Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 14 July 2011

Archives

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

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

Another Edit War

You had previously warned User talk:Hoops gza pertaining to edit warring on the Treblinka extermination camp. The user is back at the same article, reverting others edits and going against consensus. Admin action I think would be a good wake up call. The user in question has (so far) been involved in three serious edit wars on both article and category pages and has received warnings from at least two administrators. -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More copyvio at Boleto

On July 4 you resumed adding copyrighted material at Boleto. You were previously warned about this on 16 June, and you've been blocked. Please listen to what people are telling you. The next time you add such material you may be blocked for a month or longer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston,

I agree that my initial stub still had a fell lines that might be similar to the original text used as reference. Nevertheless, after being warned about copyright issues I immediately changed the entire text which then had my own words.

That would be very kind of you if you could explain to me why the last version of my text now breaches any copyrighted material.

Cheers,

Francisco luz (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for helping resolve the situation at Boleto. If you are able to, could you revdel the applicable revisions as per WP:CFRD #1? - SudoGhost™ 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You should ask someone else. I don't perceive that admins should use WP:REVDEL for run-of-the-mill copyright violations. (The policy permits it but does not require it). There has been no outing, obscenity or defamation and the text involved is rather boring. Also, deleting these edits would make it impossible to point to the bad edits during an unblock dialog, if he claims they were legit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the clarification of the ISBN stuff. With all the digits, and no hyphens, I could not see that the core numbers were the same. Perhaps the text of the article could explain this a bit more clearly. 211.225.30.91 (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I see that, in several occasions, you are actively and promptly involved in shielding Balkanic nationalism. Or Zvonko Busic is your personal hero? Are you paid for this dirty business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and new e-mail

Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm surprised this registered Corticopia sockpuppet is not blocked yet. It is very obvious it is him per WP:DUCK. Well, he's editing again with that account.

As usual, consistent edit pattern with Corticopia and his other already blocked sockpuppets in Canada, Quebec, Dominion, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Turkey, Europe (trying to impose the POV that Europe ends in the Carpatus), Eurasia, North America (trying to exclude Mexico from it), Central America, Latin America, Continent (excluding other continental models, prefer name Australia over Oceania), Americas, and geeky Battlestar Galatica-related topics.

A simple look at this account contributions and comparison with the other confirmed sockpuppets confirms edit pattern consistency.

Also, I think you might found interesting the list of contributors to the article Oceania . There's the two accounts I privately reported, Chipmunkdavis (that you still think is unrelated) and IP 76.67.18.192.

Thanks for your time reading this and for keeping Misplaced Pages a healthy place to share and contribute. I report this to you because you're familiar with Corticopia's case, his editorial behaviour, style and edit pattern. AlexCovarrubias 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we see Bosonic dressing reverting a contribution by Chipmunkdavis at Georgia (country). Since you consider both guys to be Corticopia, can you explain that? I agree that the 76.67 IP could be him, but the IP has not edited since April. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If Chipmunkdavis is/isn't Corticopia that's a second matter, I know you're still not convinced and that's ok. We can even establish Chipmunkdavis and Corticopia are not the same, however it is very clear that Bossonic Dressing is Corticopia. The edit pattern is very evident. Please take the time to check it and compare it. They practically edited the same articles and spread the same POV. As I mentioned above edit pattern is also consistent with other Corticopia sockpuppets such as E Pluribus Anthony. AlexCovarrubias 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Even strange points of view can have many adherents who don't know one another. Please don't continue this here; take it to SPI if you want. Without a pattern of abuse, I don't see any reason to take action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks Ed, I will take this to the SPI seems to be a good case. AlexCovarrubias 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

militant atheism talkpage

At it again on the article. I have not edited the article (only commenting on talkpage). Get tired of the bigoted hate being respectable free speech but religious freedom or liberties being treated as enabling evil or at least being marginalized. What should be done about valid sources using the term militant atheism and enough of them to make the term "common"? LoveMonkey (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unclear that you are being mistreated on that talk page. Someone called one of your statements a 'rant.' If there is anything worse, I would need to see diffs. You do appear to have a strong personal point of view on these topics, which you are not shy about sharing. It is OK to offer your personal views on talk pages, but there is a risk if it goes too far. (People may wonder if you are sincere about producing a neutral article). I didn't know there was a Society of the Godless in the Soviet Union. There is a lot of real material in the latter article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no not mistreated. I am only stating that some of the things that the people in the article have said are very hateful. I specifically mean people like Christopher Hitchens. As for Dawkins he might matter if he (or Hitchens for that matter) could actually win a debate about if there is or is not a God. As it stands they lost., My point is..That people can not even say that they empathize with the massive amounts of people killed or who had their civil rights violated by the atheistic regimes mentioned in the article. I makes me think of the most destructive of all mental illness, something called sociopath. It looks like its OK for the people whom don't like the article's message to try with the greatest disrespect, to that entire component of the discussion, to do so without people pointing out just how sick that is. You have as of yet, to not offer very wise and good advice to me -so here I am again. Wondering how to handle that "component" (i.e. subjects appearing to exhibit sociopathic tendencies) in a Wiki way. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Orthodox point which is not being allowed..

