This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 28 December 2014 (→Could you look at). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:39, 28 December 2014 by Nishidani (talk | contribs) (→Could you look at)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Qazxcv1234
- Qazxcv1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please visit my talk page. I am surprised by the events. May please analyse the case. I hope you will believe on me and do the needful please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston, hope you might have had time to read and analyze my explanations. I am banned for the fault which I have not not done. Please may read them, if not yet done so. Your subsequent block(proved unjustified by me) has also expired. Please have me your final verdict, as I am serving a punishment for a fault which I did not not do at all. May please have some time for reply.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Qazxcv1234, I don't understand the comments at your talk page. But so long as you can stay completely away from articles with any connection to the Dawoodi Bohra, you should be fine. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Draft merge
Hello EdJohnston, would please take a look at discussions HERE and HERE and then HERE? I've already requested it to Mark Arsten, but apparently he is away, so I came here to you to help merging Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) into The Jungle Book (2015 film) per discussions. --Captain Assassin! 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:NFF, are we sure that principal photography has begun? The post in comingsoon.net seems inconclusive. The phrase 'in production' for a movie that uses animation could mean more than one thing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually production has begun in November as Russo brothers visited the set, while in December the comingsoon post is saying it's underway. There are some other sources also saying the film's in production. And about "in-production," it's mean "underway." It has already been an issue but was settled. --Captain Assassin! 06:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now check this out. --Captain Assassin! 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- When are you going to do this? --Captain Assassin! 10:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why not ask some other admin? If principal photography had actually begun you'd expect to have a clear statement. And there is no point in doing a histmerge if the article continues to be redirected frequently. If you want to find someone else to look at this, post a move request at WP:RMTR. When doing so leave a note that a histmerge is needed. (A histmerge may not be possible anyway due to parallel histories). EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- But you can do this, so why don't you? Principal photography has actually begun, and look at the first edit in the article, Favre1fan93 moved the page to draft. --Captain Assassin! 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- But you can do this, so why don't you? Principal photography has actually begun, and look at the first edit in the article, Favre1fan93 moved the page to draft. --Captain Assassin! 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why not ask some other admin? If principal photography had actually begun you'd expect to have a clear statement. And there is no point in doing a histmerge if the article continues to be redirected frequently. If you want to find someone else to look at this, post a move request at WP:RMTR. When doing so leave a note that a histmerge is needed. (A histmerge may not be possible anyway due to parallel histories). EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Avono topic ban
So you know, I mentioned the topic ban against Avono as part of the arbitration evidence. While I am not naming you or suggesting your overall conduct was problematic, if you wish to respond there feel free.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. It is unclear how I could respond. It seems that you disagree with the result, but I don't know where to go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have to respond. I am not suggesting any action be taken against you or anything, just felt it would be appropriate to notify you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
CSG International
Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had the time/interest to consider the draft I've shared on the Talk page. It's a pretty straightforward article where I'm reducing promotionalism, adding missing legal disputes and just improving the overall quality/sourcing/comprehensiveness in preparation for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Seasonal Greets!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!! |
|
Hello EdJohnston, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. |
Turan22 socks?
I have noticed an increase in "new" editors pushing an Uzbek POV.blocked by you Siktirgitir, in particular, is blanket reverting user:Edward321 over multiple articles. All these "editors" seem to be making edits typical of Turan22. Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The history of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī is starting to look like a sock parade. Do you want to file these accounts at SPI? If as many as six accounts (including one who has been here since 2013) wind up needing to be blocked it will be appropriate to have an SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise, one of the original socks has reverted you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC
Move away the Iranian people from category of an Ulugh Beg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangar07 (talk • contribs)
- User:Siktirgitir might not be the same person as Turan22. He does leave edit summaries and has a distinctive writing style. Some IP data suggests that people who take an interest in these articles come from both Tashkent and Sweden. I'm unsure on whether O.Turani could be connected. He has an existing SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Siktirgitir appears to be a meatpuppet or simply vendetta reverting. I have never encountered O.Turani, as far as I can recall. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Siktirgitir might not be the same person as Turan22. He does leave edit summaries and has a distinctive writing style. Some IP data suggests that people who take an interest in these articles come from both Tashkent and Sweden. I'm unsure on whether O.Turani could be connected. He has an existing SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont know who this turan22 is? I am working on my own I do have a life besides editing wikipedia articles which kansasbear which many of you doenst seem to have sadly, Siktirgitir (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)siktirgitir
- What the proper forum to report this post by Siktirgitir? Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the userlinks: Siktirgitir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Why not ask User:Ricky81682? He is an admin who seems to have dealt with this part of the world before. I noticed his name on your talk page. My other idea was to raise the question at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Turan22. But since Siktirgitir is probably not a sock of the other guys the patrolling admins might not have a response. Some kind of a block is what I was thinking. Asking about Siktirgitir at ANI might or might not lead to anything useful, since it's kind of a confusing question. It's possible that the Turkmen people article might fall under WP:ARBAA2. If discretionary sanctions apply then it's more obvious what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI
I feel an obligation to notify you about this ANI thread , because you were the sanctioning and closing administrator here. To my shame, I forget completely about this previous ANI discussion that had happen more than a year ago, although I remember this user (I did not interact with him also around a year). All the best, My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
What's now about the compas page?
