User talk:EdJohnston

Question from BMK

Ed: I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I know that I am the sanctioned editor, and not Robsinden, because I was the one to break 3RR, but he was the other side of the edit war, so it seems a bit unfair, especially since other editors expressed the opinion that no solo navboxes should have their collapse state changed until a community consensus was determined. I fully understand that you have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about this, but I did want you to be aware of it. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if he's made any other similar edits because I have not looked at his contrib list and don't plan to. This one simply popped up on my watch list. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about the edit warring complaint. You've asked about a particular edit by Robsinden which uncollapsed a template. When the Template:Frank Perry was first added to The Swimmer (1968 film) in this edit in 2009 it was in the expanded (uncollapsed) state. Since then you've tried to collapse it a number of times for instance here but each time it's been uncollapsed by others. The Frank Perry template is only three lines so it's not easy to see the benefit of collapsing that one. You've agreed not to change any collapse states for two weeks (that is, until Feb. 11) but you could continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. My review of that thread suggests there is little support for collapsing. Unless you can think of some really good arguments it might be best for you to follow the project's wishes and let the issue go. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned Changes to UST Global

Hello Ed. I hope my note finds you doing well. For quite a while after your last intervention, the employees at UST Global kept the site without changes regarding who founded the company. As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.

We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've renewed the semiprotection. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film). Since you had some involvement with the Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UBStalk 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Lowering of Protection

Can you take a look at Lowering or Protection Celtic F.C. Thanks.Blethering Scot 12:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Diners Club International

Hi Ed. I've started putting together some first-draft content to expand/improve/correct this article in hopes of eventually bringing it up to the GA mark (long ways to go atm). You commented previously on another discussion string, so I wanted to let you know I also just posted some more information and content regarding their origins (also considered to be the origins of the credit card industry by historians). I also pinged user:Pine, who I think is a WikiProject finance member and who I pinged previously. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I blocked?

Hi Ed! My topic ban has been lifted recently, but I find I cannot edit the Prem Rawat talk page beyond the preview level. Am I also still blocked somehow? Seems I can edit the PR page, but not the talk page. Yet I would prefer discussing new edits before I make them. Can you help, please?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. There was an unclosed template at Talk:Prem Rawat that made new posts appear to be HTML comments. Try again now. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it's fine now.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources in-place

You protected the article with self-published sources in-place https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594148542&oldid=594086880 Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. If you see any other changes justifiable under WP:PROTECT, let me know or use the {{editprotect}} template. Please note that I've left a warning at User talk:Startropic1 about personal attacks and it applies to you as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U Quackguru, again

Hi EdJohnston! You participated in an RFC/U concerning User:QuackGuru in 2011. There is a new RFC/U on for the same user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, and your input would be welcome. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please double-check; I didn't participate in the 2011 RFCU. I did issue a topic ban to this editor in 2011. Regarding the ongoing GERAC dispute, I have wondered why a compromise couldn't be worked out. Looking at Talk:GERAC it does not seem that anyone has tried opening a regular RfC to settle the content issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I did start a RfC. See Talk:GERAC#RfC:_What_level_of_detail_should_be_included_in_German_acupuncture_trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quackguru, thanks for your comment. I now see that a content RfC has been opened about German Acupuncture Trials and it is already listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It seems reasonable to wait for that closure before opening an RFCU about User:QuackGuru. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors prefer less detail according to the RfC IMO.[1][2][3][4] It was previously explained, for the set-up a summary was better. User:Mallexikon previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but he tried to restore the details about the set-up against consensus. After reading this comment at the talk page, for balance and readability I added this information to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mallexikon previously said We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well. It is fairly obvious I do not oppose limiting the information about the results. I prefer less detail about the results and so do a lot of other editors. Another said As to GERAC, the concern there (and in fact other editors raised the coat rack issue more than I did at the AfD) was the picking out of impressive-sounding details from the primaries to construct a coat rack of undue details: something which is still happening (but not for long?). Again, I've said my piece on this but decided to let it run because - nobody reads that article. Howick is good secondary commentary on GERAC and I think you misrepresent him by saying he dismisses sham controls. He does however say they are unlikely to have been useful for GERAC, as WP relates. I've been looking at his work more widely and his schtick seems to be that conducting effective trials (of any kind) is really hard in general. For GERAC Ernst, of course, also says the placebo methods used were problematic. There were problems with the article discussed at the AFD and on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quackguru, if you have not already made these points in the RfC you might consider doing so. And you could make a section called 'Proposed closure' (with very brief text) which might assist any admin who feels like closing the RfC. Of course the other side could make their own proposed closure if they disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The content RfC has now been closed by User:Gaijin42. I hope this settles the issue and that the GERAC article can be revised appropriately. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint, Music for Millions

