive presence that is Doncram is encouraged to continue his childish ways. It has been reverted to the vandalized version. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == note == | |||
| I emailed you with an explanation of my recent posting. ] (]) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to be in a dispute with the other user. Obviously you can take it to ] if you wish. For purposes of ], my interest would be in improving the ] article, which seems not too bad at present. Just needs a couple more sources. When people reveal their COI, we tend to be more tolerant, so long as they don't go overboard. For example, I wouldn't complain about . ] (]) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Noted. Also, the other thing was the promotion of the book on his user page. ] (]) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == When you get a chance... == | |||
| would appreciate your input on the ] proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - ] (]) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding those edit wars == | |||
| My sincere apologies for my horrible mistake of which I now regret. I should have known that there would be no use in edit warring with Ausonia, and I doubt that I can come to an agreement with her by myself. | |||
| Please try to understand that my only aim is to go by the book (ie: reach a consensus) and not to fight with those of whom I might occasionally disagree with. ] (]) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And for the record, I have decided not to continue editing those related articles until a resolution is reached (which, again, is something that I highly doubt for the foreseeable future). ] (]) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:3RR == | |||
| Hmm. did you see the request for review on the first case among the three? I think that is a clear violation of 3RR. --] (]) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I left a message for ] asking if he wants to change his closure. ] (]) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, also can you also take a look at ] because of this tendentious J-K warring issue filed by Fut.Perf.--] (]) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Pabopa == | |||
| Hello Stifle. I find it reasonable that ] is a reincarnation of {{userlinks|210.231.12.98}}, an account which was edit warring on ] until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. After the IP was blocked at 18:26 on July 25, Pabopa created his account and continued warring on the same material. Since Pabopa has made three reverts on each of three different articles within 24 hours, and the total of the reverts is greater if the IP is included, I think he is inviting a block. Then if he *is* really the IP, that is block evasion as well. ] (]) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The offence is stale at this point (the purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent further edit warring, and Pabopa isn't editing there any more). However, a few other people are still edit warring so I've protected ]. ] (]) 09:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hi, EdJohnston. i appreciate your effort for admin. ] created new accounts. ] . exactly same behaviot of ] | |||
| ::: 210.231.12.98 and 210.231.14.222. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of ], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.] (]) 10:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I left a message for ] pointing to the 2channel stuff. If this campaign truly exists, some of the affected articles may be reported at 3RR in the future. It might be helpful, if you know of some articles that you believe have been targeted by 2channel, you could make a list of them. Possibly they are already named somewhere at ANI. ] (]) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Update''' Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser. ]. They waste my time a lot. The bigger problem is unrevealed 2channel meat/sockpuppetry within Wikipedai. --] (]) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR on John Lydon page == | |||
| Thanks very much for your swift attention to this case. I hope this will calm the waters surrounding the disputes on this issue. ] (]) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA Thanks == | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 3px solid pink; background-color: #8AA5DB;" | |||
| |align="left"|] | |||
| |align="center"|Thank you for participating in ], wich was successful with ''73 support''', '''6 oppose'', and ''5 neutral''. | |||
| I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. | |||
| If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! | |||
| Cheers, --] <small>(])</small> 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == GreenEcho == | |||
| Hi Ed. Please have a look at the updates re ]. Regards. -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, Ed Johnston. | |||
| I come to seek your opinion on {{User|Nanshu}}'s behaviors since you read my thread and concern about meatpuppetings and disruptions by 2channel. I repasted it to AN (I should've done it to ANI, but did inadvertently to AN). My writing tends to be very lengthy, so that's why the post did not get much attention so the problems regarding him and 2channel still continue. In order to comply with his request for implement on the NPOV disputed {{la|Yeongeunmun Gate}}, I did it with two reliable Korean sources regardless of his disruptive false accusation like "useless hard worker", "disruptive editor". However, as reverting the article, he not only removed the two valid sources and contents, but also called me of doing "vandalism again" as his habit. This is very offensive personal attacks, but also I could not work with this disruptive editor. He blatantly disregards Misplaced Pages's core policy like ] and ]. You can see our disputes at ]. He does not also admit his personal attacks against me. The problem is that he seems to have continued this kind of behaviors ever since he joined Misplaced Pages. After the ANI thread was manually archived, he reappears again to attack me. Could you direct him to stop his bad attitude? and If you have an opinion on the bigger picture of ], I would provide more information on it. Thanks.--] (]) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Block of Skyring == | |||
| Noting you blocked Skyring for 12 hours for 3RR violation, since your rationale says there is no BLP issue can you also close the ] discussion. Can it include a detailed rationale clarifying why the information isnt a BLP violation. ]] 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've added a note to ]. If anyone wants to discuss further whether this kind of disputed material falls under the BLP exception to 3RR, they are welcome to continue the discussion there. ] (]) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for that, I just wanted it clear at that discussion that you found the 3RR not a BLP issue hence the block, as such the whole discussion isnt BLP but rather editorial. ]] 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I hope that you find my answer at BLPN to be a response. It's not credible that *believing* something is a BLP violation grants an editor immunity from 3RR enforcement. It has to actually *be* a BLP violation by the usual community definition, the thing that admins have to judge all the time whenever they take BLP-related actions, e.g. when protecting articles. ] (]) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, though I think its a blp undue weight rather than blp pov issue, hence no need repetitive removal. Your comment was all I wanted for the BLP notice to show that you had considered the BLP in your blocking of skyring. ]] 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RfB Thank You spam == | |||
| <div style="float: left; border:solid green 1px; margin: 1px;"> | |||
| {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style=" background: #FFE4B5;" | |||
| |style=" background: #FFE4B5; text-align: center;" rowspan="2" | ''']''' | |||
