| Revision as of 14:37, 16 February 2016 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,240 edits →Thank you and a question: All reverts count toward 3RR← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:20, 16 February 2016 edit undoLoveMonkey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,892 edits →Schism edit: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| Hey I am here asking for your opinion. This edit removed a very small passage about the ]. The passage referred to the time that Poland invaded and conquered Russia killed 10 of thousands of people and tried to initiate a large scale forced conversion of the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism (]). This caused Russia to unity and establish the Czar under the Romanov family dynasty and actually make a holiday that is still celebrated in Russia today. It is one of the ugly historical set of events that informs the Orthodox as they struggle against various historic campaigns at different times throughout human history where their country or allies were invaded by European forces attempting to assimilate them into European Culture and Roman Catholicism. If there is an issue of space and constraint then mentioning the struggle between the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox in the Ukraine seems to be of even less important than the mention of a full scale war and invasion and conquest of Russia by the country of Poland. It seems like the recent edits on the article want it to appear that the conflict and schism is one sided and in a vacuum that there is not aggression on the European side toward Greece (] let alone the story of the ] and Operation Gladio) or Russia or Eastern European Russian allies. That the various mass killings and invasions (like the ] and the whole story of ] can't be mentioned next) let alone what Napoleon did or recently Nazi Germany can not be mentioned even though these inform the motives behind the general peoples of those regions rejecting ecumenism and perpetuating the schism. I mean its even the basis for modern war films like ]. ] (]) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | Hey I am here asking for your opinion. This edit removed a very small passage about the ]. The passage referred to the time that Poland invaded and conquered Russia killed 10 of thousands of people and tried to initiate a large scale forced conversion of the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism (]). This caused Russia to unity and establish the Czar under the Romanov family dynasty and actually make a holiday that is still celebrated in Russia today. It is one of the ugly historical set of events that informs the Orthodox as they struggle against various historic campaigns at different times throughout human history where their country or allies were invaded by European forces attempting to assimilate them into European Culture and Roman Catholicism. If there is an issue of space and constraint then mentioning the struggle between the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox in the Ukraine seems to be of even less important than the mention of a full scale war and invasion and conquest of Russia by the country of Poland. It seems like the recent edits on the article want it to appear that the conflict and schism is one sided and in a vacuum that there is not aggression on the European side toward Greece (] let alone the story of the ] and Operation Gladio) or Russia or Eastern European Russian allies. That the various mass killings and invasions (like the ] and the whole story of ] can't be mentioned next) let alone what Napoleon did or recently Nazi Germany can not be mentioned even though these inform the motives behind the general peoples of those regions rejecting ecumenism and perpetuating the schism. I mean its even the basis for modern war films like ]. ] (]) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :You're still under . If then your edit at ] was a violation of your unblock condition. I recommend that you find another topic to work on. ] (]) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | :You're still under . If then your edit at ] was a violation of your unblock condition. I recommend that you find another topic to work on. ] (]) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::Well the IP wasn't mine. I have not edited on the article at all since the block was established. I have from time to time made comments on the talkpage but I was told that I could do that. I can contest the block and or asked that it be modified or changed? How do I do that? ] (]) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] vs. ] == | == ] vs. ] == | ||
Revision as of 17:20, 16 February 2016
Recent edit
I was wondering if I could get you to look at this edit. I wonder if this could be used as an example of how what the actual person says and how their perspective was completely misrepresented while also sourcing them. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why not ask about this on the article talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- And it was reverted . I am posting this because it appears that the article has an edit warrior on it whom is engaged in . Where can I report this? As this is an example of how Misplaced Pages is used to disseminate misinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you remove your own addition from the article until you can get support for it at Talk:Andrea Dworkin. Your point is not clear, and you are not even adding a complete sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- And it was reverted . I am posting this because it appears that the article has an edit warrior on it whom is engaged in . Where can I report this? As this is an example of how Misplaced Pages is used to disseminate misinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have asked the editor for clarification on the talkpage. I have also constructed a sentence from comments made by Cathy Young in the source provided and added them to the article body. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- As a person who returned to Misplaced Pages after a long block, it's to your advantage to be more patient on talk pages. At Talk:Intercourse (book)#Recent revert in article text it is hard to tell if you have any support whatever. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well you can say all that you want about my past editing however the advise you gave me (and I followed) to reword the article's passage appears to have resolved the issue, at least for now. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear that this is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well you can say all that you want about my past editing however the advise you gave me (and I followed) to reword the article's passage appears to have resolved the issue, at least for now. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- As a person who returned to Misplaced Pages after a long block, it's to your advantage to be more patient on talk pages. At Talk:Intercourse (book)#Recent revert in article text it is hard to tell if you have any support whatever. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
AN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please give some input, the other guys only judge per Tryptofish. I can accept a temp ban, as you suggested, but suddenly indefinite, besides MastCell fist mentioned no action, feels bad. prokaryotes (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
|
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
A big thanks for your help at the X-Files Season 10.