These serial protections are not effective; you need to control those IP# who at will are disturbing pages with valid references while they often have a website reference. You've been asking for sound references and you accept that anybody come to remove them? The compas references are all over in scholars' books. I don't think Misplaced Pages readers should wait any longer to read the whole compas articles in its integrality because of some people with no case? I have never requested any protection because there is no need when articles comes with sounds references. I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the page. Merry ChristmasPintade (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please use Talk:Compas to get consensus for any changes that you think are advisable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Cassandra IP sock now sometimes editing under a user name
Hi Ed, I contacted you several times over the last couple of years regarding an IP-hopping sock who styles themself as "Cassandra" and persistently forum-posts (lately largely seeking articles to coatrack a favoured theme). You range blocked them a few times, the first being after this ANI discussion. Their main POV is maybe best summed up by their statement that "the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth", but they have several other themes. After all this time they have signed up with a user name, User:Cassandrathesceptic, but have continued with IP edits, in addition to the occasional edit under the user name (e.g. on the 17th they posted as user and IP). This has allowed me at least to try to engage with them in one place, on their talk page (which also serves to give some sort of a picture of their recent activities) but they persist to the extent that they have recently posted here actively protesting about the embargo on general discussion and directing attention to an essay of such discussion on their user page.
It does seem there is a block in their understanding or belief that talk pages are not for posting chat or original thought. This is indicated by posts (harmless or not) on other topics where, for instance, they speculate the need for the creation of a word at Xenophobia or theorise about women consenting to rape. I suspect the odd bit of common or garden vandalism too, although they deny it.
To complicate matters and by coincidence, another (geographically distant) IP-hopper has been posting on this talk page thread regarding Scots, increasingly tending towards POV-pushing and forum posts and essentially of a diametrically-opposed viewpoint to “Cassandra”. Thankfully they haven’t engaged in dialogue with each other yet but I dread to think of the tedium that would ensue should this happen.
I have warned Cassandra that they may be blocked but I imagine they will revert to IP-socking and coatracking across articles and, because of the seeming continued lack of belief or understanding that their editing is inappropriate, wonder if a word from another party might make them think matters over. Would you be willing to do so or can you think of another course of action which may help? All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- At this point, persuasion is unlikely to work. Have you ever looked at Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse? Though I'm not sure if Cassandra qualifies yet to be included there, the entries are usually brief and well-written. For example, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Dragon2016. We need something of that length if you are hoping to get more admins to look at the problem. Note the box at the upper right which says what to do if the edits resume. If you want to make an LTA entry, we should go through WP:SPI first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed, I wasn't aware of LTA so I'll look into that and at preparing an SPI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you look at this
Hi EdJohnson: Regarding the article for the film Metropolitan (1990 film), you had just closed an ANI from this week-end by a dynamically changin Ip-editor. Now the dynamically changing IP-editor is filing another ANI on the same article (just now). I did request a sock investigation (CheckUser) from two administrators talk:Versageek and CambridgeBayWeather, and I am not sure what to do about this second ANI being filed back to back. The page is protected now by CambridgeBayWeather and restored to the neutral version from last month which looked like the most neutral version. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Felix, please try and understand: The version that another user and myself (I do admit that I am two of the anonymous editors; my IP changes randomly, though I don't know why) are to restore is, quite simply, better written than the version you are so passionately trying to protect. There is quite simply nothing good about it. It is incomplete, badly written, and much of it, as the other anonymous editor has pointed out, appears to be written by someone with a poor grasp of English. If this is something you wrote, I respect that you want your work to stand, but from any objective viewpoint, it's bad writing, and a bad summarization of the film. Also, even after the other editor tried to engage you at the talk page, your only response was the somewhat childish "acknowledge me." Nothing that you've done has helped the Metropolitan article; it's simply resulted in a lot of complaints and emphasis on the bureaucratic procedures of Misplaced Pages, without improving the page content. I'll echo the other editor: If you feel that the version you want to protect is superior, explain why. Others have given their reasons against it; you've still failed to give rational support FOR it.2601:E:2000:1A3:49D5:DC30:ED1F:507F (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Merry
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! From a view of your user page, I see that we share a connection to Canada. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
md iet continuing to edit bohra articles.
