| Revision as of 19:39, 17 January 2015 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 edits →I think that page protection is needed: Collapse box← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:05, 18 January 2015 edit undoCorporateM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,012 edits →Request Edits: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
| :::::: Ed repeatedly said not to further comment here, so why do you keep trying to start up new sub-chats on unrelated threads, you did this even the first time, when you refused to discuss the content dispute on the page's talk page, and instead made it a personal issue with me, and still do with conspiracies such as 'sockpuppets'. As you can see in the talk page on the disputed page. Most of the comments, have suggested statements in opposition to your desires on the construction of the page, on many issues, including relevance. And you have made unilateral edits on the page with everyone including neutral third parties like ]. Even other users for instance, who have commented on the relevance of certain items in the article, pertinent to your desires for the way the page should be seen was ignored by you. I think it is clear that you have no interests in following any sort of community consensus. The only decision you have ever allowed for on the page, is when a third party acting as the third party in a DRN, demanded that the sourced content I tried to place in the page be allowed to be inserted. ] (]) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | :::::: Ed repeatedly said not to further comment here, so why do you keep trying to start up new sub-chats on unrelated threads, you did this even the first time, when you refused to discuss the content dispute on the page's talk page, and instead made it a personal issue with me, and still do with conspiracies such as 'sockpuppets'. As you can see in the talk page on the disputed page. Most of the comments, have suggested statements in opposition to your desires on the construction of the page, on many issues, including relevance. And you have made unilateral edits on the page with everyone including neutral third parties like ]. Even other users for instance, who have commented on the relevance of certain items in the article, pertinent to your desires for the way the page should be seen was ignored by you. I think it is clear that you have no interests in following any sort of community consensus. The only decision you have ever allowed for on the page, is when a third party acting as the third party in a DRN, demanded that the sourced content I tried to place in the page be allowed to be inserted. ] (]) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| == Request Edits == | |||
| Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had some time to look at a few COI items. I've got a few that are simple quick things, and a few that are more complex that could use more eyes and participants. ] (]) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:05, 18 January 2015
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
.JPG)
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! I am grateful for your assistance and advice over the last year. Best Holiday wishes and Happy New Year to you and your family!
Happy New Year!
Dear EdJohnston,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Dawoodi Bohras
Hello Ed, Am still finding my feet in editing and there seem to be a large amount of protocols to learn and respect. I believe the Dawoodi Bohras page and related pages are getting unreasonable bias towards the view of their detractors rather than offering a neutral portrayal. My edits are intended to keep to facts and give both angles and avoid promoting either. Mfeeroz (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Mfeeroz
- Hello Ed - you have added a semi-protected template to the page Dawoodi Bohra which has left all the bias of one side intact and the vast majority of balancing viewpoints I had previously introduced all but eliminated. Could you please help me out with redressing this balance. Thanks Noughtnotout (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You've referred to the work of an experienced editor as vandalism. This raises some concerns that you might be here on Misplaced Pages to change our articles to reflect your personal point of view, rather than reliable sources. On your talk page I'm leaving you a notice of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply Ed, at the moment all I have seen happening is that whatever I seek to introduce as a balancing viewpoint is immediately reverted back. All the sources I introduce are arbitrarily removed when they do not follow the viewpoint that is against the community. The word vandalism was used by the other editor for what I had done even though my edits always kept his argument intact. I am not keen to impose a viewpoint or even to deny that another one exists but at the moment there is simply no balance at all. I will give you one example of the biased sources being used -
- You've referred to the work of an experienced editor as vandalism. This raises some concerns that you might be here on Misplaced Pages to change our articles to reflect your personal point of view, rather than reliable sources. On your talk page I'm leaving you a notice of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The practice of Sajda (Prostration) was started by 51st Dai Taher Saifuddin and went to the extent of claiming that he is “Elahul-Ard” (God on earth)
If you look at the source it is an article relating only the viewpoint of those who are opposed to the community's leader and his practises. That's fine, if that needs to stand its not a problem but then where is the other viewpoint?
I really would like you to have a look at the history of changes I have made so far. I think you will find that I have made every effort to maintain both angles. Especially with the contentious issue of the 'sajda'. I have strictly kept the majority Muslim (sunni) view on this matter in the piece and only offered other verifiable viewpoints from the Quran on the same issue. But all of these are now gone.
