Misplaced Pages

User talk:EdJohnston

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Duilius (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 29 May 2018 (→About Miss Universe 2018 edit war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:18, 29 May 2018 by Alex Duilius (talk | contribs) (→About Miss Universe 2018 edit war)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


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

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

Needtobreathe - Protected Page

Hi Ed, Mike here. You recently stepped in on the long-running dispute that appeared on the band page for NeedtoBreathe. Your protection extends to June, yet the user who has misused edits with multiple instances of sock puppetry, has updated the page to his preferred genre preference with the note: per discussion on talk page. In further exploration of the talk page, no conclusion was drawn to support his approval to make this change. The previous revision held per your protection was supported with a reliable source and citation. Will you take another look into this? Would appreciate your eyes on this and offer your expertise on if this persistency is valid. MikeJonesJones (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The genre change to Christian rock was made by User:Walter Görlitz, who says 'per discussion on talk page'. If you disagree with this genre you should make your arguments on the article talk. There is currently a section at Talk:Needtobreathe#Christian rock 2. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's ridiculous how often you and others have given WG a free pass when he clearly violates edit warring, not getting consensus, disruptions. manic reverts, article ownership, harassment, vandalism, not discussing topics on talk pages, not following your own advice to stay off articles, sock puppetry, etc. History shows clear disregard for rules yet he doesn't get warned or blocked. That sets a bad example and causes Wikpedia to lose all credibility. Instead, your solution is to block IPs. That doesn't remedy his bad behavior. Tsk tsk! 2600:1702:1690:E10:2DEA:E2A9:22CC:5BCF (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Mr IP, the thread at Talk:Needtobreathe#Christian rock 2 is waiting for your comments. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus

Hi there. It seems that User:Visnu92 is continuing his addition of Tamil scripts in other Malaysian-related articles, such as at the Church of the Immaculate Conception and the Goddess of Mercy Temple articles. Not only were the edits done without consensus, the Tamil scripts did not make any sense at all. For example, why would a Chinese temple need a Tamil script if it bears no significance at all to the Tamil community? These edits are a repetition of his past disruptive edits, which to an edit war some time ago; I highlighted this issue to you at the time as well. Hope you could look into this, as he has violated our dispute resolution without initiating any discussion. Thanks. Vnonymous (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that both users are involved in this edit war and zero attempt has been made to discuss this. Please see discussion on ANI. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is now being discussed at WP:ANI#Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus, where I have left a comment. The use of Indian scripts in articles has been discussed elsewhere, for example in Bollywood films. I don't recall where I saw the prior thread. If memory serves there is a guideline for those films. This might not have applicability to Malaysian temples, but it would show what arguments have been given elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I just came across the Indic script discussion: See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and a 2017 RfC about usage of Indic script in infoboxes. You would need to check if either of these would apply to temples in Malaysia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

The user whose edit I reversed has never previously edited the article and they reversed multiple edits of mine without explanation. Why is that considered acceptable but my revert is not? I did post on the talk page as you said. Does it mean even if another person edits the article, I will have to get consensus before I can reverse it regardless of the edit? Take a lot at the initial edit I made, the first source says Borama, Somalia in the footnote however it's changed to Borama, Somaliland on 31 January 2016. Many of the articles I've reverted are similar in nature. Regards. EELagoon (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is, not to look into the history, but what to do going forward. You are capable of abstaining from further edits that lack talk page consensus. That's what you should do. If you will agree to stop making these edits you may be able to avoid a block. If the other person is behaving as badly as you say that will quickly become evident. It is not up to you to restore order single-handed. I will notify User:Linkjan2014 that they are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Linkjan2014 and User:Ciiseciise007 have already been blocked before and have a history of disruptive editing and they are employing the same tactics again. It's a privilege to edit the pages and I should be allowed to continue to do so. None of them have tried engaging in the talk page yet I am the one being told to abstain from editing, I mainly edit Wikiproject Somalia so what edits do I need to stop because a lot of Somalia pages can be characterized as lacking consensus? For instance if a user including those mentioned were to undo an edit I made and I reverted it again, would I be blocked for edit warring regardless of the context? EELagoon (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's my intention. If you revert again without a talk page consensus you may be blocked. You can only control your own behavior, not that of others. If you make a serious effort at WP:Dispute resolution, that is bound to pull in other people. What those other people may say in the discussion will reveal their intentions and tell us something about their neutrality. If you participate with good intentions it will reflect well on you, and set a standard that others may be expected to live up to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston going forward I will attempt to build consensus for my edits. I reverted EELagoon's edits because this user was using a source from 2005 for population and also he was editing territories in defacto Somaliland to Somalia when it is clear to any impartial observer that these territories are administered by defacto Somaliland. It seemed to be very biased edits, as populations of cities were drastically decreased, and control of airports, ports and cities and towns which were clearly controlled by Somaliland were falsely represented as Somalia. There was also no consistency in this users edits, not all towns were edited, only those inhabited by certain clans were affected, leading me to believe there was tribal motivation behind this users edits.

