This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 11 January 2015 (→Saction EnigmaFay: Please try to convince us of your ability to contribute neutrality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:58, 11 January 2015 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→Saction EnigmaFay: Please try to convince us of your ability to contribute neutrality)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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!
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)
- I have not edited since holidays. Occult pulled discussion back from archive 2 times. Why is this so personal. Stop this. 3 Involved users voted to ban and 1 other user made comment. Vand revised again after protection expired it is his 18th revision! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
AN/I ISIS
With reference to this AN/I, I would like to ask your opinion about something, please. I have never been the subject of an AN/I before and do not know the form. I am concerned that Gregkaye is still adding comments, much of it repetition, and is now asking me close questions on matters gone over before, but I do not want to deny him the chance to cross-examine further if that is what he wishes. How far should I go in acceding to his requests for answers? Should I use my discretion in this? I have been fairly brusque so far, but I still want to be fair to him. I am also concerned that the text of the AN/I is now swelling to enormous proportions and this cannot be good for those trying to assess it. P-123 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gregkaye seems to have stopped now, so please ignore the above. P-123 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the ANi is very easy to assess. Its a whole bunch of needless back and forth, just like the activity that lead to the ANi. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Legacypac: I tend to agree with you, but I had to defend myself against what I saw as quite a few unjust charges, not only at the start but unfortunately throughout. I was appalled at how it was being dragged out, but had to respond to some things as I really was concerned about some of the misrepresentations. I would like to know which of the charges are upheld by those adjudicating, but I suspect from the way things are developing that this is going to be swept aside. That will be a bad result for both of us. I think a lot of this back and forth could have been saved if I had gone ahead and requested a straightforward IBAN on both when I first suggested it, of the kind you suggested. P-123 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think the ANi is very easy to assess. Its a whole bunch of needless back and forth, just like the activity that lead to the ANi. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
constitucion
Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.243.182 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a regular account that you can log in from? That could help me understand the background of your request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
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").
New Year's greetings and a thank you for your good work
Happy New Year, EdJohnston! Just a quick note to thank you for the hard work and civility with which you handle ARBEE affairs (and the others, of course). It's been quite a year for edit warriors considering the events in Ukraine, bringing a fresh tide of POV-ers from both sides. Let's hope that peace breaks out across the world, and that nationalist, religious, socio-political upheavals become articles about our distant past as the project evolves.
Well, I'm not even pretending to be a realist... but we can still live in hope. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Topic Banned Editor
This edit violates this topic ban (right near bottom) you imposed by directly editing a reference to ISIL. I've just reverted the edit. I'd almost argue that Boko Haram, as a sworn supporter and African version of ISIL, should be an off limits article for ISIL banned editors. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've left a note at User talk:Signedzzz about the scope of his ISIL ban. There is nothing on the noticeboards to show that an ISIL ban covers Boko Haram as such. So Signedzzz is only excluded from making ISIL-related changes to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Bhargava
- Special:Contributions/Bhargavaflame has breached his topic ban again. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit count Tools request
Hi EdJohnston; From my visit to my Talk page earlier today, under the editor Tools for "Edit count" on my user account, the count summary currently indicates in my history that the account has been blocked for a month, following an erroneous report. Could I request that this be repaired or do you know who maintains this Tool for "Edit count" and its data base. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide the complete URL for the edit counter you are using? At present I get no response from http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec so I can't look into this any further. You could ask User:MusikAnimal whose name is provided at http://tools.wmflabs.org. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The counter is working again but it's not giving any reasonable results for your account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Your link at WP/AE
Ed - you wrote "The issues raised by User:Vrinan are more fully explained by him and others in this ANI thread (permalink)" - but the link you gave says "This page revision has been removed from the public archives." So whatever his/her explanations for his/her shocking statements, we cannot read them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed the permalink. Somebody must have done a revdel at ANI which caused the specified revision to disappear. Whatever was deleted didn't seem to affect the thing I was trying to link to, so I just specified a later revision which does exist. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Game Changer move
Hello. I've seen that you made the move of "Game Changer" to "Game Changer (Modern Family)" as 'per talk page discussion' and used the "Game Changer" page as a dis page. What about all the pages that were already linked to "Game Changer" before the move? All those links that were supposed to lead to the Modern Family's episode now lead to the dis page. Is there a way to change them not manually? TeamGale 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did it manually but, do you know if there is a way to do it automatically? Thanks TeamGale 06:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MOVE gives some advice. See also WP:WPDAB. There were some tools for link repair but I don't think they survived the demise of the Toolserver. Thanks for the work that you did. At present I'm not aware of any quicker way. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll read the links you posted to see what they say. It's a problem when the links are too many. This one was kind of easy. Thanks again for answering. TeamGale 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MOVE gives some advice. See also WP:WPDAB. There were some tools for link repair but I don't think they survived the demise of the Toolserver. Thanks for the work that you did. At present I'm not aware of any quicker way. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
