User talk:EdJohnston

Some help needed

Dear Ed, I guess you remember you blocked me yesterday for war edits on Holodomor article. I'm not going to complain on that, but I would ask you to be my first tutor on en-wiki, as I'm making my first steps here. There is a group of non-neutral editors, who blocking some changes to the article which they do not like. I opened a new topic on talk page — [1] at ample time, but my agruments (proved by quoted RS) were simply ignored, as well as my additions to the article - [2] — even they were proved by RS given. So, my question is: what should be my further actions, in such situation in the article Holodomor, when a group of editors ignoring arguments and doesn't have a will to find consensus? Thanks in advance. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits so far indicate you are a WP:Single purpose account. You seem to be editing various articles to strengthen the Russian side of certain questions. Here at Pavlo Skoropadsky you decide that the Russian spelling of his name must have priority over the Ukrainian. While single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, you must accept it will take you some time to acquire credibility. If you wait to get consensus at Talk:Holodomor before making your changes again, you should not have any problems. If you provide only sources in the Russian language you must accept that English-speaking admins won't figure out what you are doing. In some cases these topics will must surely have been covered in English as well, and taking the time to find English sources would help you persuade others. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer! May be I explained me wrong, but you focused on my intentions in wikipedia, doesn't matter you were right or wrong, but what I asked you, as a newcomer here, what would be NEXT PLATFORM(what page) to discuss conflict at, as I know already for sure, that on talk page of the Holodomor article we will never find consensus with my opponents, as they simply non-neutral and do not want even to pretend to be neutral. As about translation of texts into English - surely I realize this requirement. At the moment of discussion on Holodomor talk page all my correspondents were Russian-speakers. But, definitely, if discussion would go to another level or any new editors wold join the discussion all translations would be done. So, whom should I apply for resolution on my conflict with non-neutral editors on Holodomor article? What would you suggest? HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes are solved by the editors involved. WP:DR shows ways of getting more people if you think the group is not representative, but I don't think that's your problem. Since you recently added a work by Kulchytsky to the article maybe you can take a look at "A new view of a famine that killed millions". New York Times. 16 March 2009. This quotes Kulchytsky at length and seems to agree that the famine was a political action targeted at Ukrainians which had millions of casualties. Kulchytsky does believe the casualties were more like 3.5 million instead of the higher figures proposed by others. If you want to argue the credibility of a source you can post at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again many thanks for your answer. So, do you think that WP:DRN would be right place to open a topic at, in case if we do not find consensus on talk page of Holodomor article? And one more question: you wrote above «...I don't think that's your problem» — so, what do you think my problem is? I have feeling that you missunderstand my intentions in the article Holodomor.HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a thread at WP:DRN or a WP:Request for comment. It helps if you can make a clear statement of what the dispute is about. Before filing at DRN you could leave a note at Talk:Holodomor giving your proposed statement of the dispute. DRN is voluntary so you are depending on others choosing to participate there. My own observation is that the sourcing should be improved. It looks to me that the talk page discussion made some progress on 30 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Ed, sorry for bothering you! You know, one of my oponents blaimed me that I «falsified two sources». I think this is seriuos charge and if it's false by nature (and it's false) editor who acting such way should take responsibility for false charge. Can you, please, give me an advise what WP-page should I enter to file a complain against my oponent as regards these false charges? HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you should be able to negotiate a compromise with User:Lvivske. Lvivske and others are saying that there were political decisions taken by Stalin to ensure special famine suffering in the Ukraine. You should be able to study the sources with enough care to see which historians agree with that and which ones disagree. Nobody denies that there was famine outside the Ukraine. So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true, but not very useful for deciding if there was a Holodomor (a worse-than-usual famine that was politically manipulated). EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, since he wants to actually file a complaint against me as his opponent: I pointed out all the issues I had with his cherry picking of source quotes, others agreed. He'd rather fight the fact that I pointed out his issues ("false charges!") rather than actually defend what he did on the talk page. This is getting silly.--Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HOBOPOCC, if you have no clue on how to collaborate on sourcing with others at Talk:Holodomor it might be simpler to ban you from that topic than cater to your requests for further appeal venues. The other editors are posing reasonable questions to you that you should be able to answer. If you are banned, then you can make your case in the Arbitration enforcement appeal system. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is imposible to find consensus with politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors. You wrote yourself now: «So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true», but it was you, who blocked me for edits warring, because my edits, supplied by 4 RSes were deleted by this group of editors by fake reasons. If you are going deeper yourself into discussion on Holodomor article, I want to pay your attention to some words of Assembly Parlamentary of Counsil of Europe Resolution # 1723: Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR... It furthermore encourages the authorities of all these countries to agree on joint activities aimed at commemorating the victims of the Great Famine, regardless of their nationality. Don't you underatsnd that this resolution calls famine as Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR? «Holodomor» — is the name for great famine in Ukraine. But this famine happened not only in Ukraine — this great famine happened «in grain-growing areas of the» USSR, as this Resolution said. And Resolution 1723 correctly, clearly and straight tells about it. Anyhow, I want to make some legal wiki-appropriate steps against editors, who, being not able to defend their edits fair-wiki-way (discussing on oponent's RSes, providing their own Rses proving their position, etc.) are making personal attacks on me and even declaring that I «falsified... sources». Can you help me, please? HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No one can help you, HOBOPOCC, sine you repeatedly show that you do not like to listen comments of other editors. Considering that you define yourself as a Russian Nationalist at Uk-Wiki, I assume that you accept only arguments supporting the controversial hypothesis of Holodomor in context to other famines in USSR. You see only “non-neutral editos”, who basically stop your POV-pushing.--Andrux (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, HOBOPOCC, your reading of Resolution #1723 is indicative of your reading of the article and synthesis you've been pushing on the Holodomor talk page. You have constructed a limited interpretation of the contents and implications. Resolution #1723 at no point states that the COE have closed this chapter and given it a generic title. There is no, "Henceforth, it will be known as the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR for the rest of written history.". How did you manage come to such a conclusion, given that they are encouraging the opening of archives and access to as much information as exists in order that regional 'peculiarities' can be better analysed and understood by researchers from all parts of the world? The Resolution marks a beginning for recognition of the events of that era, not the end. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I'm waiting for your answer. HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice is to work with the other editors on the talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for your options. You've already opened an WP:RFC. You can pursue the issues that people mention in the RfC, and try to find better sources. I don't see the argument that you are dealing with "politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors". Eastern Europe is always difficult and it takes patience. Consider the possibility that you are being outvoted by a group of well-intentioned people. Try to change their minds, if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, please, just have a look at posts my opponents made recently: (a) Lvivske «passing a ball»; (b) Iryna Harpy took it and «giving her pass». Productive discussion, doesn't it? Don't you think now that this is pure personal attacks? I paid attention of administrators in the past, and not once, that posts of Iryna Harpy at talk pages contain almost no any subject-related-information, but personal attacks only — one, two — but it wasn't any outcome. Positive input of Iryna Harpy to discussion is almost zero, her posts at their mosts are personal attacks only. How can such beheviour be stopped? HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, EdJohnston has already been called in as a third party and has involved himself in as much as is in his capacity (and as much as he feels is prudent). He has provided you with a link to options for other forms of dispute resolution (link above). His work on the matter is done. If you wish to lodge formal complaints against me, by all means do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Your Notification on Hemshin peoples