Dear EdJohnston, I believe you did very very well to rename The X-Files (miniseries) back into The X-Files (season 10) without the word TV in that parenthesis.
For the history, the Page Move request initially started as:
Previous TV Name: The X-Files (miniseries)
Proposed TV Name: The X-Files (season 10) (note: the TV wasn't initially in the proposed name's parenthesis)
but during the discussion it was discovered that there was already a page about a comics with very similar name: The X-Files Season 10.
So we decided to alter slightly the Page Move request to the following:
Previous TV Name: The X-Files (miniseries)
Proposed TV Name: The X-Files (TV season 10) (note: the TV is added)
and at same time we started a new Page Move request at the comic's talk page, which was successful and the rename was done without problem:
Previous Comics Name: The X-Files Season 10
Proposed Comics Name: The X-Files Season 10 (comics)
Now, with the comics having a disambiguation on their title: The X-Files Season 10 (comics), i feel that the The X-Files (TV season 10) is no longer necessary and that the name you chose today: The X-Files (season 10) is simply perfect and doesn't cause any problems anymore.
Thank you for everything, and have a nice day! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I concur. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Continued edit warring at California University of Business and Technology
A few days ago you blocked Truewiki2016 for continued edit warring at California University of Business and Technology. He or she is apparently using a sockpuppet to continue the edit war. Can you please block that account, too, and reset or extend the block on the master? And perhaps it would be helpful to semi-protect the article, too. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed! ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Deletion headers
I have no idea. I already removed the CFD template from the other template, figuring that it was okay because it was an obscure template (nobody knew about it except for the creator and me), and the CFD template was causing a mess, but I thought I shouldn't remove it from {{la}} because that was much more heavily used, and advertising the CFD there was better. I've just noincluded the CFD template on {{la}}, so hopefully that will solve the problems you mention. If not, let me know or leave a note at WP:HD; I'll do what I can to help, but my know-how is limited. Nyttend (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the headers at WP:COIN are looking normal again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Penelope37 again
I'm sorry to bother you with this a second time, but Penelope37 (talk · contribs) is still edit warring on Chappie (film) to remove sourced content from the article, as she did the previous two times that she was blocked. It has been explained to her that MOS:FILM tells us to include the country of production in the opening sentence of the lead, but she is insisting on removing it. I'm beginning to think that she's an SPA created to edit war on this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
User 107.107.57.156 Article: Shari Redstone
Need some help on a user who seems to have an agenda in claiming that Redstone's ex-husband got a substantial severance package when he left the company - but it's not true; his source is an article quoting a lawsuit against Redstone's father by her brother alleging that, and the allegations were found not to be true and the lawsuit dismissed. The same user is intent on removing the ex-husband's title of 'rabbi', when it was clear that's how he was referred when Redstone married him. As I said, seems like there is an agenda and POV but this user keeps reverting. Anything that can be done?
PS - and how is that severance issue relevant to Shari Redstone's article anyway? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosidFrumBirth (talk • contribs)
- This was previously discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive306#User:204.195.144.134 reported by User:64.134.64.190 (Result: Semi). Use the article talk page at Talk:Shari Redstone to make your arguments. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if it is hard to reach agreement. At present the article is fully protected by another admin. If you continue to revert about the name of Mr. Korff when protection expires it won't look good. It is to your benefit to wait for consensus. Otherwise, people will wonder if you are the person who has 'an agenda and POV.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Right now the version that is locked is 107's edits, so as you suggest I'll wait to see if 107 or anyone else comments before editing again and may be back to you for advice again if that's ok. ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
ADVICE please - it doesn't look like user 107.107.57.156 is going to discuss this, but if I correct the article again I assume he'll just revert and we're back in the same back and forth reverting. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosidFrumBirth (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Prokaryotes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, prokaryotes (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Darek555 is at it again
The user you warned just a few hours ago is back, edit warring to restore his edits against consensus at Permanent death. He also continues his barely coherent ranting and refuses to hear about WP:V. Please do what must be done. 75.129.197.146 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Every is in talk, he continuously remove part about Path of Exile, problem is described here, please read carefully my explanation :--Darek555 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- If only you had extended to us the courtesy you're asking of us... It's still not too late to undo your restoration of the content you re-added against consensus, promise to never do it again, and avoid a block, you know. 75.129.197.146 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
AN3 and ARBPIA
See my little fiasco. I've been wracking my brain to figure out what I did. I know I looked at a Talk page and saw the ARBPIA notice. I also know that I saw the editnotice warning on an article. However, they're not on the Talk page or the article itself, List of state leaders in 2016. Why would I have looked at some other article? I'm a bit tired, but on my personal spectrum of insomnia, I'm not that tired that I would have imagined the whole thing. Don't spend any real time on this, but if you spot something obvious I overlooked, please let me know. This is what happens when I drop in sporadically at AN3. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, List of state leaders in 2016 is under 1RR if people are reverting about Palestine. But you're right there is no banner on it currently. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, but I wouldn't have blocked without a banner and an editnotice to users who had never been alerted to the DS sanctions. It wouldn't be fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- If there were an edit notice, a file should exist at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of state leaders in 2016, but there is nothing there. It's also possible to search under 'Template/Editnotices/Page' with Special:Prefixindex to see which other articles have such notices. On the content issue, we have an article at List of states with limited recognition that treats Palestine in detail. I hope that whoever is publicizing the RfC will notify the Wikiprojects that are listed at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've created editnotices myself. It's true that List of states with limited recognition has an editnotice but not an ARBPIA notice. Spirit Ethanol is publicizing the RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- If there were an edit notice, a file should exist at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of state leaders in 2016, but there is nothing there. It's also possible to search under 'Template/Editnotices/Page' with Special:Prefixindex to see which other articles have such notices. On the content issue, we have an article at List of states with limited recognition that treats Palestine in detail. I hope that whoever is publicizing the RfC will notify the Wikiprojects that are listed at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, but I wouldn't have blocked without a banner and an editnotice to users who had never been alerted to the DS sanctions. It wouldn't be fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanction to Jaqeli
- Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi EdJahnston, I figured out that you are the person that imposed a saction related to georgia to the user Jaqeli, i don't know if that saction is still in force, but if it is, please could you remove it, I'am Gustavo 200.000.0 and i need his help to translate a article about a georgian monarch, the point is that i am the creator of the article about the royal personality in portuguese and i use english to translate my articles from english to portugese, the reason of the help is that i want to finish my translation to portuguese and the georgian article is much better than the english one, and i don't know georgian, so please remove the saction, unless that you have other expert in georgian to show me if you don't remove the saction i will have any help, and he didn't sent me here.Gustavo 200.000.0 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unless this Georgian monarch has some connection to Armenia then Jaqeli's restriction won't affect anything. Who is the monarch? Though Jaqeli is not active here since 24 January he seems to be editing the Georgian Misplaced Pages. You can perhaps leave him a message over there. This link will show you some members of WP:WikiProject Georgia (country) who have edited recently. It seems that User:Giorgi Balakhadze is from Georgia and has been active recently. Maybe you can ask him for ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Schism edit
Hey I am here asking for your opinion. This edit removed a very small passage about the Time of Troubles. The passage referred to the time that Poland invaded and conquered Russia killed 10 of thousands of people and tried to initiate a large scale forced conversion of the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism (Polish–Muscovite War (1605–18)). This caused Russia to unity and establish the Czar under the Romanov family dynasty and actually make a holiday that is still celebrated in Russia today. It is one of the ugly historical set of events that informs the Orthodox as they struggle against various historic campaigns at different times throughout human history where their country or allies were invaded by European forces attempting to assimilate them into European Culture and Roman Catholicism. If there is an issue of space and constraint then mentioning the struggle between the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox in the Ukraine seems to be of even less important than the mention of a full scale war and invasion and conquest of Russia by the country of Poland. It seems like the recent edits on the article want it to appear that the conflict and schism is one sided and in a vacuum that there is not aggression on the European side toward Greece (Axis occupation of Greece let alone the story of the Junta and Operation Gladio) or Russia or Eastern European Russian allies. That the various mass killings and invasions (like the Northern Crusades and the whole story of Alexander Nevsky can't be mentioned next) let alone what Napoleon did or recently Nazi Germany can not be mentioned even though these inform the motives behind the general peoples of those regions rejecting ecumenism and perpetuating the schism. I mean its even the basis for modern war films like 1612 (film). LoveMonkey (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're still under an unblock condition that keeps you from writing about East/West theological and historical disputes. If this IP was you then your edit at East-West schism was a violation of your unblock condition. I recommend that you find another topic to work on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well the IP wasn't mine. I have not edited on the article at all since the block was established. I have from time to time made comments on the talkpage but I was told that I could do that. I can contest the block and or asked that it be modified or changed? How do I do that? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
User:TheManchMan vs. User:TheManchoMan
The block log for 68.194.58.163 lists him as a suspected sock of TheManchMan, when it is TheManchoMan. This typo, although minor, might hamper any future admin considering unblocking this IP in understanding why he was blocked in the first place. I have given the same notification to Ritchie333 because he also blocked this IP with the same typo. Jm (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I reblocked with a change of spelling in the block message. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you and a question
Thank you for your response and close of that ridiculous AN3 report. I have to ask though for clarification, I'd had always assumed that 3RR is for back and forth edit warring, where two users continually revert each other on end without discussing. Per WP:3RR, it states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material...", does that literally mean you are unable to, for example: revert editor A for adding unsourced content, revert editor B for adding content that's non-compliant with guidelines, revert editor C for adding bad grammar, and revert editor D for adding different unsourced content. The way Cebr1979 was making it seem is that because I reverted three times (two separate occasions involving different editors), I am somehow unable to correct mistakes made by other users, in which I removed unsourced content and corrected a user's thought that content wasn't sourced. Any clarity would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- According to WP:EW, all reverts count toward 3RR whether it is about the same or different material. In case of doubt, it is better not to go too fast. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)