This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 13 October 2011 (Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 23.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:29, 13 October 2011 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 23.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC
Hi Ed! I just wanted to write a personal alert that I had nominated the article for FA status.
Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, Ed!
- The article has no opposes and three formidable supports, FA juggernaut Malleus Fatuorum and two experienced economists & Wikipedians (Protonk and Volunteer Marek). Protonk suggested that I renew my requests for volunteer reviewers.
- The article has a section on probability and measure theory that may especially interest you.
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Romanski1996 reported by User:Jingiby
| The editor filed this at AN3 and it was acted on there |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page: Georgi Bogdanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This User has the same editing-policy in other articles too, as for example: Marko Boshnakov, Dzole Stojchev and Katerina Trajkova Nurdzhieva Jingby (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
I think that your report about me was oppressive
| Principality of Hungary. This issue was taken to ANI, but I am not aware of any result. See archives 719, 721 and 723 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dear colegue, you warned me that my edits in the article Principality of Hungary were motivated by nationalism and than you reported it to the page of Digwuren . Firstly Iam not nationalist. Iam not emotionaly involved in this topic - Iam not Hungarian. Iam involved scholarly - I wish to make a better article and wikipedia. Iam not against the existence of the article about some kind of Hungarian early polity in 10th century. All my edits were made in good faith, I always used arguments and I communicated with User:Fakirbakir. He broken rule about http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle and reported me at ANI (according to him were my reverts and nomination of the page for deletion personal attacks) but administrators did not agree with him. On the other hand he told that Iam a nationalist - I read a plenty of Hungarian and English sources. I broken 3RR and I was blocked for a week - my mistake, I will not to do it more, it was a mistake. Please familiarize yourself with my objective reflections about the article "Principality of Hungary" () and I hope you will consider your apology to me and deletion of my report from the Digwurens page. All good. --Samofi (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
|
More Esoglou edit warring
Why is Esoglou allowed to edit war on the Ecumenical councils article and also on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff article? He put a citation request in on my contribution that there were councils before the Ecumenical councils. THATS after I listed the actual councils and even wikilinked to the wiki articles and on some of those councils and then even included dates as well. So now why would I have to source that World War I happened before World War II? Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Esoglou and Richard do this as a means to frustrate contributors. God knows Esoglou can continue and if he messes up it's oops sorry get over it but I get ANI, blocked or banned . Esoglou acts incompetent when caught violating rules and edit warring everyone should just get over it. At what point does this person's behavior and incompetence finally get called into check or are you going to continue to blame the growing list of editors that this person has racked up, frustrates and continue to allow them to edit war with their buddies against positions and facts that do not put their POV in a good light. With all the complains how is it that it is still everyone but Esoglou's fault? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now Esoglou has opened a complaint on editor Montalban More of Esoglou can do what he wants and he's just a little dense is why he messes up but God help you if you do, cause Esoglou is only selectively dense and he can figure out how to run people off of Misplaced Pages even though edit restrictions are lost on ol Esoglou. How many editor are you guys going to let him run off, or do this too? Let me guess though this is all me, right. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion. As for LoveMonkey's objection to my taking the dispute with Montalban to the noticeboard, surely it was high time to do so when discussion on the talk page had failed to stop an editor from persistently presenting a statement of his as fact by a) deleting references to reliable sources that disagreed with it, and b) misrepresenting as support for his statement a source that explicitly disagreed with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think Richard's point is already covered in the exclusion of the Church's "teaching and practice". Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion. As for LoveMonkey's objection to my taking the dispute with Montalban to the noticeboard, surely it was high time to do so when discussion on the talk page had failed to stop an editor from persistently presenting a statement of his as fact by a) deleting references to reliable sources that disagreed with it, and b) misrepresenting as support for his statement a source that explicitly disagreed with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
MediaCityUK
