Misplaced Pages

User talk:EdJohnston

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 5 December 2011 (→76.113.1.202: Westies semiprotected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:01, 5 December 2011 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→76.113.1.202: Westies semiprotected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for protecting the article Aurora (Telenovela)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3

I can't think of a situation where soemoen has accused you of bad faith recently, but would you care to help shape this request? Or alternatively you could tell me why I am asking for trouble and no one would want a new case anyway.

Regarding Ian Streeter

Hello, and I hope you are having a wonderful day. I am having some problems with a user here at Misplaced Pages, that you previously and recently blocked. His/her name is Ian Streeter. I looked though their contributions and saw your username appear, so I thought I would ask you to review this incident. He is making a lot of unconstructive edits to a specific number of articles—mostly in the Sandbox—such as all of the below "diffs":

I think it would be helpful to have a good talk with this user and a firm warning, and a possible block. I also think that a solid involuntary mentorship with a developed administrator would be applicable. Could a case be opened for the administrator's noticeboard for incidents?

I would like to apologize for any inconvenience this incident may have caused you, and if I have posted this at the wrong place, however, please realize that I am trying to help this incident in good faith. I would appreciate your help, and thank you in advance. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this. But is it okay if I do these things in my sandbox? Ian Streeter (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It is okay if you do them in your own Sandbox, but after the above listed edits, I think your behavior constitutes a block. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you necessarily mean by "but after the above listed edits, I think your behavior constitutes a block"? Ian Streeter (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Since you have made the above unconstructive edits in the past, your behavior constitutes a block. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Genre warrior"

I'm not meaning to break any of the conditions that you agreed with An optimist on the run on, by the way.

Since An optimist on the run wouldn't let me post this, I'll post this to you since An optimist on the run relates to you in a way. I wanted to say that the only reason why I kept on changing genres when I wasn't supposed to was because I really didn't look into the effort of finding a fast way of finding consensus on the talk page, which would be better if I did because now I can't do ANYTHING with genres. So at least can you instantly remove all conditions from An optimist on the run except for editing genres? Ian Streeter (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Swinton Circle

Thanks for your note. I've posted a new thread looking for suggestions at talk:Swinton Circle#Resolving the disputes. A possibility which I don't mention there is banning Harvey, though I'd guess that it would hard to enforce it as I believe he's used several accounts already. However most of the problems seem to come from his highly conflicted editing.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Katarighe (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AE#JJG

Hello Ed. I saw your comment at Wgfinley's talk page. Before you close the request, can you please address the issue with the added 2 diffs. There are 3 diffs of serious misrepresentation of sources, with 2 of them including the insertion of not only "POV" material but objectively factually incorrect material into articles, including on one occasion where the cited source says exactly the opposite of what was placed in the article. Nobody has responded to these issues, despite my repeated requests that somebody at least address them. I apologize for raising this here, I dislike the idea of even the appearance of lobbying an admin, but the issue is being ignored. Thank you. nableezy - 03:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Ed, My issue around WP:WESTBANK was that there was a sudden outbreak of editors taking a Humpty-dumpty approach to the guideline and claiming that it meant what they wanted it to mean and not what everyone had taken it to mean since its introduction. I consider all those involved guilty of WP:TE. JJG is just one of them. I have not been following things closely but think that the Humpty-dumptyism has now reduced however the relevant thread has tl;dr issues and I think that there are still underlying issues of tendetiousness driven by a minority POV.

I assume your question to me was related to your desire to get the JJG AE out of the way. I think the problem there is that new issues have been added tothe case in a piecemeal manner and it is not obvious whether the admins have examined those new issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment

All due respect, but your assessment here is incorrect. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Manstein

I do not find it amusing to be warned for having attempted to restore the neutrality of an article. A.S.Brown and BINKSTERNET transformed the Manstein article into a anti-Manstein pamphlet using one book which is massively biased against the german army. The result is a Manstein article which is in formal contradiction with other more neutral Manstein articles on wikipedia like the french and german one. It also contradicts wikipedia articles on Mansteins campaigns and his most wellknown book. Well supported arguments were offered to contradict inaccurate statements in the article on the content of 'lost victories' and the Stalingrad campaign. The answer I got was speeches which mainly explained why AS Brown hates Manstein. In addition I was supposed to simply accept as truth whatever was stated in the main source used by AS Brown and Binksternet. No attempt at a discussion on substance was made. So,after a week I have started deleting the inaccuracies in the article again. No consensus will ever be possible between two users with an avowed intention of making a biographical article into a pamphlet against the subject and another user who wants it to be neutral. It is all very well to invite discussion but when the other parties are not open for it,it is pretty useless. The article as it is,is not even based on one biographical work on Manstein,let alone several. It cannot stand and clearly no consensus is even remotely possible on even the most minute change.--Knispel (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a suspicion there was a certain amount of misrepresentation gonig on in the article. One editor has found one so that prharse is gone and replaced by something that is an accurate representation of historical documents. --Knispel (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