- Feel free to use the article talk page to make these arguments, but be sure to include reliable sources to back your proposals. It is risky to edit on a topic where you have strong opinions yourself. But if you can add good material to the talk page others can make use of it to improve the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- "oppressive". Retrieved 10 January 2015.
- The ban imposed on me came about because of supposed bias in the Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin article. Yet that was barely a short time after the above comment from you about posting in the Dawoodi Bohras article. If you can't see fit to uplift the ban completely then I kindly ask for leave to post on the talk pages. That would seem perfectly fair because at the moment just one point of view is holding sway, there is no chance to obtain a consensus and the neutrality of the article will never be resolved.Noughtnotout (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I won't act on this now, but I will consider it if you ask again in three months. During that time you should make good-faith Misplaced Pages edits on other subjects. This will reduce the probability that you are one of the many socks who have been active on the Dawoodi Bohra succession. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The ban imposed on me came about because of supposed bias in the Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin article. Yet that was barely a short time after the above comment from you about posting in the Dawoodi Bohras article. If you can't see fit to uplift the ban completely then I kindly ask for leave to post on the talk pages. That would seem perfectly fair because at the moment just one point of view is holding sway, there is no chance to obtain a consensus and the neutrality of the article will never be resolved.Noughtnotout (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My Actions
Hello User:EdJohnston, how are you? I receive several notices of edit warring and I will explain myself. I thought I was correcting the misuse of tags by User:Besieged as he simply thinks to merge a higher level grouping of animals with a genus, and argued some incorrect statements and with extreme arrogance. I will admit that I probably should have discussed it with him first about it. As far as the edit summary, some of them actually did have text summaries. My internet connection was not the best at the time and perhaps I missed some of the text. Thank you for reading and have a good day.--4444hhhh (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Information in the Accipitrimorphae article *might* be better organized into the Accipiter or Accipitridae articles, in my opinion, hence my addition of said tag to initiate discussion to that effect, the same as why I tagged the article concerning its factual accuracy as well as with a request for an expert. Your presumption of article ownership and edit warring by removing the maintenance tags with absolutely no discussion whatsoever is entirely why the issue was reported to AIV. Then you come here and accuse me of arrogance as if that should utterly condemn my contributions or concerns, whereas I would debate that I was in any way "arrogant" until after you violated the three-revert rule and proceeded to not only tell me I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, but then tried to rules-lawyer with me and completely shut me out of contributing. I may be firm and a bit intellectually aggressive, but to purport I have "an exaggerated sense of my own importance or abilities" is, frankly, offensive.
- The factual veracity of vultures being any reasonable or comparable - much less direct DNA - relation to accipiters is neither fully scientifically settled nor established, and there is significant room for debate on that subject as well as on taxonomy and room for future research to produce an entirely contrary result. Whereas the article, on the other hand, as currently written, purports it to be be bona fide, incontrovertible fact of a relation, whereas my own expertise in the subject, as well as reading the research and conclusions of others with as much or more experience than I have leads me to believe the conclusions presented are either incomplete, misleading or outright false. I would just as happily debate those same points with ANYONE suggesting that there is any more relation between vultures and accipiters than there is to homo sapiens and rodentia: a few million years ago, maybe, but in practical, useful, relationary, ecological, and evolutionary terms, nobody is comparing humans to rats or implying that because H. Sap. once descended from a shrew of some sort that we're related to squirrels or ferrets in any real, viable way. Yes, all birds appear to have descended from one (or a few) common dinosaurid ancestors, but to says that "birds are dinosaurs" is misleading at best (they're birds), and diminishes the value of the word, just as claiming anything more than a distant evolutionary relation between vultures and accipiters is, in my opinion, misleading. Hence, my addition of the tags citing concerns about factual accuracy and requesting an acknowledged expert not connected to the immediate article to provide guidance and insight. The very fact that I'm relying on my personal knowledge and experience, as well as the research of others does not disqualify me from questioning your own research, edits, or conclusions based upon it: the policy is no original research in articles as - or to support - claims of fact, not in talk page discussions, where I am perfectly free to cite my own experience and research in the process of coming to a consensus.