The user has edited these articles recently where he is replacing word "dawoodi bohra" with a fictional "taiyabi bohra" possibly because he thinks that this will allow him to bypass the topic ban which sounds nothing but disrespect of wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moulai_Hasan_Fir&diff=639283345&oldid=639141681
He himself is author of above article and have written it as "dawoodi bohra saint" now when he is topic banned he wants to create fictional names.
he has done this to other articles too.
Also this user is indulging in aggressive sock puppetting as reported here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qazxcv1234
Summichum (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've pointed out this violation at Md iet's talk page and another admin has decided to block him for violating his topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For all of your work making Professor George Kline article a reality! LoveMonkey 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
Someone posting under your name??
I am not sure what is going on at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/76.31.249.221 - I would guess its a copy and paste from some other location ...but as of now looks like you posted a comment when you have not at this location. -- Moxy (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the submitter was just quoting my remark from another board. I've commented in the SPI report and suggest it should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
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!
User:DonaldKronos
Would you consider reviewing your block and possibly removing talk page access? The discussion at the talk page and ANI shows the extent of the escalation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The unblock dialog appears to be beneficial, so I would not disable his talk page. The outcome of his return to editing (when the block expires) may not be good, but it can be addressed then. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Seasonal Greets!
|
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
|
Hello EdJohnston, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Edit warring
Hi EdJohnston,
Thanks for taking a look at the content dispute, I've replied to your assessment of the situation. To be honest, I don't think protecting the page for 3 days do will anything at all. It will only delay more disputes in the long run.
(Merry Christmas) —Mentoroso (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Review of contributions
Hello EdJohnston. Could you please review my contributions, as requested on ANI with respect to this discussion, and offer input? Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, see also: here. Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like this is being handled by User:Ricky81682 at User talk:Ricky81682#Guidance and assistance. My own review would probably be similar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
TBan discussion
You are still watching Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_on_Nawabmalhi_and_TheSawTooth? So far, it seems like both were clearly aware of the real meaning of those references, yet they continued to misrepresent in order to push their point of view and edit war for removing issue tags. Nawabmalhi claims that I, along with rskrinath05, and one more editor are '3 Indian POV pushers', though I have never posted my nationality anywhere here. What you say? VandVictory (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Reverts continue
I don't know if this is the right place to post this... After you blocked MiGR25, the reverting in the article did not stop.
MiGR25 has not made a revert, but other users continue to in a similar matter.
First Nug (who actively tried to defend MiGR25 and divert attention to me at the AN3
(
) makes reverts. Then out of no where comes Iryna Harpy. This looks like a coordinated effort.
This is not about content dispute, but reverting existing large pieces of article text without consensus, violating WP:BRD. I am not against making changes if the consensus changes, but those users revert text without it. I don't think consensus is created only by reverting.
Also, I want to note that all this reverting started with "new" user MiGR25. No one had a problem with the text before. -YMB29 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you open a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? You yourself have made several reverts in the last couple of days. You should be looking for consensus. It's unwise to treat the previous page content as sacred. Reverting to defend it can get you in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is why I stopped trying to revert and came here to ask you.
- I am ok with dispute resolution or RfC, but they can't just remove a large piece of text that is not new from the article without reaching a consensus. Is not that the point of WP:BRD? -YMB29 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BRD isn't a policy; it is only an essay. Try to find a new consensus. The current discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany don't seem to have reached agreement. Here is a situation where an WP:RFC could help, since it would allow bringing in new participants. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it can help, but besides the content dispute, there is an obvious violation of wiki principals that may encourage further violations if successful.
- WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and the no consensus part of it says that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have fully protected Rape during the occupation of Germany until 27 January. Please use the talk page to discuss the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BRD isn't a policy; it is only an essay. Try to find a new consensus. The current discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany don't seem to have reached agreement. Here is a situation where an WP:RFC could help, since it would allow bringing in new participants. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well done Ed. As so often is the case with editors who attempt to elicit admin intervention to gain the upper hand in content disputes, they tend misrepresent the facts so as to provoke admins into action. FWIW, MiGR25 hadn't actually breached 3RR and YMB29 had reverted as often as he had. MiGR25 was obviously a newby and you could have given him some latitude, he had stopped reverting and had taken the discussion to talk, but you blocked him anyway and let YMB29 off despite this and the fact that he reverted as often as MiGR25 had. It is apparent that YMB29 is a veteran who knows how to push admin's buttons to get the desired result.