Nevertheless, I promise to stop the edit warring on my side. My last block was a misunderstanding of the rules on my part, you'll note I was unblocked within 24 hours. I think my edits show that I have contributed a lot in my stay on Misplaced Pages, and I hope I can continue to do so. I don't think the ban should be reinstated as I immediately heeded your warning and stopped the edit warring. I await and will accept your decision either way. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move for Chandrakanta and brahmarakshas Shastri Sisters

Ok thanks but are you going to still rename it or stay VarunKhurana326 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

After seven days an uninvolved person will close the move discussion at Talk:Shastri Sisters#requested move 21 May. That will decide the question. Your arguments are so wide of the mark, it suggests to me that you should wait for more Misplaced Pages experience before you propose new article titles. You don't seem to understand the answers that the others are giving you in the move discussion. So you are just likely to end up frustrated, rather than having a worthwhile accomplishment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok so they will close the discussion by this Sunday then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How to become an administrator

I just wanted to add another thing how can I become an administrator for Misplaced Pages VarunKhurana326 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN. But my own suggestion would be you should consider working at another Misplaced Pages such as the Hindi Misplaced Pages. Due to the topics you have been working on my guess is that you already know Hindi. If you can't understand what others are saying in English-language discussions that will present an obstacle to your work here. Your move log looks erratic and suggests to me you should not be doing these moves. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No I think you got it all wrong I don't know Hindi. My language I speak at home is English and my other language is Punjabi. I'm just saying that I used to watch tnese shows with english subtitles and just saying it is more professional. Don't get rude or anything because I have not had an arguements with any other user I was just voicing out what is right. Thanks once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Admins need to be able to tell if the problems you are having will come to an end soon. (We are protecting not just you, but others who will need to work with you in the future). If English isn't a problem for you, would you consider reading through WP:COMMONNAME and see if that page answers any of the questions you have been having at Talk:Shastri Sisters#requested move 21 May? If so, think about whether you would like to withdraw your move proposal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No thank you I don't want to withdraw I just wanted to change the names to it's full names because it says it right there on it's article Shastri Sisters — Chaar Dil Ek Dhadkan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't I be able to move the article name my self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have read though the policy thanks but I'm not withdrawing though still— Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunKhurana326: Then please apply that policy (not your personal preference) when discussing article titles. For example Oliver Twist is not located at the full title of the novel. --NeilN 19:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Then you are insisting on pursuing the move even though you have been advised by multiple experienced editors that the move would violate a Misplaced Pages policy, a policy you have read, without being able to offer a specific reason why the policy doesn't or shouldn't apply to this article? Candidly, that doesn't sound like admin material to me. General Ization 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing it thanks I'm not being rude saying it nicely Why are you all getting rude for (by the way its not an arguement— Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think that comment is "rude", you are not at all prepared for the process of a formal RfA. General Ization 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok what do you want me to do then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunKhurana326: Sign your posts. You've been given instructions on how to do so. If you can't follow them, then I will take it as meaning you won't or can't follow simple community norms. 2) The more WP:IDHT behavior you display, the more blunt responses will become. --NeilN 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I am withdrawing it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh and what about VJ Andy other vj's ie Bani J has its full name article Gurbani Judge. I wanted to rename it to VJ Andy. Can you give me advice or help for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume you meant that you wanted to rename the article to Anand Vijay Kumar, since that is the (unsourced) full name appearing at the article. There are five citations at VJ Andy. None of them refer to the subject as "Anand Vijay Kumar" (in fact, none of them support that being his full name) or even "Andy Kumar"; all refer to him as "VJ Andy". That means that (unless you have multiple other sources to cite to show otherwise) "VJ Andy" is very likely the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and hence that is the name that will be used here. General Ization 20:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Found a source http://www.tellychakkar.com/fun-zone/did-you-know/did-you-know-about-bigg-boss-contestant-vj-andys-real-name. This might help — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. In fact, that source makes it pretty obvious he is professionally and best known as VJ Andy, and not by his birth name (otherwise, the article you cited would be pointless). And one citation does not overcome five that refer to him only by the name currently in use as the article title. (However, it might indeed serve to source the mention of his birth name in the article.) General Ization 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(Apologies to Ed for spamming his Talk page.) General Ization 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WTF?