- By removing the tags yourself, repeatedly, 3 times in a row, without ever bothering to engage in discussion on the talk page (which you should have done yourself even if I hadn't raised the question there first as I had) you completely invalidated the process, procedure and policy in place meant to bring such concerns to the notice of others and to allow the community to achieve a consensus. Instead, you acted as if you own the article and are an expert with the final say on the subject. If I was arrogant (and I'm not entirely sure I was being), I am sorry about that, but it was only in the face of such recalcitrance and refusal to accept that I might have some idea of what I'm about (especially when it seemed I was being blithely ignored by someone who has more than enough edits to know the three-revert rule by now), but that also doesn't make either one of us necessarily right or wrong: I believe my original post to the article talk page was plenty neutral, if challenging of some of the articles' claims. I most certainly could have acted with a little more courtesy and patience, but this is a two-to-tango issue; had you not reverted the third time, forcing me to choose between what I believe is best for the article/wiki (maintenance tags) and violating the 3RR policy, I chose NOT to violate 3RR and instead choose the only remedy left to me, which was to put the issue forward to an Admin for their attention in order to help ensure you'd take the contributions and concerns of other editors seriously, stop acting as if you own an article, and ensure that it doesn't happen again.
- More information on my rationale of questioning the factual accuracy of the article can be found on the article's talk page.
besieged 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do I perceive some bitterness in the above comments? It is best if the two of you work this out, with assistance from some WikiProject if needed. Both of you seem to have expertise. You are surely aware that any further reverts (prior to agreement) will lead to a downhill spiral. Admins won't tolerate a continuing war on this article. Anyone who can't edit calmly on this topic should take a break and work on something else, for the benefit of all. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
blacklight power
Why is this contribution still not in the article?
84.106.11.117 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Saction EnigmaFay
Hello, you left a message on my page regarding the article Swami Satyananda Saraswati. Does this mean that I am under Sanction? I read the page about Sanctions and it says "The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process." Your message however says that it "does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date".
I am having a very tough time understanding all these different procedures. Basically, some people want to block me for my edits. However, I believe I am treated unfairly, especially since I have written long posts on the articles talk page and have tried many different ways to satisfy both opinions on the matter.
There are clearly 2 different opinions on including or not the allegations paragraph. I would be willing to make a compromise and include the allegations, if they were not written in the vulgar way that they now stand, if they were not written in a way that imply they were true, and if it is made clear to the public that they were not stated in a court of law, where the usual rules of evidence apply. However, even those edits from my part, that tried to make the allegations paragraph more civilized, were reverted. This is to me unacceptable and that is why I support a petition that has been created to reach the head of wikipedia. I do not know how to go through all these different complex wikipedia systems and we do not know how to solve this through discussing and talking on the talk page. Nobody takes into consideration my texts.
If you have any concrete suggestion about what I could do, please suggest it. Enigmafay (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- That notification is just an information. It means that you will be banned from editing this page(Swami Satyananda Saraswati) or any subject where you cannot contribute neutrally. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was not aware that I have been judged and declared to have contributed without neutrality. On who's authority has that happened? On what grounds are my edits not neutral? On the other hand, I have written a lengthy post on the talk page of Swami Satyananda on how the current edition of the allegations paragraph violate the neutrality of wikipedia. A post on which nobody from the people who accuse me frantically of disturbing the peace have replied. It would be best to bring forth your arguments and not pass judgments without something to back them up. Enigmafay (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- EnigmaFay, any admin who studies your work and finds you can't edit neutrally on the Satyananda Saraswati article has the authority to ban you from the page, under WP:ARBIPA. *If* it seems you are on the page only to defend the honor of Satyananda then others may not judge you to be credible. Your best plan is to show by your participation on the article talk page that you are willing to assess all the published evidence neutrally. Since the subject of the article died five years ago the rules of WP:BLP and WP:BDP no longer apply. So our duty is merely to offer a balanced summary of what the press has written. The press often decides to publish things that are not yet judged in a court of law, so generally we do that as well. Your comment on the talk page that "I oppose because including sexual allegations without court conviction is no only illegal (Slander) and unethical, but it also does not concern the article of Swami Satyananda". This suggests that either you don't understand Misplaced Pages policy or you are choosing not to follow it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was not aware that I have been judged and declared to have contributed without neutrality. On who's authority has that happened? On what grounds are my edits not neutral? On the other hand, I have written a lengthy post on the talk page of Swami Satyananda on how the current edition of the allegations paragraph violate the neutrality of wikipedia. A post on which nobody from the people who accuse me frantically of disturbing the peace have replied. It would be best to bring forth your arguments and not pass judgments without something to back them up. Enigmafay (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Signedzzz
Just wondering if you will close the 3RR discussions (3 open, one already archived)? If no Admin will close and sanction, I'm thinking an ANi case on conduct is in order, but rather not go there. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I was about to hit post on the ANi when I saw your block. I've posted the ANi anyway - not trying to grave dance - just see the situation resolved. If he does not agree (and his actions after you suggested 30 days off suggest he will not) then I'm thinking it has to go to a community block? Thanks for your efforts. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I tagged you, here we have another ANi. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Russell Street bombing
Thanks for moving the page to fix the capitalisation. Will the corresponding entry at WP:RMT be removed automatically?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done now. Thanks for the reminder. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
11 January 2015
A quite unreasonable consensus was that additional sources were required, then when I provided those it was considered edit warring. Could you perhaps be so kind to revoke the accusation, I've done nothing but improve the article. I don't deserve punishment.