About the Edit Warring noticeboard
Hi, I see that you closed the edit warring case, and suggested using dispute resolution, I was going to open a case there, but there is already one, and was already closed The problem is that the user I'm having problems with is very close minded, and don't think I will get anything of him by arguig on his talk page (one of their first reactions was to dare me to call the admins). Putting it simply he wants sourced and competent information removed and we've been in a tiring argument in the last hours about it. He wants a source to a study that claims that around half of White Americans have varying degrees of ancestry other than European removed, and his reason to do it is because he has an study that says that Spaniards have a large variety of Haplotypes compared to Italians and what seems to be White Americans from Utah, he has also talked about how Spaniards are "racially impurer" and what not (claims and mentality that I think are out of place on Misplaced Pages). I got tired of going on circles and asked him what has that to do with the other study he wants removed to begin with, and keeps saying that it must be removed because apparently he regards Spaniards as impurer, I don't see what has that to do with the other study, or why it is a reason to remove it, when that section talks about the genetic variety and different racial perceptions of the United States and Mexico and if you check the section it looks "cutted" and incomplete, and that's not the only source there is, I added a source from a book some time ago that addresses these themes, but he removed it aswell, and don't wants any of it back because Spaniards are "less European", what do you think? Maybe is because I'm on the defending side, but in my opinion his posture isn't apropiated, and the reasons he is removing the material aren't either, in my opinion is not about debating which posture is correct, because his argument to remove the information is that spaniards are "less pure" and Latin Americans are "diluted Spaniards". I wonder what is the posture of Misplaced Pages towards such "infounded racism". For one I'm getting bored of going on circles with him, because that's nowhere close to be a competent argument to remove information, and when confronted just throws walls of text, moves the goalpost and says again and again that my sources are from fake blogs when it's a genetic study study published in a medical news website and books. What do you think? Aergas (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into the details of the content. But you might be interested to look at White Brazilian. That article caused a big uproar on the admin boards and was fully protected for more than a month at the end of 2009. Finally it got straightened out because of a good content writer who did a lot of research and was able to persuade people to support his changes. It sounds like you plan to work more on Mexicans of European descent. If you hope to see it through to consensus you'll need a lot of patience. EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking about using the same kind of entrance that White American has, now that I see the White Brazilian page, I think that an entrance like "White Mexican is a Mexican citizen from European descent or origin" is the best way to go. I think that could solve the warring over a the entrance of the article, and the section of the body the other editor keeps removing, although the issue with the study and the book citation that he wants removed continues, I don't think it is something that requires any debate over it, because his reason is that he regards Spaniards as "impure", that's not a good reason to remove anything at all, the edit history of the article has been going without any incident, on my time here there wasn't any big problem until Alon12 started editing in late december, and like I told you before,and I thinkthat rather than convincing him of anything (because he is totally closed) I will need the backup of other editors or an administrator. Aergas (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The main issue with your Agenda, Aergas, is that the 'white brazilian' page, doesn't bother to compare itself to 'white americans', you are purposefully trying to contort that message using ill-sourced biased propaganda to self-satisfy your point of view. Yet the actual genetic data as attested in comprehensive studies provided by genetic journals, shows the opposite as I demonstrated to you in my talk page. You could not even comprehend mere abbreviations from an actual scientific journal, you simply cherry-pick quotes from non-primary sources, which are not even relevant to what you claim. So, even if white americans are x% european, iberians are less, as actual genetic studies directly comparing iberians and white americans, have proven iberians to be more admixed. Iberians and Spaniards are far more genetically admixed than 'white americans', so it makes no sense to even mention white americans at all in the 'mexicans of european descent' page, you are trying to make a fallacious comparison, which is of little relevance and should not even exist. There is no real purpose for making such claims about 'white americans' on the 'mexicans of european descent' page in the first place, and secondly, it is inaccurate, as iberians and their descendants are more admixed than those white americans, in any case. So it would be a moot point. The original page of 'mexicans of european descent' from over a year back, never mentioned 'mexicans of european descent' being full-european, it rather said predominant. There was also no fallacious comparison with white americans, you added both of those elements to the article, while providing ill-sourced and inaccurate references from blogs, which do not actually reflect the content contained therein. I've genuinely suggested for you to improve your comprehension of the english language. Alon12 (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- So far, only User:Alon12 has used the talk page at Talk:Mexicans of European descent to explain their thinking. I hope to see a discussion take place there before either of you reverts again. You can begin discussions now, if you wish, even though the article itself is still protected. Notice that several experienced people have edited the article in the past year. You may be able to get some of them to give their opinion on your proposed changes. The active people include
- Inhakito (talk · contribs)
- Delotrooladoo (talk · contribs)
- Trinidade (talk · contribs)
- Thelmadatter (talk · contribs)
- Tejanoviejo (talk · contribs).
