| Revision as of 23:28, 12 November 2014 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,070 edits →AN3: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:44, 13 November 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,155 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :::::Well, the admin only reverted the single article I listed and did not do anything about the rest in my referenced list. What next? ] (]) 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | :::::Well, the admin only reverted the single article I listed and did not do anything about the rest in my referenced list. What next? ] (]) 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Leave a note for ] and see if he wants to perform the rest of the moves. Another option is that you may be able to do the moves yourself. ] (]) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | ::::::Leave a note for ] and see if he wants to perform the rest of the moves. Another option is that you may be able to do the moves yourself. ] (]) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Alexyflemming activity update == | |||
| Hi Ed. This is to update you on a specific aspect of the activity of {{u|Alexyflemming}}. ] "List of wars involving Northern Cyprus" from userspace to mainspace. The list of wars starts from Ottoman times and includes wars of modern times when TRNC did not exist historically. The account is on full-swing lately on other fronts as well, but I am focusing on this incident because it is obviously POV and ahistorical propaganda. I have objected ] but I would also welcome your advice. Thank you. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : What a non-sense approach: "He is apparently preparing to do something...". Dear ], I form Wiki page articles in consensus with other Wiki users. There I noticed that a Wiki user prepared something. You may have objections to this. That is natural. I frequently create Wiki articles in consensus with others. Your last defence line also invalid: ] starts at 1955 whereas Cyprus was founded in 1960. ] starts at 1919 whereas Turkey founded in 1923...etc. If you object why it dates back to so early, then that is plausible. But, if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles: ]. Clear?] (]) 10:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Also, dear ], if you have some objections towards some Wiki users edits or pre-edit behaviours, just complain them to the very same Wiki users; writing and complaining those things in some other Wiki users' Talk pages does not address your problem that much!] (]) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{tq|if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles ...}} Right, but there have been no wars involving Northern Cyprus. The only conflict that could maybe be listed is the '74 invasion, since it's effectively led to its establishment. ] (]) 10:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the IP editor. Alexyflemming's example of ], starts with the introduction at the lead: "This is a list of wars involving Abkhazia ''since its independence in 1993''." There have been no wars involving "Northern Cyprus" since the independence of Northern Cyprus" in 1983. Even if we count the 1974 invasion as "involving Northern Cyprus", this hardly qualifies as a list. As far as Turkey and Cyprus, the nations and geographic locations of Turkey and Cyprus respectively preexisted the formal declarations of their countries. "Northern Cyprus" did not even exist as a concept of a separate entity prior to 1974 and moreover was identical to "Cyprus" prior to the 1974 invasion. That is a false analogy. So making a list" out of a single war is the usual POV from this account and obviously he is committed to creating the list. That is why I did not bother to approach him directly. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Tangentially, I've started a discussion about whether we should list wars before the establishment of the RoC ]. ] (]) 18:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* OK, Ed. I did not want to pollute/disturb your Talk page with the discussion, and I took the discussion ] ] (]) 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Continued at ]. Thank you, ] (]) 23:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Where to complain the prevention of creating a new Wiki page == | |||
| I am prevented from creating a new Wiki article ("History of Northern Cyprus"): See, . The meddlers are ] and ]. <br/> | |||
| I know and saw ] many times before. Also, I have already edited there many times as well.<br/> | |||
| I wanted to create a separate article on "History of Northern Cyprus". The article "]" consists of only a small part of History of Northern Cyprus. There are many things to add to the history. Adding all these materials will unnecessarily inflate the ] article. | |||
| Look also the "History of..." Wiki articles of partially recognized states:<br/> | |||
| ], ], ], ], ], ].<br/> | |||
| Any help will be greatly appreciated.] (]) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is up to consensus whether a separate article should be created on ]. The steps of ] are open to you. Consider opening a ]. This may allow bringing in people who are new to the issue. ] (]) 20:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. ] (]) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Large discussion needs closing == | == Large discussion needs closing == | ||
Revision as of 01:44, 13 November 2014
Lower casing proper names
There are many more articles that have been lower cased by this single editor. I had only listed the moves he made in October. He has been at this since August. Is there some more efficient method of handling more of them that opening move requests for each one separately on the Requested Moves template? The samples on the Requested Moves article do not seem to be applicable either for single moves or multiples. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a {{move-multi}} but it might be better for you to wait for the result of the first discussion at Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014. Arguments made there may give a hint as to how other discussions would end up. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, fine. I am usually not involved in such things, but this seemed so obviously amis. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to use {{move-multi}} and followed the instructions, but I cannot get it to work. Within {{ }}, I tried the following:
subst:RMassist|Drama uprising|Drama Uprising|reason=capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 |Copper riot|Copper Riot
This and several variations of this do not work. What does work? Hmains (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a list somewhere of all the moves that you think should be reverted? EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Look at User:Hmains/worklist in edit mode. Hmains (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why not propose the first of these moves at WP:RMTR. Include a link to User:Hmains/worklist. Then whoever closes the request can decide if all of the moves should be done in one go. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok; I tried this. Hmains (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the admin only reverted the single article I listed and did not do anything about the rest in my referenced list. What next? Hmains (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Leave a note for User:Anthony Appleyard and see if he wants to perform the rest of the moves. Another option is that you may be able to do the moves yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the admin only reverted the single article I listed and did not do anything about the rest in my referenced list. What next? Hmains (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok; I tried this. Hmains (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why not propose the first of these moves at WP:RMTR. Include a link to User:Hmains/worklist. Then whoever closes the request can decide if all of the moves should be done in one go. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Look at User:Hmains/worklist in edit mode. Hmains (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Large discussion needs closing
There is a huge discussion that I initiated, WP:AN#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain, which needs to be closed. You're uninvolved, and seem to be familiar with such matters as these. Would you care to digest that discussion and close it as appropriate? If not, perhaps you could suggest someone I could ask to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that the conversation is continuing, even though it is split between noticeboards for reasons which aren't entirely clear:
- If a discussion is continuing for good-faith reasons it's unwise to interrupt it. At some point the good faith might run out, but I don't think the time is here yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- The "good faith" ran out long ago. PBS opened that AN/I thread for bad faith reasons, and now he has opened an illegitimate RfC to disrupt the discussion and forum shop. No one other than PBS is protesting, and he has been making a mess of the discussion for weeks. He hasn't helped to work on the proposal, and I've repeatedly asked for clear things I could do to resolve whatever "concerns" he might have. Instead of doing that, he has essentially lined-up a unilateral filibuster of the proposal. No one is discussing the proposal anymore, just whether or not PBS's behaviour is appropriate. It clearly isn't. If he wasn't an administrator, he would've been blocked for it ages ago. I followed the standard procedure, I've tried to resolve a long-running dispute, and I'll I've got from PBS is repeated badgering. Everyone else agreed, but PBS just can't let his objection go. It is having outsize impact, and is not at all constructive. There is no reason why PBS should have a filibuster, nor why he should be able to use my proposal for his own unilateral RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RESTRICT
I knew topic bans had to belong somewhere. I forgot about that page. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Alzira Peirce controversy
Since you've blocked me for my criticism of Rms125a@hotmail.com re the Alzira Peirce article I'd like to draw your attention to evidence of Rms125sa@hotmail.com track record of abusing editor role available at http://www.questpedia.org/en/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com, http://en.wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_checkuser_Case_Rms125a@hotmail.com_b1fd.html.Margerypark (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're digging up bad conduct from six years ago. It would be a better use of your time to use the page at Talk:Alzira Peirce to explain the factual issues on which you disagree. Feel free to supply WP:Reliable sources to back up your views. In your edits of Alzira Peirce so far you have never added a reference. If you issue more charges of vandalism like the one here in the edit summary it is likely you will be blocked again. One of your article versions contains numbers in brackets suggesting that you are copying from an original in which references were supplied. The bracketed numbers are 1 through 10. Do you have those references? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you track back beyond Rms125a's cavalier edits to the page you will find that all the revisions I made were scrupulously referenced. It is a pity that Rms125a's actions weren't reversed previously. If I can find the time I'll get back to it.Margerypark (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Third rail of politics
KeyboardWarriorOfZion is edit warring again. Also for some reason they question the reliability of CNN, which IMO doesn't bode well. So far its just 1 revert, but I really don't feel like reverting and forcing the matter and then filing a report. And some of the comments on the talk page are straddling the line of personal attacks. Can you delve into the matter when you have a chance? Thanks. --Two kinds of porkBacon 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Input at AE
Hi Ed, if you had a minute I'd appreciate your input at the Plot Spoiler thread at WP:AE--Cailil 13:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Offer?