I also want to learn why it should take the better part of a month to add not add a sentence to this article. Either the university was granted research funds after 2002 or it was not. Consensus plays no role in this beyond judging the sources used. I've provided plenty of good sources when asked for those, only to be accused of editwaring for doing so.
More specifically, the legitimate contribution was again reverted, I was blocked for 72 hours for adding sources, unblock request was refused for blaming other editors and you've locked the article - for the crime of adding sources as per talk page request. The term outlandish pops to mind.
Meanwhile, on the talk page, you now refuse to explain why you are all acting this weird over something so trivial. I've tried to improve coverage, you've probably done great things elsewhere on the wiki but haven't made any contributions to this article. You and several other editors have limited interaction to accusing me of nonsensical things and punishing me for them. I don't deserve punishment as I've done nothing but good. In the spirit of working with other editors please notice that the quality of my contributions to this article (also) far exceeds those made by other IP editors - who left long ago.
I completely understand how this type of agenda editing works, Misplaced Pages logs are full of examples of such creative ways of getting rid of contributors. You are of course just going to ignore everything I've written here, if not use it against me. You know you want to! It should be easy to fabricate a permanent ban out of the above, blocking without evidence worked the last time, no reason to think it wont work here?
Or wait! Assuming good faith actually doesn't work like that.
I guess Ill just ask you why my factual, properly sourced, non controversial, relevant-contribution is still not in the article. I think you can do better for a response than to accuse me of edit warring. Edit warring involves repeatedly restoring a preferred version of an article. My contribution doesn't qualify those criteria.
Here is the talk page section:
Any comment will do.
If you don't remember how the guidelines work or what legitimate contributions look like I will be equally happy with a reply below. If I'm really asking the extraordinary here I would love to learn what it is exactly.
84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that you could (a) create an account, (b) stop blanking others' posts from your talk page? The last time admins looked into your situation these comments were the result. So from my standpoint you don't begin from a point of high credibility. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I see the greater majority of my contributions deleted, whole groups of them in single clicks. Some could reasonably be debated but most cant, the amount of content refusal suggests that it is not about the content but some sort of game being played.
this is what the article looked like when I started working on it: I'm simply reorganizing the sections.
Look how the section "Patent issues" originally appeared right under the funding section as as a sub section of "Company". But when I dare to do that: it is reverted. I'm doing this in a separate edit so that the continued deletion of my contributions can be conveniently applied to the contributions disagreed with. Here is another contribution to show how careful I am: These are reverted like this: Even the expired protection template is restored. Anyone may certainly question my contributions all they like, but we haven't got that here, what we have is a pattern of reverting everything regardless what it is.
Here is another example: The wholesale deletion looks like this: I cant be expected to see which contribution(s) he is talking about like this. Whatever it was he is wrong, the content is restored:
This is how much consensus I have for adding extra sources:
1 - "If the Rowan grants were significant they'd be covered by independent secondary sources. Are they?" - Alexbrn
2 - "ok great, so no independent verification and no secondary sources to help us see that these grants deserve any WP:WEIGHT. The matter stays out until we have sources that help us with that." - Jytdog
3 - "In addition to the issues raised by Alexbrn about independence, every content policy (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY) strongly urges us to secondary sources." - Jytdog
4 - "The editor, Alexbrn is asking for a secondary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Facts aren't included in articles because they are true. Things need to be notable enough to be written in a secondary source." - Bhny
5 - Rmv. improperly-sourced; wd need secondaries.
I'm evidently not edit warring and my contribution doesn't lack consensus either: As I'm left guessing what the problem is I've provided more sources and clues on the talk page.