- You can see a larger list (showing how many times each person has edited) at this wmflabs.org link (be patient if the link is slow to open). EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mention. I rewrote the article way back on 19 July 2011, back when there was an argument whether there should be an argument at all, with some people believing all Mexicans are mestizo or indigenous. Normally I avoid topics like this like the plague basically for what has happened since. Ive done only some very obvious reverts in the past year and really have no interest in getting involved in a major dispute, especially since it has gone as far as arguing that the Spanish are not European!Thelmadatter (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Before taking this to another board, I would like to know why Alon12 (talk · contribs) keeps saying that the references I'm using are from blogs, when they aren't: they are from medical sites and books, and he knows it. This is the main problem that I've noticed with him, he don't hesitates on being dishonest, neither on calling Spaniards less Europeans or Latin Americans "diluted Spaniards" This is something that must be setled first, because having a productive discussion with a person that does these kind of things and tends to move goalposts is impossible. Aergas (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is the thing, I am actually providing references from scientific journals, this individual is only providing sources via blogs, that do not provide any comprehensive data, in any case. The person moving goalposts would be Aergas, he did not even know how to read even abbreviations from a real scientific journal, which I explicitly had to show him how, since his grasp of english does not go that far, and then he goes back to his circular blog source. It is a fact that southern europeans acquired heavy non-european ancestry in excess, which is reflected in genetic studies. Alon12 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do either of you have any plan to take the steps listed in WP:Dispute resolution? Should I go ahead and issue the blocks that would have justified by the original 3RR violation? You need to seek feedback from fellow content editors, and I've explained above how you can do that. But you have to want to. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- But is not a blog! Do you know what a blog is? Aergas (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, already replied in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'll just wait and see. Aergas (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The DRN was rejected because of inadequate talk page discussion. You still need to explain your views on the article talk page (so far there is nothing from you). Otherwise you're unlikely to get any help from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- A new DRN was opened today, you mean that one or the previous one? It looks as opened for me. While there hasn't been much disussion on the talk page, there has been in Alon12 talk page, seems to be enough for him to decide to open a new case. I think only the two of us discussing won't get us anywhere. Aergas (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do either of you have any plan to take the steps listed in WP:Dispute resolution? Should I go ahead and issue the blocks that would have justified by the original 3RR violation? You need to seek feedback from fellow content editors, and I've explained above how you can do that. But you have to want to. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is the thing, I am actually providing references from scientific journals, this individual is only providing sources via blogs, that do not provide any comprehensive data, in any case. The person moving goalposts would be Aergas, he did not even know how to read even abbreviations from a real scientific journal, which I explicitly had to show him how, since his grasp of english does not go that far, and then he goes back to his circular blog source. It is a fact that southern europeans acquired heavy non-european ancestry in excess, which is reflected in genetic studies. Alon12 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
With Reference To WP:ARBIPA
Thank you so much for informing me!
As I am a recent editor on Misplaced Pages, I would require your help if that is alright with you.
I have read the discretionary sanctions. Does this means that the article Sultan Bahu is now protected?
Also, I wanted to ask that after the WP:ARBIPA, can I still edit the page if I feel there is any content required or any link needed? Because although the article is 14 years old, I am the lead editor for this article for having developed it so far and I would want to continue making it better. Thank you Neyn (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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
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)
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)