Can you have a look at MediaCityUK, it may need protection and maybe some blocks as both Malleus Fatuorum and Rangoon11 have breached WP:3RR on this page today and both know the rule. Mtking 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can open a complaint at WP:AN3 if you wish. I have not counted the reverts, but it seems that the WP:MOS favors Malleus' side of the argument, preferring 'England' to 'UK'. It's the question of what is the most specific geographical unit that gives the actual location of this project. It doesn't seem to be a question of which sovereign state the project is located in. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you close them then. Mtking 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have done so. Remember that the usual 3RR report expects a 3RR warning. For an experienced contributor, it might be enough if you notify them you are making the report. This gives them a chance to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you close them then. Mtking 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I need to explain what is going on. The MediaCityUK page is being edited by imposters who claim they are improving it. To me it appears they have nothing else better to do than to irritate other editors in a rude and uncivil manner that goes against Misplaced Pages:Civility. If you want to block Rangoon, then it would symbolise what is wrong with Misplaced Pages at the moment and why the site is losing contributors. I feel alienated and disillusioned. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Two of the editors working there are well-known for their writing skills and their ability to improve articles. (I assume these are the people you call 'impostors'). If you don't like the result of their work, you should negotiate the matter at Talk:MediaCityUK. If you can't reach agreement there, consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I am mystified by what the dispute is about, but perhaps you can put it into words on the talk page. One idea is to put two versions side by side on the talk page and ask for opinions as to which is better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI
FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Re:AWB notes
Just to let you know where I'm getting these numbers, from the user edit count ex.. User edit count from there go to home then in the right-hand sidebar Automated edits it's from there I use the AWB stat's, as you see you have 26. Thanx for the nod, I was wondering if the stats help and I was under the impression I was accurate. Mlpearc powwow 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- More accurately, I have *no* edits under AWB. See this toolserver link. But it's fun to see the different ways one may try to find the answer. (AWB is also a company in Australia, and one time I referred to that AWB in the edit summary). One edit I can't explain. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
203.129.23.146
I think it's time to harden (by either talk page access removal and/or block extension) the block for this IP. See this, this, and this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If he's only abusing admins as a group, let him vent. Since he won't file a proper unblock template, most likely he'll get no further response (unless you provide it). He's also making it less likely he'll ever be unblocked. I suggest you unwatch his page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, tpa rmvd by another admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Climate Change Guide
I've unblocked him. Thanks for the heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a question
Hi EdJohnston, I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. I have been told long ago by an editor that if one editor makes an edit on an article with notable sources and another editor disagrees with that editor and the notable source cited and consider it npov, the other editor should not delete the edit and sources of the first editor but instead should make their case underneath with another notable source backing up their case. Apparently this is the protocol on Wiki. Is this correct? I have always kept to this policy and it is quite strange when I don't see others doing it as well. Have I been poorly advised or something? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't mentioned the name of any article for me to review. I do notice one diplomatic comment that you made recently. Thank you for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is Halaqah again. See here . This is just one of many. They have also resulted to placing tags without discussing see and and here see bottom in particular as they seem to be confusing themselves about the notability on an author. Instead of justifying why they have placed the tag in the article in the first place when questioned and asked to provide sources, they speedily removed the tag they have placed without even commenting as in here . It begs the question why put the tag in the first place then? They have also resulted in placing numerous tags at the end or middle of numerous sentences such as "dubious"; "or"; "who" etc on the Medieval history of the Serer people as you can see for yourself here . The "who" tag in particular was the biggest shocker because it was very apparent that section was talking about Abu Bakr the 11th century Almoravid. This person is not going to stop what they are doing to Serer related articles in fact, in their own words they "will be back". They even said in the Senegal talk page - the Almoravids didn't bring Islam in the Senegambia without any source when in fact, all notable sources proved otherwise, and in the Serer people article, they provide a source (Asante) which actually proved that it was in fact the Almoravids who brought Islam through wars. If this wasn't serious it would be funny. Lest not beat about the bush, lest call call a spade a spade. The edit evidence is to paint a postive light about Islam and the Serer people's history of strong resistance against Islamisation for nearly a thousand years as backed up by the notable authors in the relevant articles and sections. Sources demonstrating that including the long and bitter wars between Serer religion and Islam religion have been deleted and a more pro Islam edit added. Serer related articles are now a joke and I haven't got the energy nor the time to resolve this person's edits. I have learned my lesson from the last time and will never again make a complaint against this editor. As you can see there is a greater issue going on but I just needed to know specifically whether the advise I was previously given was correct and what are my options (excluding making a complaint).