Ever since you came on Tolkien Family I can't make any more changes. I was trying to remove that pointless movie called Tontine Massacre from Royd Tolkien. Did you lock me out? TolkienLover1 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Why not propose your change at Talk:Tolkien family and see if others agree? Since you are autoconfirmed you should be able to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If I could do it, I would have by now. All I get is view source instead of the edit button. And what rule says I should take your agreement? I will not. It's just an unknown film. TolkienLover1 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You tried to post at Talk:Tolkien family and weren't able to? That would be surprising. See WP:CONSENSUS for how to resolve disagreements. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about the article. Jeez! TolkienLover1 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you succeeded in editing the article. But if you continue to revert the article without trying to discuss your change on the article talk page, you are risking a block. You have now removed mention of the film three times and each time someone else has undone your removal. You yourself have never used an edit summary or posted to the article talk page. Your explanation here was 'pointless movie' and 'unknown film'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Vignette (road tax)

Thanks a lot for your IP hopping comment. I can't help that my ISP changes my IP address every 24 hours. I never tried to hide that I'm the same person. You'll see that when my first IP number changed I wrote here that it changed so that people don't assume I'm trying to pose as multiple people. 86... was someone else.

Also, obviously it's not your job but if you would can you please explain why is my addition here WP:OR? I've even quoted the parts of the source that verify the statement. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I gather there is no possible way you could use a stable identity here. Use the article talk page to try and get consensus for your position. You believed that "Switzerland's vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers" but the source article doesn't actually say that. Our rules don't allow very much extrapolation from what the sources say. In any case the talk page should be the judge. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer (not sarcastically this time). If you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to run my logic by you. I've asked this on the talk page, but I can't seem to communicate this to ZH8000. It goes this way: 1) transiting (passenger car) drivers buy the cheapest vignette possible. 2) The source says that countries other than Switzerland have cheaper short-term vignettes for passenger cars. 3) Therefore, from #1 & #2, such drivers spend the most money in Switzerland.
I've changed most expensive to "highest priced" just to be clear it's not about price-per-km. Is there a better way to put this? What other assertions do I need to source here? I keep asking this on the talk page, and get talks about price-per-km and accusations of unreadable English in return. Is my English really that incomprehensible here?
If my point is not getting across, please read this explanation by the other IP person, I think he/she put it more succinctly than me. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a question for admins. You could take this to WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I've started a dispute resolution request here. Thanks for the suggestion. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again

Again this user has returned, and continues with the same pattern of editions. I left a message, but obviously it does not interest him.--Philip J FryTalk 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the IP user's talk page and have blocked for a year for long-term disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Rob Sherman

Hi, @EdJohnston: I am responding to your post made here where you wrote "I don't see how you can claim consensus when literally nobody agrees with you on the talk page." I think you measured that consensus situation wrong, as I will explain.