Here I'm trying to write an article section 20 days later I'm still not finished
The consensus is already that non of the scientists involved may be mentioned in the article but attempts to reduce the funding section to the nasty remarks of a physicist is not Neutral Coverage. If it is so important to have his accusations in the funding section it seems perfectly neutral to describe who he is talking about. Something like:
Among the investors are PacifiCorp, Conectiv, private investors like James T. Lenehan of Johnson & Johnson,<ref name="ieee"/> Neil Moskowitz CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston, retired executives from Morgan Stanley and several BLP board members like Shelby Brewer who was the top nuclear official for the Reagan Administration and Chief Executive Officer of ABB-Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power and former board member Michael H. Jordan (1936 – 2010), who was Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo Worldwide Foods, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CBS Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.
It puts the nasty remarks into proper context:BlackLight_Power#Robert_L._Park: "they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains." I certainly agree the investment review from the physicist looks very different with the names and companies his derogatory slur is aimed at.
Likewise, the grants made by Blacklight Power to Rowan University paint a very different picture than the current attempt towards pushing these efforts back in time all the way back to 2002.
As the rest of the article is nothing but a collection of rants the fact that it looks like I'm trying to promote the topic is a product of Neutral Coverage.
If there is any reason to be skeptical about their claims it isn't the collection of childish remarks, but it has to be that they've claimed products and power plants would be ready X months from now numerous times over the last 24 years. The last one would have been ready in 6 months or December 2014 and again it didn't happen. As it is hard to find sources for all those claims or even get a sentence into the article I haven't managed to address the elaborate lack of coverage in that area. I also have to study why mentioning these claims of products was originally deleted from the article.
I've worked on controversial articles before, I don't expect to get a lot help with this one either. As for low credibility, other editors including yourself will most likely limit interaction to complaining only mode.
Thats fine with me, so what is it you were originally complaining about? Read carefully, I'm not asking you for a new complaint. I would like for the existing one to be addressed first. After that you can raise new issues, again and again and again, as much as you want.
Seems fair enough?
84.106.11.117 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- People who read the article on Blacklight Power are bound to suspect that this is a Perpetual motion machine. If you insist on editing as an IP and keep deleting the talk messages that people leave for you, you'll be at a disadvantage. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anything you've written above address the topic? I'm not seeing it.
What is your point with this Perpetual Motion reference? We are not here to design peoples perception by omission, the reader may think whatever he wants to. The project is to write articles, by the guidelines. Criteria are verifiability.
If you want to complaint about IP editors being able to edit you should take it to meta. If you want to complaint about user talk page guidelines you should propose a new guideline. Until your new guidelines are approved I will be following the existing guidelines.
Here is a link to your talk page. Do you see anything useful or constructive about this link being here in this comment? Have I now constructively replied to you? Here it is again, are we now making progress?
84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The talk page at Talk:Blacklight Power is still open to you. You don't like any of my suggestions, and I don't find any of your arguments persuasive. So you should probably continue this on the article talk page. As you can see, another administrator has recently acted on one of your edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, but I dont assume the other administrators to be more sophisticated than you. Your claim that my arguments not persuasive while you are so elaborately attempting to avoid addressing any of them. This is again not to say I doubt your skills as an administrator. You actually appear very skilled at avoiding the arguments.
- But I have mad skills too! I assure you! I had other editors repeat their request for additional sources no less than 5 times. This was intentional, anticipating they would refuse the contribution even when additional sources would be provided. They did quite a bit more, they went as far as to claim that adding additional sources (per their request) was edit warring.
- My mad skills are further demonstrated by asking you twice to review a single instance of
dishonestydisagreement and then to review a whole set of them. To witch you've responded by elaborately avoiding my arguments.
- My mad skills are further demonstrated by asking you twice to review a single instance of
- Clearly you are dealing with a madly sophisticated editor here. No way you could continue to doubt this.
- In fact, my only restrain is that I don't want to make your Misplaced Pages experience any less fun. This sits at the top of my list of things to avoid. I'm trying to avoid that as hard as you are trying to avoid my arguments.
- It logically follows that the article was locked and I was blocked for completely unsubstantiated reasons. Deliberately unsubstantiated with a cherry on top of perpetual refusal to address the topic.
