| Revision as of 20:33, 3 July 2017 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Content deletion without an edit summary: Clarified← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:39, 3 July 2017 edit undoChilicheese22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users641 edits →Yemeni Civil WarNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| ::Why not make a new request if you think you see some bad IP edits. No IPs have touched the article since June 11. Consider the steps of ] for dealing with the dispute which is happening at ]. One option is opening a ]. Questions about the usability of particular sources can be asked at the ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC) | ::Why not make a new request if you think you see some bad IP edits. No IPs have touched the article since June 11. Consider the steps of ] for dealing with the dispute which is happening at ]. One option is opening a ]. Questions about the usability of particular sources can be asked at the ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Thank you, I appreciate that you got back to me and fixed the title of discussion on the talk page as I was a bit insulted and tried to fix it previously but as you can see from the edit history he kept on reverting it back, hopefully he keeps it the way you have just edited it. I have also taken the situation with user:contravenum to as one of the other administrators had recommended me to do on the article's talk page and I am hoping that you could give your opinion or insight on who you thought overstepped their boundaries to help reach a verdict. Appreciate all you help ] (]) 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC) | ::: Thank you, I appreciate that you got back to me and fixed the title of discussion on the talk page as I was a bit insulted and tried to fix it previously but as you can see from the edit history he kept on reverting it back, hopefully he keeps it the way you have just edited it. I have also taken the situation with user:contravenum to as one of the other administrators had recommended me to do on the article's talk page and I am hoping that you could give your opinion or insight on who you thought overstepped their boundaries to help reach a verdict. Appreciate all you help ] (]) 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::: {{ping|EdJohnston}} I appreciate that you blocked him but this is his second block of 48 hours in a span of only days. An you are telling me that by him insulting me and using derogatory terms only warrants a 48 hours when he has clearly said that he doesn't care if he gets banned. {{diff|diff=788857864|oldid=788857716}} | |||
| == Your decline of a BLP-prod on ] == | == Your decline of a BLP-prod on ] == | ||
Revision as of 22:39, 3 July 2017
Banned User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks seems to be back using IP this time
Hi EdJohnston,
Hope you are doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I think that blocked User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks seems to be back using IP this time around on the Irreligion page. There is some edit warring going on right now with me and User:Toddy1. The editing is the same behavior as User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks in trying to change Germany's numbers on demographics using the same survey WIN/Gallup and ignoring the others that show different values (see talk page for the Irreligion page to refresh on the behavior). Considering that this is the third time this page has been edit warred by the same editor, perhaps you can protect that page and block the IP address to prevent the same editor from editing. Thanks!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Page semiprotected three months. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked Special:Contributions/77.71.210.138 for one month since it is based in Malta, like the other IP that was mentioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder, Special:Contributions/217.71.190.138. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks EdJohnston. I really appreciate the help. I tried to make this as simple as possible for you to decide on what to do since you are probably very busy. Hope you have a great day!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks EdJohnston. I really appreciate the help. I tried to make this as simple as possible for you to decide on what to do since you are probably very busy. Hope you have a great day!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked Special:Contributions/77.71.210.138 for one month since it is based in Malta, like the other IP that was mentioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder, Special:Contributions/217.71.190.138. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Birmingham Airport
Thanks for stepping in and giving an opinion Pmbma (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It keeps on going and going and going...
A few days ago you blocked User talk:128Sugarloaf for edit warring at Janesville, Wisconsin, following a report at WP:AN3RR on his behavior. Today he's back again, making the same poorly sourced, ungrammatical, redundant edit to the article. Based on the wall of text on his talk page, it seems as though he's going to continue to be doggedly persistent about his addition to the article. Any suggestions? 32.218.47.36 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Do you believe he is adding unsourced information? If so, could you provide a diff? The edit you link to just shows him adding per-capita income and saying it comes from the Census. Though if there is an actual source for the $25,461 number I am not seeing it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- (1.) "The census" isn't really a source. The link he provides just goes to a census bureau homepage, not to any data.
- (2.) Data on income is already in the article, in the previous paragraph.
- (3.) He removed the reliably sourced info on mean household income, for no good reason (perhaps because it doesn't support his POV?).