- I obviously was drawn to the article after MiGR25's unfortunate experience and I attempted to clean this article up a bit. The two edits I made wasn't actually reverting anything, the first edit cited by YMB29 as a "revert" was to summarise Senyavskaya more concisely and YMB29 essentially reverted that summary, the second edit was remove coat-racked content added to the article some time ago. These edits represented the "B" part of BRD. The only people reverting was YMB29 and Iryna Harpy, and I end up getting a warning on my talk page with a somewhat bizarre note (with a hint of unjustified hostility): "If you are intending to be an active editor on hot topics you might rethink the black box hinting you are retired and consider archiving your talk page instead of clearing it" despite my patient discussion on Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Coat_racking. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You were not so patient, as you reverted before the discussion began.
- You are still defending MiGR25 and claiming that he is a new user? All you were doing is repeating his behavior, whether it is reverting under the excuse of summarizing or coat racking.
- Asking an admin to intervene in such cases is the right thing to do, especially compared to getting another editor to revert on your behalf...
- There is a difference between reverting to force changes through and reverting so that the content reflects consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- There you go, misrepresenting the facts again. This edit was to remove text that was coat racked to the article some time in the past, I don't know when. MiGR25 never touched that text. Your definition of "revert" seems to be any change to text you might have added some time in the distant past. Do you seriously expect people to analyse the last six months of an article history before making an edit. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You just like MiGR25 were trying to remove similar pieces of text, representing the Russian view, that you don't like. You both did not care for establishing any consensus and just reverted. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please spare me the conspiracy theories, I'm getting the impression that you have some WP:OWN issues. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Asking others to follow the consensus policy means I have issues with WP:OWN? -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please spare me the conspiracy theories, I'm getting the impression that you have some WP:OWN issues. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You just like MiGR25 were trying to remove similar pieces of text, representing the Russian view, that you don't like. You both did not care for establishing any consensus and just reverted. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- There you go, misrepresenting the facts again. This edit was to remove text that was coat racked to the article some time in the past, I don't know when. MiGR25 never touched that text. Your definition of "revert" seems to be any change to text you might have added some time in the distant past. Do you seriously expect people to analyse the last six months of an article history before making an edit. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As for the page protection, it was the right thing to do, but I don't understand why the last revert was allowed to stand. As I explained above, it is clearly a violation of the consensus policy. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear, Ed protected the "wrong version". You better ease up or some people may draw the conclusion that you are a veteran POV pusher who knows how to game the system. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are complaining about me being a POV pusher...
- Following wiki policies is not POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well then why don't you adhere to WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS with respect to your own edits? --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Continually accusing me of violating policies can't cover up your disruptive behavior, especially your disrespect of consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing the lie that my two edits, which were not reverts as there was no previous version which these edits restored, were some how disruptive does not engender good faith nor do anything to help you build consensus. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Continually accusing me of violating policies can't cover up your disruptive behavior, especially your disrespect of consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well then why don't you adhere to WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS with respect to your own edits? --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Irredentist edits in Misplaced Pages pages
I found several innovations and new WIKI rules applied by some users, that violates the normal comportament of editors. These estonishing edits were made by some editors who managed to block all oponents using gang tactics and misinformation of administrators.
See next page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&action=history
(cur | prev) 17:40, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (110,912 bytes) (-995) . . (→Further reading: -books written before WWII) (cur | prev) 17:39, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (111,907 bytes) (+1) . . (-unreferred (non-English) source; +the deleted source English version) (cur | prev) 17:36, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (111,906 bytes) (-158) . . (→Secondary sources: -unreferred source which was written before WWII) (cur | prev) 17:35, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (112,064 bytes) (-636) . . (→Theory of Daco-Romanian continuity: WP:NPOV (this section presents the scholars' views, not their argumentation )) (cur | prev) 17:32, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (112,700 bytes) (-634) . . (→Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: there is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents' POV (X does not accept Y's view and says that Y's view is exclusivelly based on Y's biased, stupid, .. approach) .) (cur | prev) 17:28, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (113,334 bytes) (-346) . . (→Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: unrelevant information (and the two specialist mentioned in connection with the immigrationist theory are not Hungarians - and more non-Hungarian scholar could be added))
All these edits show the real character of the editor named Borsoka. He is considered as an irredentist editor by Romanians, Ukrainian and Serb editors.