First, believe me or not, I didnt remember the 3RR, but although recognizing that's not an excuse, its clear that the pro-ukrainian editors gamed that rule by rotating themshelves in order to restore the unreliable content. I think its very harmful to WP's declining credibility to let users made groups or lobbys, so that they cant control totally the articles and the edits, as in this case. Second your offer is in practice an invitation to inactivity and to left the article solely in the hands of the ukrainian & pro-ukrainian editors. Why I say that? If you look to the Donetsk People's Republic talk page, there are other users apart from me that had denounced the evident negative bias of the article, but they had being ignored by the lobby I talk about upwards. The result is that is impossible to edit an ukrainian-related article unless you follow the POV of that group of editors. That's very, very sad and a direct shot against WP credibility and participation of other users. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Questions about bias could be addressed through WP:Dispute resolution. There are ways of bringing in more people to the discussion. But meanwhile, I need to know if you are accepting the offer. You've already broken 3RR. Expecting the community to let you revert as much as you want is hardly the pathway to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mr Johnston, I must say that it is hard to take this editor seriously when he is concurrently making unilateral PoV page moves that separate talk pages from their associated articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Reverted warning templates back
I reverted on Lisa's talk page, but a suggestion that you keep a good eye on both Lisa, Epeefleche, and Talk:Shabbos App. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Punjabi language RfC
Dear User:EdJohnston, hello! I hope this message finds you doing well. After seeing an editor remove valuable information at the Punjabi language article, I opened up a discussion on the talk page, and consequently an RfC. I am concerned that there is some gaming taking place here, with editors such as User:Itar buttar and User:Guglani magically showing up to oppose, after not editing for a few months. Today, someone (perhaps a sockmaster) created and account, User:Jaskaran singh sachdeva, in order cast an opposition vote. These oppose votes are in the minority at the RfC as of now. In addition, anonymous IP addresses, such as 39.47.73.221, 39.47.9.115, and 39.47.91.176 are showing up at the article to edit war while the RfC is taking place. Since you are an administrator and a neutral party, I am requesting you to monitor the progress of the RfC and to close it when appropriate. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Have a great day! With regards, Anupam 01:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- After checking the edit history and seeing reverts by an IP-hopper, I've semiprotected the article for three months. After the RfC has run long enough, you have the option of listing it at WP:AN/RFC. It does appear that some of the opinions in the discussion are not based on reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dear User:EdJohnston, thank you for your reply. I do appreciate you protecting the article. However, what should we do about the newly created accounts that have been created just to comment in that RfC? Just today, the accounts User:Harvard2014 and User:Jaspr8 were created in order to participate. Since the start of the RfC, other similar accounts have been created, e.g. User:Jaskaran singh sachdeva, who coincidentally (or not) was welcomed by User:Guglani, one of the participants who advocates removing the referenced information from the article. If I ask those at WP:AN/RFC to close it, I'm afraid that they might be unaware of all these issues surrounding the RfC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! With regards, Anupam 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that single-purpose accounts are participating in the RfC you can add a comment to point that out. The closing administrator should be able to take that into account. At present the Punjabi language article cites the use of Devanagari in Ref. 6. I also came across this article on the subject by Atamjit Singh but I don't know whether it's reliable. Surely the existence of Punjabi-language books published in the Devanagari script would settle the matter if anyone can find them. It seems that the question of what script to use may be an ethnic hot potato. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference User:EdJohnston. In my view, it seems to corroborate the three references that I've shared here, especially Singh's words, which state:
There is no denying that Punjabi was written in Gurmukhi, Persian characters and Devanagari; but it was Gurmukhi which was being used by both Hindus and Sikhs for writing their literature. Since the Sikh scriptures were written in Gurmukhi, the Sikhs naturally favored the use of this script for Punjabi. Hindus opposed Gurmukhi precisely for this reason and wanted to use Devanagari for the Punjabi language.