""-- Russian emigres who established our Church fled not socialism but godlessness, militant atheism and persecution. The people who run Venezuela today are not the Soviet state. President Chavez may be a socialist, yes. But he is not an atheist. Moreover, he openly calls himself a believer, does not persecute the Church and does not propagandize atheism. Venezuela today finds itself in a profound social crisis, and something must be done, so I lean towards sympathizing with him. It is not the Church’s lot to involve itself in politics or decide which is better, socialism or capitalism. The Savior commanded us to tend to our neighbor, to help the poor and orphaned. Christianity is not alien to the concept of social justice—unless it is harnessed to godlessness. At the same time, many of our parishioners have a justifiable mistrust of socialists, which is characteristic for ROCOR. Orthodox Christians in Latin America are very politicized, and that’s the way it always was. For instance, during Allende’s time, they fled Chile en masse."

I already posted this point in the discussion and it was made hidden by editor User:Mann jess whom also followed that up with the threat that my opinion on the talkpage is something that will prompt him to open up an ANI on my comments. THREATS Mr Johnston THREATS. People are leaving Wiki thanks to people whom are not administrator ACTING like administrators. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your material sounds like crusading. If there is a valid point under there it would need to be phrased in a way more neutral fashion. If you are offering the editorial opinion of the Orthodox church, that is tricky. It is unclear why we should allow any side to editorialize in that article. It would be better to report their views indirectly through historians. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought the article sources were doing that. Which one in the article doesn't fall into that scope? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to examine the article's content issues. Need you to supply diffs if you want to allege bad behavior on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Sorry but what does this mean? Huh? Does it mean I cannot edit any more on Balkan subjects or is not simply the case that my editing is a bit too POV? I am angry at the moment because of a certain user called User:Timbouctou who has done nothing but revert my every one edit without explaining in the summary why he/she is doing that. It would have been OK if he/she left a summary but it's all "revert this revert that". The point is this: I tried to discuss with him/her and left a message on his/her talkpage which he/she must have noticed because he/she has reverted me since. I'm confused. All I wanna know is what is the problem with the things I am saying. I have not editwarred with anyone and I am not a vandal. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Proud Serbian Chetnik. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For having my back and not putting up with any nonsense from a banned user here and here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RSS Article

Hi Ed,

The assignment of authorship of RSS 0.90 to Guhu is unreferenced and inaccurate, worse this inaccuracy has propagated to other sites that post-date the RSS article, reinforcing the inaccuracy. I was working at Netscape at the time and participated in the discussions where Dan and Guha worked out the format. Dan was a technical lead on My Netscape and drove definition of the format, with Guha providing his RDF expertise to the details.

The only documented attribution of RSS 0.90 that I can find so far is here (http://feed2.w3.org/docs/rss1.html) and states "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape as a channel description framework / content-gathering mechanism for their My Netscape Network (MNN) portal."

Dan's authorship of 0.91 is referenced and unambiguous. In your opinion, would it be better to drop the reference to both Dan and Guha's authorship of 0.90 altogether and stick to the citable statement "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape"? Or is it better to capture the true history as known by the participants?

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwporter (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find any reliable sources, then it's better to say "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape". Personal knowledge is not accepted as a source for articles, though it can be mentioned on talk pages. You might be interested in taking a look at History of web syndication technology which has more references about the early days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned user back

Hi Ed, I posted a message on AGK's page (as the admin who dealt with the AE case) but I see that he is on a wikibreak. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the issue or let me know how I should go about ensuring that the editor stops ? See User_talk:AGK#Topic banned user back. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked two ranges per WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae:

• 132.160.43.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and
• 132.160.54.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per.