- (4.) Poverty data is meaningless without a basis for comparison. 15% in poverty?? So what does that mean? Is that high? Low? Average?
- It's just overall a meaningless edit that he insists is necessary. This is the epitome of mindless edit warring. 32.218.47.36 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Question
What does it mean "Even if you are right" at Madreterra talk page? Are you trying to tell that my edits are vandalism and he has a right? NeonFor (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- The point is 'even if he believes he is right'. Sanctions may be given out for edit warring regardless of who is right, with a few exceptions as listed in WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- So the lead section should be restored to the form before user Madreterra made his changes. We should not change it without discuss the topic right? NeonFor (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I belive you don't even try to think that copy+paste some of Misplaced Pages rules answered my question? Some guy came, changed what was written there since the beginning of Misplaced Pages existence and now there some 'sanctions' if someone try to change it? So let me ask you a perfectly logical question: where are the sanctions for the user who changed all the sudden the content of this lead section? I do understand that his changes also should reverted and then we can start a discussion on the talk page NeonFor (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you revert again you are risking a block. Admins do not act as deciders of content questions; this is up to regular editors. Take a look at Talk:Poland/Archive 7 and search for the word 'central'. In particular, notice Talk:Poland/Archive 7#RfC: Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"?. The prior RfC's ruling still stands: "Until or unless decided elsewhere, "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be used interchangeably to describe Poland." (found at Talk:Poland/Archive 6#RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe). EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I belive you don't even try to think that copy+paste some of Misplaced Pages rules answered my question? Some guy came, changed what was written there since the beginning of Misplaced Pages existence and now there some 'sanctions' if someone try to change it? So let me ask you a perfectly logical question: where are the sanctions for the user who changed all the sudden the content of this lead section? I do understand that his changes also should reverted and then we can start a discussion on the talk page NeonFor (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- So the lead section should be restored to the form before user Madreterra made his changes. We should not change it without discuss the topic right? NeonFor (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Help
Fixed
Hi EdJohnston, I see you're currently active in my watchlist, could you please delete Talk:Roblox/Archive 1 to make room to move User talk:Briguy9876/Roblox/Archive out of user space and to Talk:Roblox/Archive 1, there are other archive pages for this article that need adjusting, I'd appreciate your help so I can complete this task. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, not sure User talk:Briguy9876/Roblox/Archive is actually archives of the article, looking further. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanx for the pastebin :P - FlightTime (open channel) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let me know if anything more needs to be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanx, I think I figured it out :) - FlightTime (open channel) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yemeni Civil War
Hi EdJohnston (talk · contribs) it is a pleasure speaking with you again. I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Yemeni Civil War article's semi protection has finished and was wondering if you could reinstate it on a more permanent basis like the one on the Syrian Civil War as I thing it did a good job in preventing sock puppets and encouraging editors to make edits without facing backlash from other users. Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey again, I don't want to seem persistent or anything, but just wanted to know whether your would be pp the article or not? Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why not make a new request if you think you see some bad IP edits. No IPs have touched the article since June 11. Consider the steps of WP:DR for dealing with the dispute which is happening at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything. One option is opening a WP:Request for comment. Questions about the usability of particular sources can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate that you got back to me and fixed the title of discussion on the talk page as I was a bit insulted and tried to fix it previously but as you can see from the edit history he kept on reverting it back, hopefully he keeps it the way you have just edited it. I have also taken the situation with user:contravenum to incidents as one of the other administrators had recommended me to do on the article's talk page and I am hoping that you could give your opinion or insight on who you thought overstepped their boundaries to help reach a verdict. Appreciate all you help Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why not make a new request if you think you see some bad IP edits. No IPs have touched the article since June 11. Consider the steps of WP:DR for dealing with the dispute which is happening at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything. One option is opening a WP:Request for comment. Questions about the usability of particular sources can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I appreciate that you blocked him but this is his second block of 48 hours in a span of only days. An you are telling me that by him insulting me and using derogatory terms only warrants a 48 hours when he has clearly said that he doesn't care if he gets banned.