- I appreciate your advice about how to deal with the new accounts. In the RfC, I went ahead and added the {{spa}} template underneath their comments. With regards, Anupam 23:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that single-purpose accounts are participating in the RfC you can add a comment to point that out. The closing administrator should be able to take that into account. At present the Punjabi language article cites the use of Devanagari in Ref. 6. I also came across this article on the subject by Atamjit Singh but I don't know whether it's reliable. Surely the existence of Punjabi-language books published in the Devanagari script would settle the matter if anyone can find them. It seems that the question of what script to use may be an ethnic hot potato. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dear User:EdJohnston, thank you for your reply. I do appreciate you protecting the article. However, what should we do about the newly created accounts that have been created just to comment in that RfC? Just today, the accounts User:Harvard2014 and User:Jaspr8 were created in order to participate. Since the start of the RfC, other similar accounts have been created, e.g. User:Jaskaran singh sachdeva, who coincidentally (or not) was welcomed by User:Guglani, one of the participants who advocates removing the referenced information from the article. If I ask those at WP:AN/RFC to close it, I'm afraid that they might be unaware of all these issues surrounding the RfC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! With regards, Anupam 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Roman Catholic
This is a Long-Term Abuse issue and we're tracking it. User:Drmies/Roman Catholic? has the goods, and we just simply revert and ignore; if it gets out of hand and needs blocking, you can probably raise a new SPI at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gullucum1956. Thanks for your help. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Topic ban violation
You recently topic-banned HCPUNXKID from Ukraine-Russia nonsense, as I'm sure you remember. This editor has already violated his topic ban, and displayed battleground behaviour to the extreme with this comment. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- So, not only I received a disproportionate punishment that bans any edit on Ukrainian or Russian related articles, but also I cant speak against it on personal talk pages?!?!? If that's true, this is clear CENSORSHIP, I've been unjustly punished and I cant even protest against it, simply incredible. Not to mention the quickness by some editors on reporting on me, are you surveilling me or what? It seems so, all the combined effort by the same group of editors in order to try to block me, if that's not taking it personal, tell me what it is, how not think about a lobby...--HCPUNXKID 16:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that ArmijaDonetsk targeted me months ago, I had his talk page watched. Your overture to a long gone editor was quite wrong-hearted. I believe the wording of your topic ban is clear: "all pages on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages". RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "This covers both political and military matters and applies on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards". I understand that this refers to articles talk pages, not to users personal talk pages, so that must be clarified. If Im going to be banned, I think I must be told what can and what I cant edit. And of course I maintain that if I cant speak against that ban in personal talk pages (not even in mine's?), that simply CENSORSHIP, as that's trying to silence my POV. The battleground allegation is weak, as I didnt mention any concrete user but a group of them, if someone felt targeted, he/she should think why he/she felt that way...--HCPUNXKID 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- It clearly says "all pages of Misplaced Pages". RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "All pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards" includes user talk pages, as should be evident from the wording. You are still allowed to appeal your ban. See Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. The section called 'Template documentation' explains how to use it. Let me know if you want to appeal and need any assistance with the form. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- It clearly says "all pages of Misplaced Pages". RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "This covers both political and military matters and applies on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards". I understand that this refers to articles talk pages, not to users personal talk pages, so that must be clarified. If Im going to be banned, I think I must be told what can and what I cant edit. And of course I maintain that if I cant speak against that ban in personal talk pages (not even in mine's?), that simply CENSORSHIP, as that's trying to silence my POV. The battleground allegation is weak, as I didnt mention any concrete user but a group of them, if someone felt targeted, he/she should think why he/she felt that way...--HCPUNXKID 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that ArmijaDonetsk targeted me months ago, I had his talk page watched. Your overture to a long gone editor was quite wrong-hearted. I believe the wording of your topic ban is clear: "all pages on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages". RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Watchersonthewall.com, again