- If those are the methods used then the art of counting blocks will be equally unsubstantiated. I see you've profiled that editor using a 7 year old block of 12 hours where he added a POV template to an article? He was definitely guilty (well.. kinda) but brining it up in this context is quite hilarious.
- You don't have to provide clear and obvious evidence of my edit warring (the way I did right here), you get to chose any of my arguments and explain what (exactly!) is wrong with it. Show me anything at all that casts reason to doubt my mad skills?
- If that still doesn't illustrate my mad skills, I assure you I'm trying to keep this as short as possible. If you are interested in the long version I will be happy to write it down for you.
- Thanks for your time,
Report
Would I be out of line asking why my report on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding edit warring is the only one that hasn't been addressed yet despite being nearly two days old? This is a genuine question and not a confrontation as it is my first time reporting someone. Turnopoems (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The 3RR is now closed with protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A concern
I noticed that user:Steverci has went through and removed a reference and referenced information from the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article. He has also removed categories from the Siege of Tripolitsa and Category:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. On the talk page of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims he states, "Every event this article cites involves Christians, who were themselves being persecuted, fighting for self determination, which the article leaves out entirely. How ridiculous would a "Persecution of British" article look that lists events like the American/Scottish Independence Wars or Indian independence movement? This article is more or less an over exaggerated piece of propaganda." It is clear that user:Steverci will not engage in a rational discussion when he has already labeled the article as an, "exaggerated piece of propaganda". Also, by this time he has already reverted me on Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Left a note at User talk:Steverci. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe my concern for a rational discussion has been justified;
- "I remove what goes against the rules. The first removal was about a battle, and the second had not categories with anything to do with Armenia, Russia, Georgia, or Serbia, so I removed them. If you're going to advocate sentences like "became minorities in their homeland" (because apparently Bulgaria/Romania/Greece/etc. are Turkish territory), then you yourself are playing self interest. As I said before, we cannot just say 'committed atrocities'. What constitutes an atrocity is opinion and says absolutely nothing."
- And user:Steverci still has not answered the question concerning the sources/sourced information he deleted, but instead accuses me of "advocating" something? Aside from the fact he hasn't seen my latest argument(s) on the Turkey talk page, just proves that he isn't here to build a community encyclopedia, he's here to make things "right". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now that he has been notified, you have the option of making a request at WP:AE. However AE is more likely to act on things that are clear-cut. A case involving someone's bad attitude may not get any action unless it's very bad indeed. In the case you describe above, you might get somewhere by working from the actual text of the source. If a reliable source calls something an atrocity then there is some logic for Misplaced Pages to do so also. Of course we can attribute the actual words to the source if it happens that they don't give full details of what happened. Another option for you to consider is going to WP:RSN, if someone questions the use of material from an identified source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Steverci needs to prove that either the source(s) are unreliable or that the sentence(s) in the article are not referenced by the source given. He has done neither of these things. The burden of proof is on him. Not me. All he has brought to the discussion is his own opinion. As I understand it, Misplaced Pages is not written using any editor's opinion but on the use of reliable sources, am I mistaken? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now that he has been notified, you have the option of making a request at WP:AE. However AE is more likely to act on things that are clear-cut. A case involving someone's bad attitude may not get any action unless it's very bad indeed. In the case you describe above, you might get somewhere by working from the actual text of the source. If a reliable source calls something an atrocity then there is some logic for Misplaced Pages to do so also. Of course we can attribute the actual words to the source if it happens that they don't give full details of what happened. Another option for you to consider is going to WP:RSN, if someone questions the use of material from an identified source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Distinctive essay
Hi, Ed. I really think we should delete WP:DIVA (though I'm sure it would be useless to propose it). It's a very nasty essay, and posting it on somebody who is already upset is humiliating and can only do further harm. I can't conceive of a situation where it would actually help. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC).