Amazing reasons to erase Romanian references and Romanian historians text: 1. Book before WW 2 ! 2. Non English reference ! 3. Scholar's view and not scholar's argumentation (here original research of Borsoka) 4. There is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents (but in his Hungarian history pages there are a lot of such opinions) 5. Stupid approach (new original research of Borsoka about Romanian references) 6. Specialists are not Hungarians !
Also the user Fakirbakir erased several Romanian references because he considered that he personally disagree the opinions of the Romanian author and if he disagrees an author (here about Georgescu, a historian) he erases it from WIKI pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians (section Georgescu's statement) "I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement".
There is a simple explanation of these amazing innovations and new Misplaced Pages rules: The two editors Borsoka and Fakirbakir act as a gang against editors from neighboring countries and act alternatively to avoid the 3RR rule and to eliminate single editors. Their scope: to emphasize the priority in history of Hungarians; this is a part of the definition of IRREDENTISM: to show the priority in history, against neigbouring countries.
All these reasons made the mentioned history article to be of very bad quality due to irredentist edits. Some Romanian journals wrote about these activities in the Misplaced Pages pages and so Misplaced Pages is considered as an unreliable source for history due to these amazing edits. Unfortunately no administrator acted against these tactics.
I mentioned you the vandalism in the mentioned pages but no result.
Eurocentral (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Eurocentral, you are still under a topic ban from Hungary and Romania, per User talk:Eurocentral#Topic ban from Hungary and Romania. The ban applies to all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk, so you are violating your ban by mentioning the issue here. Please let this go and cease pursuing it. Your ban expires on 8 May 2015. Please also undo your recent edit to Suda which is also a ban violation since it mentions Romanians. If you are unwilling to follow your ban you can be blocked by any administrator. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
SPI notification
Because you were the blocking admin (see here:), I thought you might be interested in the SPI I just filed here: . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Protection of article on Eurasian Economic Union
You protected that article and asked for finding a consensus on the talk page. That protection is set to expire today. I requested a sockpuppet investigation regarding User:Mentoroso - as i suspect him of having started two new accounts to seemingly find a consensus on the talk page.
I hereby ask you for extending the time of protection of that article.Knisfo (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- The SPI might well lead to a result. But the best way to settle the content dispute might be a compromise on the wording of Kyrgyzstan's status. The proposal by User:Krastama looks to me like it balances the uncertainties. Assuming that it's not contradicted by sources. Your idea that Kyrgyzstan is either in or out may be too simplistic given the conflicting reports we have. I won't be enacting the edit request because I'm uncertain of the consensus, but I hope you'll consider supporting something like this yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI
I saw your comment on arbitration page and agree. I am leaving and will not be able to participate, however, I can see only one contributor at the moment, whose current editing is clearly problematic. He edit war on a page currently discussed by Arbcom , , while taking part in the arbitration discussion. He was warned by another admin about this previously . He soapboax and accuse others in relation to this page ,, and I was unable to convince him to stop here. Saying that, I may be biased, and therefore leave everything on discretion of AE administrators. Happy holidays! My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Unusual
Just a heads up. Please see this discussion on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested Move Template
I swear I did use the requested move template.
I don't understand what was wrong?
Michael Demiurgos (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You edited WP:Requested moves/Current discussions, as your contribution history shows. That page is maintained by the bot. Instead you should have edited the talk page of the article you want to have moved. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you look at
Skunk (weapon)'s talk page. I have been trying for some weeks to try to get User:Ashtul to stop edit-warring, and he has, though advised several times on his talk page, again broken 1R. I dislike making AE reports, and have given him another notice there and on his page, but he refuses to budge. I don't want sanctions, but an authoritative word his way might be useful (if your assessment agrees with mine, which it may not). Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I said sorry for the 24 hrs rules. The facts though, remain same. The last edit was removing information that was proved to be outdated/false and was discussed in details at Talk:Skunk_(weapon). User:Nishidani response was - "Do not use hearsday as an argument (2) B'tselem's POV is given with attribution, whether it is true or false is not relevant". Some facts have no space for POV and if B'tselem says it was only used in West Bank while there is an article and video showing contrary, Nishidani can either use sophisticated wording to reflect it or erase it all together. What if B'tselem said the world is flat? Will Nishidani quote them and say it is their POV?
- If you already spend the time looking at the page, can you please give your opinion on the way it was kidnapped and any time the Skunk appears in pro-Palestinian media appears there. Maybe it should be renamed "instances Skunk was used". Nishidani mistaken it with his baby article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014.
- I too apologize for bothering you. Happy New Year.Ashtul (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed, and thanks also to Ashtul. I have dropped a note explaining what may not be clear to you, on your talk page. Best wishes for the coming year to both of you.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)