| |'''Thank you for participating in my RfB!''' I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at ], which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please ]. Again, Thanks! <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello Ed--thanks to you, Malljaja and the other editors with the John Lydon issues--I am enjoying to learn the wiki way even when it is painful at times....I thought I would point out that it appears that the blocked user AVIOUSOURS76 continues to edit (from one of his/her separate static ip addresses) although the week has not expired (see below).....I was actually reading Malljaja's documentation to learn about how the intracacies of the block etc. works and saw the edit below.....it doesn't sppear to be controversial--just sneaky....I don't know maybe no big deal-but fyi | |||
| 21:44, 1 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Dusty Springfield (Undid revision 229284076 by 6afraidof7 (talk)nothing about songwriting/producing in the source) (top) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| == Sockpuppets of Koov == | |||
| Hi there, I noticed that you were active on ] and ] and ]. Looking at it seems he is back under the username ] and a range of IPs. He is intent on using the same modus operandi as Koov, but I am unable to work out how to start ]; this problem is now getting way out of hand, with his POV edits and generally being disruptive. Are you able to help out with this? Thanks, --] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fsbi's edit-warring to remove Kosovo from ] is a ] trademark. I have indefinitely blocked Fsbi as a sock of Koov. ] (]) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Generalmesse Return == | |||
| Have a look at , and IP ... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book ''Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story'' as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: and . BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian ] societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --] (]) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I reported Generalmesses new socks: ] --] (]) 08:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| So you aren't going to do anything about another user's violation of the three revert rule? Or does it only apply to those using IP address. To hell with this place. You wiki Nazis are welcome to it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Re: User:Gennarous == | |||
| Do you mind if I email you? It's not a secret, per se, but it would be pushing some ] up the old nostrils if a sockpuppeteer happened to notice it. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == re: tucker max article. mcjeff refuses to post documented criticism. == | |||
| this is part of what mcjeffs conversation with me. | |||
| I am new at this but mcjeff will not engage in a discussion on how to revise the article to meet "his" standards. He openly admits that he works for Tucker Max and then refuses to post any sourced comments that are critical of his employer. I am guilty of being new at this so I do need help to document statements from Tucker's own website, new york times, gawker, fox news etc. | |||
| == Is this an adequate source? == | |||
| could you help me? | |||
| thanks | |||
| ] (]) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings EdJohnston, | |||
| Recently I was engaged in a discussion with an editor over their use of Youtube videos as media sources within the ] article, . While there is no current dispute and we were able to discuss this amicably, I am still quite unsure about whether or not this is correct seeing Misplaced Pages's stance on self published sources and on ]. | |||
| Ihave read the other discussions that you have had with other editors and mediators. All seem to concur that the ACLU would differ on your approach to the redacting of the Max Tucker article. Please do not wrap your white-washing of Tucker in obfusction. We both know that you are aware of Fox News and their statements. It is not coincidence that the only statements that have made it into tuckers article are all neutral or postiive. I will start by just quoting tucker himself from his fox news, opie, and website. | |||
| For instance.. | |||
| Tucker Max has made several controversial statements and described marginal behavior.... then we can include his own statements from the news shows and his website. .. If you did this I would be satisfied. Aharon42 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I would greatly appreciate your insight on the matter. ] (]) 02:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:McJeff" | |||
| :The policy that applies is surely ]. I would be more concerned about the value of the citation to the article on ], since we are not the Latin Misplaced Pages. Someone reading aloud a letter in Latin to our English-speaking readers won't improve the understanding of the subject by most people. ] (]) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you so much for your input! ] (]) 03:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there, I am joining this as the person who posted the video. In general, the utility of original language content is that the person can (with subtitling) get a sense of the content in the original form. They get to know the sound of what someone wrote, the cadence of their style, which is lost in translation. That has utility, I would argue, especially when the person is someone known for their style. IDK if WP has specific guidance on this, but ] suggests that original language content should appear with English translations. Whether this specific case warrants keeping is another matter and not why I wanted to comment. | |||
| ::What I do need clarity on is whether ] has relevance here, as the video is simply a reading, and the readings are from sourced, clearly indicated and verifiable material. To me, the guidance at ] is out of scope. ] ] 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've posted this ] as I do need clarity on this. ] ] 18:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Aharon42 == | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for dealing with that so quickly, but he has just posted an extremely rude response to my welcome message on his talkpage, could you take a look at it? ] (]) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:10, 19 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Is this an adequate source?
Greetings EdJohnston,
Recently I was engaged in a discussion with an editor over their use of Youtube videos as media sources within the Machiavelli article, see here. While there is no current dispute and we were able to discuss this amicably, I am still quite unsure about whether or not this is correct seeing Misplaced Pages's stance on self published sources and on Youtube as a source.
I would greatly appreciate your insight on the matter. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The policy that applies is surely WP:RSPYT. I would be more concerned about the value of the citation to the article on Niccolo Machiavelli, since we are not the Latin Misplaced Pages. Someone reading aloud a letter in Latin to our English-speaking readers won't improve the understanding of the subject by most people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your input! Plasticwonder (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am joining this as the person who posted the video. In general, the utility of original language content is that the person can (with subtitling) get a sense of the content in the original form. They get to know the sound of what someone wrote, the cadence of their style, which is lost in translation. That has utility, I would argue, especially when the person is someone known for their style. IDK if WP has specific guidance on this, but MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE suggests that original language content should appear with English translations. Whether this specific case warrants keeping is another matter and not why I wanted to comment.
- What I do need clarity on is whether WP:RSPYT has relevance here, as the video is simply a reading, and the readings are from sourced, clearly indicated and verifiable material. To me, the guidance at WP:RSPYT is out of scope. Jim Killock (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've posted this to the Village pump as I do need clarity on this. Jim Killock (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)