Ed, you weren't willing to AGF the last time you banned me but I'm asking you to AGF this time. I utilized three sources to support the position that part of Mount Hermon lies within Israel. There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning the quality of the sources. But even if they were sub-optimal, the proper place to address concerns would be at the Talk page or RSN and I would abide by whatever consensus is established there. I believe that my edits at Mount Hermon were valid and stand by them. That is why I did not self-revert. At Katzrin, I did self-revert almost immediately once I realized that it was not compliant with the consensus template. I will not be editing over the weekend but again, I urge you to please AGF here and please at least consider my position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, just one more thing. I’ve maintained a very low profile on Mount Hermon making only a single edit to that article (restoring a neutrality tag) since the controversy. I’ve instead focused on article creation as evidenced by Operation Egged, Operation Volcano (Israeli raid), Operation Olive Leaves, Operation Elkayam and Operation Black Arrow among other articles. If you want, I will continue to maintain a low profile. I just don’t to be branded again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert by Biosketch Before Consensus Reached

I would like to bring this revert to your attention. There is an ongoing discussion about that section here but Biosketch made that revert before consensus was reached. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

A curious set of edits

Hi Ed

An anon has been slapping an interesting combination of pages with sock labels. See . We've also had some recent vandalism at the JIDF page which may or may not be connected. I've always assumed that einsteindonut = "David Appletree" whose real identity I think I know. If Nobody of Consequence is the account I'm thinking of, then it was possible at the time things blew up to work out its real identity which is distinct from Appletree, but all this happened some time ago.

I've rollbacked one of the edits by the anon and blanked two of the pages as I can't delete them. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you re Golan "revert" discussion requirement

Hi Ed. I'm not sure where to take this, but would you please look at this? (permalink) I've asked W.G. Finley to do the same. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"The epicenter of recent I/P flare up"

Was it you who remarked somewhere recently that the Golan Heights article seems to be the epicenter of the recent flare up in I/P contention? I can't now find the passage I noticed previously, but if so, I'd like to express my view as to why that's occurring, and what needs to be done to stop it.

As I just observed at the current AE concerning Jiujitsuguy, many of our Zionist friends have been editing for a long time to champion their belief that the Golan and other occupied territories are "in Israel" or are "an integral part of Israel", as JJG puts it.

As I'm sure you know, the proposition is common among Israelis, but is universally rejected, or rejected by "almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel", as the BBC puts it. This easily-verified fact is demonstrated by its acknowledgment in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.

This status of international opinion makes the claim an extreme WP:FRINGE POV, of course, for the purpose of editing Misplaced Pages. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the fringe status of this proposition has not been explicitly acknowledged by our administrators, nor have the editors who've been using Misplaced Pages to push this extreme fringe POV been effectively prohibited from using Misplaced Pages's voice to do so. If WP:FRINGE were simply to be enforced to prohibit that, something like half the problems in the I/P area would disappear.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the "epicenter" remark is mine on the Golan Heights talk page. I hear what you're saying but territory disputes are a tricky thing even in cases where the rest of the world doesn't recognize one county's claim. Whether it's China and Taiwan (ROC), Tibet, Cashmir, or the Golan, "fringe" views can be the view of an entire country or, as in this case, a race or religion depending on one's point of view. One MedCom case was about some uninhibited islands claimed by China and Japan and was quite fierce. In these cases trying to make sure each side's view is represented and the overall tone is neutral can be tall orders but are important. --WGFinley (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, W.G., territory disputes are very complex and also depend greatly on context, so maybe it's better to be much more specific than to try to discuss theory: Are you saying you have no problem with, e.g. this edit which uses Misplaced Pages's voice to assert that the Golan is in Israel?
Sure, many Israelis believe that passionately, and each side's view does need to mentioned as their view. But my objection is rather to using Misplaced Pages's voice to present Israel's extreme minority view (relative to a super-majority of world opinion) as if it were a simple fact: That's what I see as the crux of the problem behind the recent I/P flare up. So again, are edits like the one I linked to okay with you, or not?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion

Regarding Wiqi55 unblock request, my preference is that he remain blocked, because from my previous interactions, i noted he tends to be a tedenious editor who does not properly follow wikipedia rules or sometimes ignores the rules; which can be frustrating. Pass a Method talk 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

76.113.1.202

IP editor 76.113.1.202, who you blocked on 14 November for edit-warring, and who was then blocked again for edit-warring on 17 November, has continued unabated. Today, in reverting to his unsourced and poorly-written version of the lede, removed the reference I added a few days ago. Assuming good faith has come to an end. Adding his unsourced information is bad enough, but removing sources in order to do so is too much. Will you please intervene? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links:
I've semiprotected Westies six months. The alternative would be to block the IP editor, but it would have to be for a very long time, since two past blocks have not influenced his behavior. It's hard to understand how removing references is supposed to improve the article. Rationale for the previous blocks can still be seen at User talk:76.113.1.202#Edit warring at Westies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)