- ThanksTamsier (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The location of this dispute seems to be Serer people. You are participating at Talk:Serer people which is good. Extremely long posts make it hard to see what people are disagreeing about. Consider going one step at a time and see if you can get agreement on one small section. For instance, offer two alternatives on the talk page for a particular section and see how many people support each version. See WP:Dispute resolution for other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Tamsier (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Need your opinion here as an uninvolved member
Hi Ed, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Atabey again
Hi Ed, Please note the following comment by Atabey . It is directly inflammatory against Kurdo777 where he is generalizing about a country. The comment is actually meant to be inflammatory in a discrete way. He has been warned numerous times and I believe it is time for him to be banned fully from all AA (widely construed to include Iran, Turkey , Caucasus). I am not sure how long Misplaced Pages is going to tolerate such behaviour. I believe since you have had experience with this, you can take care of this without me reporting him to the current Arbcomm. Recall here: . Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is bad accusation. I just said that WP:RS sources exist mentioning those flags (in response to Atabe's comment to Kurdo777). Howevr, Atabek's comment to Kurdo777 above was inflammatory. As per Arbcomm, it has not been declined or accepted yet. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
errant charges
and appear to me to be rather improper edits by "Count Iblis" and "Russavia." The latter seems oblivious to any thought of acknowledging any misdeeds, and the former seems quite encouraged by such acts <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unlikely that anything we say will influence their thinking one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
[[The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)
Hello, Can you please unprotect The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song) because it officially charted at number 87 in Australia Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk) WP:SONGS, but now it has officially charted in Australia. Nobody ever said that it's not a single, it is a single, go see the revision history on the page, the only reason it kept getting redirected to it's parent album, is because it didn't chart at the time, but now it has officially charted in Australia and in New Zealand, and has been announced via numerous sources that it's the sixth single from Teenage Dream and it deserves its own page. Here are some sources: Katy Perry's official website announces it as a single Billboard.com announces it as a single.
The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)
Please unprotect the page. It has now entered the New Zealand official singles chart, so it's automatically encyclopedic; it's been released on 28th September btw source ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Make this proposal at a suitable talk page. For instance at Talk:Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album)#Anyone working on page for The One That Got Away? See if the others agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: Katy Perry song protection
The release as a single (as you said at my talkpage) is not a justification for creation, but the charts are, and now it charted. The problem now is that Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk · contribs) made a copy-pasted move to The One That Got Away (song). The One That Got Away (song) has to be redirected to The One That Got Away because there are two other songs called "The One That Got Away", if you could do a history merge that would be great. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It will be at least six hours until I can look into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your redirect takes care of it no merge appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Enforcement=
Ed, You have been involved with this case before: and put the last enforcement. Please see the request for enforcement . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"Indefinite" Topic Ban Regarding Longevity
EdJohnston,
I have put out an unofficial request for comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryoung122#Longevity-Related_Issues
regarding when/if I my topic-ban regarding the subject of longevity should be lifted. I do think the punishment was a bit harsh (in particular, the "broadly interpreted" comment). I think, for example, one should at least be allowed to make talk-page comments, if not edit the main article, when appropriate.
I also think that "indefinitely" could be better or worse than "one year." David in DC had indicated to me privately that "one year and one day" was too harsh. So, I'd like to hear your opinion. If the responses are positive, then we can discuss the next step.Ryoung122 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Essay on AE
I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)