If we are going to be literal, then "literally" only one person substantively disagrees with me on that talk page. That person is 1990'sguy. He created the Sherman page, and he is the only person to raise a "legitimate concern" about my edits and engage with me. I say "legitimate concern" because that is the wording from the rule page on Consensus . It is true that 5 other editors joined in censoring my improvements, but they never raised a "legitimate concern", even after I petitioned each of them, nicely asking "If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them." So I can't see how you can claim I didn't have consensus for my edits when literally nobody raised any "legitimate concerns" on the talk page about 95% of my improvement edits - and only 1 person, 1990'sguy, presented actionable concerns. I waited a loooong time, too, but there has been no objections at all to 25 of my 28 edits. I have even repeated my explanations for my edits because my last list of explanations is scrolling so far up the page . So tell me please, and be specific, is there any reason now why I can not continue with improving the article?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ed, You told me "If it turns out that you can't persuade them, you should take your efforts elsewhere." Sorry for the pushback, and with all due respect, that is poor advice to give me. I choose instead to follow the Consensus rules page that says "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy." You are one of these sysops, am I right? If so, can you please look again at the situation, and be fair about this? At first I thought 1990'sguy was just being possessive, as he is the creator of the Sherman article. I have reviewed his user profile tab and discussion tab and I now see a lot of proof of both the personal and ideological conflicts warned about on the Consensus rules page. This explains a lot of the resistance I am encountering whenever I try to improve the page, such as when he complained about sources I added being "supportive of Sherman" instead of from "critics".
I confess I am tempted to file your "take your efforts elsewhere" remark with the "going to get ugly" and the "you have editors watching your moves and they will be making sure you stay in line" creepy threats I've already received. Yes I've received the message loud and clear that I'm not part of the club, but that isn't going to dissuade me. In fact, it has just the opposite effect, as I said on the Sherman discussion tab, I hope to make this a featured article, and the attempts to dissuade me from editing it has only bolstered my resolve.
Can we try an experiment? Ed, take a look at the bottom of the Rob Sherman article. Do you see where the categories list him as dying in (1953 deaths) and also in (2016 deaths)? Does that seem right to you? Now look at this previous edit of mine to fix it: . It was reverted. Many times. Does that seem right to you? If you agree with me that it isn't right, then you can add yourself to the "literally agrees" with me column. Now look at my removal of this redundant header . I did not do that without support or precedent, as you see here , so potentially add them to the "literally agrees" with me column. If you'll step through each of my 27 improvements listed on the Sherman discussion tab, all but a select few of which have NEVER been objected to, you'll find the same thing.
Suggestions?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything in your post here that would cause me to change my previous advice. You have pointed out that Category:1953 deaths looks wrong. If you don't want to go ahead and make a single edit to remove that category yourself, why not post on Talk and point out the problem. Your previous change looks like it was undone through collateral damage, since other large changes were occurring at the time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like a good discussion has been taking place at Talk:Rob Sherman about the changes you propose. I left my own note on Talk proposing the change in the category. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble with an IP editor who insists on imposing his view and will not engage on talk page.

Hi Ed, we're having trouble with an IP editor at Homosexuality in ancient Greece who insists on imposing his view (a manifestly incorrect one) on the article, and will not engage on the talk page, preferring to make his case in the edit summaries. Most of his contributions have been reverts of reverts made by other editors of his nonsensical claims at the this one article. Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If he continues past Shellwood's 01:25 warning a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Now blocked 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's hope he's learned something. Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive, it is indeed exhausting and a waste of time that could be spent productively dealing with these socks. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jakeroberts93

No comment. If this needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. A brand new account has trouble being taken seriously if it wants to file at SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay. There's a good chance that the guy you wrote to yesterday might be a harasser and abuser himself. I can't make a proper report (this account is fresh), but I hope someone takes care of it anyway. Kbb2 (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A complaint was made against you on the edit warring page. That's where I found out about you. It was on the front page. You wrote a message where you cussed out and admin mumerous time and called a "canadian" user worthless. I went back and looked into your post for the past couple weeks and noticed you had done this on numerous occasions to various other users. I never called for a permanent ban for you unless you continued. And I stated you had made many good contributions to Misplaced Pages. A long as you are not harassing people, you are more than welcomes here. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jakeroberts93: Then checking my report will be nothing but a formality as far as you're concerned. Kbb2 (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About Miss Universe 2018 edit war

Greetings.

I have been scolded by this:Talk:Miss_Universe_2018#Kyrgyzstan

It strikes me because I supposedly ignored a consensus, which one? In the talk page of the article, we have only participated the User:NewYorkActuary and me; therefore, I ask, what consensus? What other users should participate to consider such a consensus? Is my opinion, and experience as a wikipedist, worth less than that of the other user?

So far, I have given arguments and reasons to consider that the participation of a Kyrgyz delegate in Miss Universe 2018 can be a hoax, all of them have been ignored by the other user and with weak references, which are unable to tell the same version of the story, supports something that has no greater sustenance.

So far, the only person who says that Miss Karybekova will participate in Miss Universe, is herself through an Instagram profile, and amateur pages replicate the information, even reaching digital pages of newspapers. Some of the sources say that the lady was designated and others who won a contest (from there we should be careful with the information). None of the sources that the other user put can answer the following questions:

- when was the contest?

- where was the contest?

- how was the contest?

- who organized the contest?

- or, who appointed her?

In addition, there is no photo of the girl with a band or crown to be credited as a competitor of their country in Miss Universe 2018.

I am not an English speaker, which puts me at a disadvantage in this discussion, as I do not understand much. But I find it disappointing that the whim of an editor is above the criteria that every wikipedia must have.

I do not accept the scolding.

Thank you. --Alex Duilius (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)