- Agree that linking to the essay wasn't needed. Let's hope the editor will rethink his plans soon (and come back to create even more noticeboards). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War dispute
Hello, following the protection of the article on the Yom Kippur War my proposed compromises have fallen on deaf ears as the other editors seem content with the status quo and the fact that their preferred version is now protected. Neither of them have responded to my proposals despite contributions elsewhere and partaking in other discussions. As far as consensus-building goes the article protection has been counter-productive as all communication has ground to a halt. It alludes me how to reach consensus when one side is disinterested in consensus-building, the implied message in their texts (it's actually quite explicit) is that the one trying to make the change is the one solely responsible for building consensus to end the dispute and that the pre-existing version is inherently more "correct" thus giving them the exclusive right to revert any edit without responding on "talk", until I somehow manage to build consensus for my edit. Turnopoems (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The advice at User talk:Turnopoems#Yom Kippur War from User:Fitzcarmalan was pretty good. I would be curious if you've taken any of the steps he recommended. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did indeed invite other editors to review the dispute and join in on the discussion by forwarding a "Request for Comment", this however proved futile. As a Misplaced Pages novice I am unable to determine which noticeboard is most relevant to our discussion which encompasses a wide variety of topics, which is why I opted for the former. WP:NPOVN seems irrelevant now as the discussion no longer touches on that issue. Turnopoems (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Request for Comment that you filed at Talk:Yom Kippur War was too vague to stimulate good discussion. Why not try to find an experienced editor who has edited Yom Kippur War in the past to give you suggestions for making a better RfC. Some experienced people who have edited Yom Kippur War are User:Jprg1966, User:Fitzcarmalan, User:Poliocretes and User:Faizan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll give that a go and see where it takes me. Turnopoems (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Request for Comment that you filed at Talk:Yom Kippur War was too vague to stimulate good discussion. Why not try to find an experienced editor who has edited Yom Kippur War in the past to give you suggestions for making a better RfC. Some experienced people who have edited Yom Kippur War are User:Jprg1966, User:Fitzcarmalan, User:Poliocretes and User:Faizan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did indeed invite other editors to review the dispute and join in on the discussion by forwarding a "Request for Comment", this however proved futile. As a Misplaced Pages novice I am unable to determine which noticeboard is most relevant to our discussion which encompasses a wide variety of topics, which is why I opted for the former. WP:NPOVN seems irrelevant now as the discussion no longer touches on that issue. Turnopoems (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that page protection is needed
| Continue at the ANI about Mexicans of European descent, please. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi again, I have some bad news: The situation of the discussion on the Mexicans of European descent article hasn't improved, in fact it has worsened, there is a "new" editor participing, and seems to be impulsive as this edit shows , and has been doing reverts leaving rude summaries , I've tried to be kind and just try to explain to him that he can't remove content that is currently being discussed, specially if it was originally there and that Misplaced Pages favors discussing over reverting but he just ignores it, and he ignores my proposals too, this is why I think protection is necessary, maybe for one week. And on top of this, both editors (Alon12 and Jytdog) are the same person with Alon12 being a sockpuppet of Jytdog, I think he got desperate and is using two accounts to gain numeric advantage. It becomes more obvious with each edit that he does. I started suspecting about this because despite that Alon12's first edit was near the end of december, he has a total knowledge of Misplaced Pages's noticeboards (his 8th edit was a DNR case and his 14th edit was a request for page protection ) and has a very advanced knowledge regarding citing studies and formating of sources. Now 12 days after the start of the discussion the user Jytdog appears and supports the same changes that the user Alon12 has been pushing with no result or backup from other involved editors, and if you look at the discussions on which Jytdog has been involved the handling of sources as well as the style of discussing is the same, this can be seen even in the talk page for the "Mexicans of Europan descent" as only Alon12 and Jytdog bring reflists when citing text from the article , , every other editor copies the sentence of the article followed by numbers within brakets like this. However what made me be sure that they are the same person is that he replied with the wrong account here , he wrote an entire new section with the style of Jytdog, not the style of Alon12: He made emphazis in various sentences using bold text, something that Alon12 never does and Jytdog does in several discussions, here for example and he have done it in this talk page too . Additionally through the discussion Jytdog have mentioned the concept of "primary sources" repeatedly while Alon12 has never mentioned it until he created the new section that I linked above, where he mentions it various times just like Jytdog does. I searched "Jytdog" in google and there are various accusations of paid editing, he is also accused of repeating the same things again and again until he frustrates his opponents in and outside of Misplaced Pages, this is what Alon12 has been doing all this time too. All this makes obvious that Alon12 and Jytdog are the same person. Aergas (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC) This just in: Jytdog replied to the comments I made to Alon12 as if it was him the one who I replied to , and also attemped to edit the article using the information that Alon12 brought and using the words Alon12 used. Aergas (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Request Edits
Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had some time to look at a few COI items. I've got a few that are simple quick things, and a few that are more complex that could use more eyes and participants. CorporateM (Talk) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)