Your decline of a BLP-prod on Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti
Hello. When cleaning up the article I noticed this edit on the article, where you declined a BLP-prod because of the subject being deceased. Which was a mistake, although a mistake that was easy to make considering the sorry state of the article at that time, since the article is about a grandson, and claimed successor, to the man who is deceased, Akbar Bugti. And the grandson isn't, IMHO, notable enough to have a stand-alone article, and possibly not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article about his grandfather. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, the subject is not deceased. I found more info at this link to pakistanleaders.com but I don't know if it is reliable. The Bugti tribe is clearly notable, and if he is the current leader that might incline us toward having an article. In a 2008 article about the insurgent parties in Balochistan the Bugti tribe is mentioned but Aali himself is not. Do you think the article at present qualifies for BLPPROD? Would you have an interest in trying to find sources yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I made a search on Google, but it returned only the usual Youtube-videos, Facebook-pages and blogs, not a single reliable source independent of the subject (Pakistanileaders is a user-generated site, and not RS), so since notablility isn't inherited he's clearly not notable by our standards, and ought to be sent to AfD, unless the article creator, or whoever is interested in it, comes up with a few reliable sources within the next week or two... - Tom | Thomas.W 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that the article creator (Zardar123) restored the prod-tag after I had removed the noise from the article to make the signal readable, probably because of being a more experienced editor than their short career (the account was created last January and has made 102 edits) indicates (i.e. socking), and knowing that it's easier to recreate an article that has been prodded, than an article that has been deleted at AfD... - Tom | Thomas.W 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Given that Aali's leadership of the Bugti tribe could not be easily confirmed, and that his sourced notability seems to come only from having a well-known grandfather (Nawab Akbar Bugti), I went ahead and nominated the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti. Incidentally User:Zardari123 has been moving some articles to add 'Nawab' in front of many people's names. This appears to go against MOS:HONORIFIC. Instead of 'Nawab John Smith' we should just have 'John Smith'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- The "Nawab-moves" have been reverted now. - Tom | Thomas.W 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Given that Aali's leadership of the Bugti tribe could not be easily confirmed, and that his sourced notability seems to come only from having a well-known grandfather (Nawab Akbar Bugti), I went ahead and nominated the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti. Incidentally User:Zardari123 has been moving some articles to add 'Nawab' in front of many people's names. This appears to go against MOS:HONORIFIC. Instead of 'Nawab John Smith' we should just have 'John Smith'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Futurepilot1999's warring across a number of articles
- Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello there, EdJohnston. Please note that Futurepilot1999 keeps warring across a number of airport articles. Thank you.--Jetstreamer 13:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I have been editting articles - namely Ryanair's various routes from Frankfurt. I have been using the Ryanair website to help me with this. The show up to date schedule information for the airline. I have sourced this where this hasn't already been sourced. However for whatever reason, Jetstreamer seems determined to keep reverting my edits saying "the Ryanair website isn't a good enough source" etc etc. It's clear to me here who is edit warring and disrupting Misplaced Pages more! Futurepilot1999 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I never said that, another user did. I won't continue discussing this with you, let alone here. I already explained my reasoning at your talk page and you remove my message. An administrator will take care of this, if anything at all has to be overseen.--Jetstreamer 13:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Content deletion without an edit summary
Hello.
How do you do, Ed?
I must admin, you dropped a bombshell on me. You wrote: Codename Lisa's claim that "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" is not found in our policy.
That's impossible! I saw it in a policy page four years ago and had been using it in presence of various admins. You are the first to contest it. I will try to trace this policy, but maybe this one of the time when it was removed from its policy page and, unsurprisingly, I was not alerted to its removal.
Of course, I argue that we do treat content removal by IP editor without an edit summary as vandalism and treat that IP editor with various messaging templates. That's de facto. Length of the remove content does not seem to be an issue either.
Now, please cast your mind back: Are you sure "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" has never been a policy?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oops. To simplify matters, I struck out the sentence in my closure that commented on your statement. Removal of text is vandalism if it is intended to damage the article, but the policy has nuances that I don't want to investigate now. The IP did leave edit summaries most of the time, but his logic was hard to follow. One of those cases where the talk page would have been best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)