Hi - do you think that this looks like anybody we might know? (Sigh.) Regards, Sandstein 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- And perhaps that one too. Sandstein 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- To believe that the second one is User:Piandme you would have to believe that Piandme wants to undo his own edit. If this pattern continues, we'll soon have a better behavioral record to justify a new SPI filing (or to rule it out as unlikely). You consider yourself able to semiprotect? EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't rule out that they are the same person nonetheless; their conduct has been ... rather erratic, and this could be a WP:GHBH case. Agreed that a better pattern would be preferable. I'm not sure whather I'm uninvolved enough to semiprotect, and besides, we can't realistically semiprotect every Game of Thrones-related article just because of this one guy. Sandstein 19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Natalie Dormer is now semiprotected per the use of information about a living person from a fan site. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- hmm, well these edits have nothing to do with me. It would be pretty stupid for me to start editing them under different accounts, because it is obvious you are going to keep a close eye on both my behaviour and articles I have recently edited. Watchersonthewall is the second largest Game of Thrones news website, and will have a large reach of readers, so it is unsurprising that others have also used it as a source, but it does seem strange that it is only just after my warning (Sorry, don't have a hypothesis behind this). If they keep doing it is easy to block them anyway, so not really a problem. I know that I have absolutely nothing to do with the edits though, so I know that I am definitely not in the wrong here (fortunately) Piandme (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Natalie Dormer is now semiprotected per the use of information about a living person from a fan site. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't rule out that they are the same person nonetheless; their conduct has been ... rather erratic, and this could be a WP:GHBH case. Agreed that a better pattern would be preferable. I'm not sure whather I'm uninvolved enough to semiprotect, and besides, we can't realistically semiprotect every Game of Thrones-related article just because of this one guy. Sandstein 19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- To believe that the second one is User:Piandme you would have to believe that Piandme wants to undo his own edit. If this pattern continues, we'll soon have a better behavioral record to justify a new SPI filing (or to rule it out as unlikely). You consider yourself able to semiprotect? EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Why exactly was nothing done in regards to the IP in this discussion? Not only was he the one to have broken 3RR and create a false Edit War Report, he has also insulted me throughout his latest response even after I asked him to stop. AcidSnow (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection to blocking the IP for personal attacks, although I'm not sure how much good it will do. In my view, it's best just to ignore him, but I can understand getting ticked off by his comments. As for the report itself, I semi'ed the article at least in part because I didn't think that blocking the IP would solve the problem. There had been at least one other IP in the same range that probably belonged to the same person making similar edits. There were other reasons as well, but I'd rather not go into them here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's true, he will probably reappear then deny that he was ever hear to begin with. Protecting the page is the best move since it squashes all his IPs in one move. I appreciate your assistance here and on other areas of Misplaced Pages. AcidSnow (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Semiprotection is more effective than blocking for this kind of problem, as noted by User:Bbb23. If you scan down the history of Eric Holder you will see three different IPs that must be him editing in the last few days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's true, he will probably reappear then deny that he was ever hear to begin with. Protecting the page is the best move since it squashes all his IPs in one move. I appreciate your assistance here and on other areas of Misplaced Pages. AcidSnow (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Your effort in going the extra mile to find what seemed "un-findable" for the Myles Munroe article is greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |
AN3
Ed, do you have an opinion on whether I should change my original findings based on my error? On the one hand, based on my warning, PM is not allowed to touch the article, and the other editor's version is presently in place. OTOH, PM has a history of thinking that edit warring is justified if he doesn't agree with another editor, and in this case he was reverted by two editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)