well, apparently I'm too stupid for Wiki. The "Diff of edit warring" above says "link", I placed toccata's name thinking it would link to them. Apparently, it wasn't. Yes, I made three reverts as I have received no details as to what Toccata quarta hasn't given me any details of their revert. Asking questions gets me a warning. I stated on my complaint that I wasn't sure I was submitting correctly.Unbelievable.Zabadu (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If the other person doesn't respond it doesn't give you a personal licence to revert. There are ways of bringing in more people via the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Zabadu, I removed your comment from WP:AN3 that included an opening HTML comment bracket and no closing bracket. Try again if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is all too ridiculous for words. If someone wants less of a plot, so be it. And Wiki wonders why supporters are few and critics are high. All I asked for was an explanation. What I get is a pissing contest. And you all stick together in your silence.Zabadu (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Acid Mothers Temple discography

Would you be so kind as to comment on Acid Mothers Temple discography#Discography? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yemen

Hello, i was recently blocked for edit warring [5]. I am currently engaged in debate in Talk:Yemen here and here. An edit was reverted today without providing a counter argument, and the editor concluded that i "have failed to receive census". It happened the same day i got blocked for reverting the same exact edit. What should i do now? if i reverted the edit it will be considered an edit warring. How do i get a third party to monitor the discussion? Thank you --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So far, at Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture, it doesn't appear that anybody supports the edits you want to make. You want to use the work about the Queen of Sheba by Deborah Coulter-Harris. She appears to be an associate lecturer in the Department of English at the University of Toledo, not a historian. You should not go further in changing the article until you can get a consensus. One way you can try to find people to support you is to open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

okay .. i will cite historians --يوسف حسين (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The other editor did not respond to the discussion Talk:yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba. I added new sources but he did not respond. Should i go ahead and make the edit? as for this Talk:Yemen#Najahid it seems the discussion have reached a dead end. The editor is basically disregarding every source i bring and interpret texts to fit his notion. I do not know how to use the RFC template. --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I can help you create an RFC, but you need to propose a neutrally-worded sentence saying what change you want to make. Do you want to add:

"Yemen was home of the Sabaeans (biblical Sheba), a trading state that flourished for over a thousand years".

You can propose this in the RfC, but people who have commented so far are unlikely to support that. You would be hoping that the listing of the RfC would bring in more contributors who might agree with you. It sounds like the current contributors want everything to be extremely well-sourced to respected scholarship, and they don't want anything said beyond what is known for sure. E.g. they doubt that we know the exact location of the Sabaeans. You have been writing at excessive length and this discourages dialog. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is the sentence i want to use. I did not mean to write at excessive length i was simply citing different authors, There is a language gap here and i think i cannot get my point reached in short sentences. i highly doubt that they are looking for extremely well sourcesed respected scholarly works, user acid snow and the others did not respond to the quotes i provided. I do not understand, is there a problem with the references i provided here? All of them except one are archaeologists and one of them is a historian. --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you intend to contribute to the old history of Yemen you need to have the skills needed, especially in English. These are complex scholarly topics. It also helps if you have access to the full text of reference works, and are not just Googling for snippets. The others appear to be so disappointed by your work that they are losing interest in responding to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

[6] is typical now. Cheers. I am gone. Collect (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the last IP change and imposed semiprotection per WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find a slew of similar edits from the "homophobia/censorship" contingent on a substantial number of BLPs. Cheers -- it is in your lap now. Collect (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

[7] another -- as I said, the floodgates are open fully. Collect (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) [8] as well. And you should examine the Justin Bieber article as well if you wish to see a BLP disaster. Collect (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have watchlisted a few of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Re- Your opinion?

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.Gareth Griffith-Jones – 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics

User:Cityinfonorns continues his edit warring on the 2014 Winter Olympics article, he got blocked for (as reported here at the 3RR noticeboard) → User talk:Cityinfonorns:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

--IIIraute ([[User talk:IIIraute|talk]) 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

at Talk [12] revert to consensus version IIIraute don't stop edit warring--Cityinfonorns (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cityinfonorns, you are still fighting to restore your preferred map to show the location of Sochi. This was the issue in the 3RR case. You should try to get a clear consensus on the talk page. The next time you revert the map you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

at Talk [13] a clear consensus version IIIraute is still fighting to restore preferred map--Cityinfonorns (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that you still have a 2 vs. 2 tie on which map is the best. Why not pursue the talk discussion to a clear verdict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added the other map as a compromise settlement → [14]. --IIIraute (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A new account with a very similar editing pattern has appeared → User talk:Nwbocploumouic:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

--IIIraute (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)