If you see him using any other IPs, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He's back violating his topic ban as Lutrinae, here, here, here, and here. I think his account needs to be blocked for a while too. He is not getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a blatant case, I've issued a block and logged it in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Superluminal communication

Can I get you take a look at the recent edit back-and-forth over at Superluminal communication. I fear I'm getting into an edit war with an anon-IP (who I think decided to create a confusing username - User:FyzixFighter2 - in the middle of the dispute). I've tried to initiate discussion on the talk page but the anon-IPs aren't willing to participate. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I take back that the anon-IP hasn't participated on the talk page. Apparently, he or she just did comment on the talk page with this lovely personal attack . --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for the IP and for User:FyzixFighter2. Let's see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 13

Please see my edits in the talk/discussion section on SL. Thank you for taking part in a psychology experiment investigating censorship, the peer review process and self-anointed - self-censorship. One is reminded of how caged animals don't leave the cage when the door is left open. By the way, the IP addresses are not all linked. There have been other contributions. Bowing out for now, bigger fish to fry than the wikipedia self-anointed cognoscenti. Peace. Mmmwahh big kiss.188.29.157.237 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(Too good to waste, from the SL discussion section)

"FyzixFighter" views reports of work as worth listing. Singular reports be damned! Tenure-ship is no guarantee of freedom from crankdom and that is why there is the peer-review process. Right now, reasonably respectable professors, worldwide, have pet theories or hobbies in sci-fi writing, pigeon poisoning or cat strangling and we can only view these as eccentricities. A sad fact is that these quirks get worse with age... It is vital that a quorum is made, especially for wilder speculations. Even some hint of a respected career and high office is no measure.

May I just add, Jimmy Walsh is an Objectivist and one would do well to read Atlas Shrugged and the sections on the "State Science Institute", then take a look at the peer review process... The university system is a centralised (as in centralised planning), socialistic, monopolistic system which is self serving. Compare the Belle Epoch and the time of the Wright Brothers, Edison, Tesla and more, and compare it with today...

The edits were done in all irony to illustrate how the peer review process kills off new ideas or restricts them to a (usually state funded) clique. You are obviously keen on pushing science forward. Yes we need quality to push out cranks and to stop wasting time and money going down the wrong avenues. The removal edits on the speculative FTL, SL and NC articles illustrate how the status-quo crushes new ideas so that they get no refinement and honing by other minds. You have just taken part in the psychology of a process stultifying science and I thank you for the experiment in human nature. May you have the system and the science you deserve.

Please unlock so that a really good, relevant reference can be put in: Zbinden, H.; Gisin, N., et al, Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Nature, 2008. 454 which FyzixFighter knocked out in their petulance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can offer that reference on the article talk page and use the {{editsemiprotect}} template to get someone to take action on your request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please warn

Hello Ed. Could you please formally warn 212.199.205.69 (talk · contribs) about ARBPIA sanctions? This user is a novice, and just violated 1RR on Ariel (city) article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has given a warning. The IP has been blocked for 3RR violation on Ariel (city). EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Myanmar

I hope, I am still allowed to post about the work on the Myanmar article itself. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Editors did not give a valid reason for deleting the sourced text. The source is about pseudoscience not quackery and the text is well sourced and clearly relevant.

I tried to discuss the issues with other editors. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff.

Repeatedly editing against core Misplaced Pages policies is not a content issue, it is a conduct issue. Misplaced Pages should rely on a collaborative editing process based on Misplaced Pages policies, which does not work when editors edit against policy when they have a personal disagreement with mainstream reliable peer-reviewed sources. See WP:WEIGHT.

Per DreamGuy: "Trying to turn this into a reason to get QuackGuru blocked is frankly obscene. The content QuackGuru added could have been edited to improve it, but absolutely did not justify that total removal of the entire section through edit warring and blind reverts. That is just organized bullying and attempt to ignore all contributions by an editor. The content was sourced and valuable. It could have been improved, certainly, by streamlining it, but the end result of the actions of Lugdwigs2 and other editors has been strict kneejerk denial of editing privileges. You state that you want him blocked, and clearly that's the same practical end result as things currently stand with a gang of editors blanket removing anything he does. I have seen this kind of behavior on other articles, and that's exactly the nonsense we need to stop. You do not get to determine that an editor is not allowed to make changes of any sort. You and Ludwigs2 do not WP:OWN the article, and it seems like all you are up to is a strategy of civil POV pushing generally, with many instances of it cracking and becoming highly uncivil instead. That is also what the AE sanctions are intended to prevent."

See here.

According to User:DreamGuy is was "organised bulling". QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)