Hello Ed, Thank you for the notice on my talk. I do understand your concern. Nevertheless, I feel the need to appeal to you to make sure that you have a complete understanding of the development history of this article as briefly outlined below. I also kindly as for your clarification and guidance regarding my below raised questions- as your intervention raised my curiosity and interest:

• The article has experienced lengthy and detailed discussions earlier through which it reached the maturity level to ensure stability for a number of years. During these discussions, the article was considered section by section and gradually improved using all the referenced material available- occasionally resorting to mediation procedures initiated by me to avoid wholesale reverts. It is interesting to note that most of the editors who used to implement such wholesale reverts or refused discussion now appear in the list of supervised editors in mentioned arbitration. The discussions to a great extent included exchanges related to the very recent insertion repeatedly made into the lead with no discussion or effort for consensus.

A brief look at Talk:Hemshin and the body of the article will make it evident to you that the recent insertion undermines recorded discussions that involved several admins and calls for mediation. Now, I would be grateful if you could clarify the below and guide me through your recently imposed notice:

• I am having difficulty in understanding why it is the case that an undiscussed modification to the lead of an article which has achieved its current form through a lengthy consensus building is ok in your perspective, whereas my call for discussion before engaging in such major edits is not? Interesting to note also that your warning to me comes right after my very first intervention whereas repeated insertion of the same clause to the lead of a stable article does not deserve any notification.
• I happen to be interested in the Hemshin region and its history, and therefore contribute mostly on this article. Is this in contradiction with any Wikipedia policies? I am not a professional wiki editor, but feel the need to contribute here as I do have relevant material. My edit came recently simply because I observed an undermining of earlier discussions after a period of stability. Having said this, could you please comment on your remarks here about my intervention in relation to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

It is nice to have an admin interested in the article, as it experienced intense edits wars earlier before it enjoyed stability for 4 years as a result of the detailed discussions on the talk page – until recent- undiscussed edits along the lines of those who are now supervised under mentioned arbitration. I kindly ask for you clarification and guidance along the above issues.Omer182 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is funny to see people reverting in 2013 based on what they claim was decided by consensus in 2008. I am not sure that a consensus was reached in 2008. My attention was drawn to this article by one of the participants since User:Cihsai had been conducting a slow edit war over 12 months to remove a particular mention of possible Armenian origin from the lead, while never using the talk page. You showed up in the apparent effort to continue User:Cihsai's edit war, though I take note that you did participate in the 2008 discussions. There is a current discussion which asks whether Simonian's book is to be relied on for its statement about Armenian origin of the Hemshin. Feel free to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It looks like you have already banned one user, and warned me that you will do the same in case I remove the addition, repeatedly inserted by the same two users, with no prior discussion. The reference mentioned is already in the article itself, and the inclusion of the sentence in the lead disrupts the coherency. Your warning keeps me away from editing this article. Kindly consider removing your warning to achieve a balanced view. Omer182 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My warning was "If you are hoping to win the war by reverting more often, please know that these articles are under close scrutiny by administrators." My main concern is about you repeating your previous change without consensus. If you can persuade the other editors on the talk page, then no doubt your requested change will be made. If you consider this change to be very important, then it's probably worth opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. This may have the benefit of bringing in new participants. From the point of view of sourcing, the current discussion at Talk:Hemshin peoples is quite disappointing. People should be searching for published reviews of the major articles and books. If nobody from either side is prepared to do any real work with sources, then full protection of the article should be considered. There is some hint that User:Ali-al-Bakuvi and User:JackalLantern may have specialist knowledge (there are perhaps others) and I hope those who have knowledge can do more to advance the discussion of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators haven't been able to resolve the dispute because very few if any of them have much knowledge on the Hemshin. This isn't surprising since there are hardly any English-language publications on them–the (peer-reviewed) Simonian text was really the first of its kind. As I've explained on the article's talk page, I feel the introduction is "balanced" enough; unfortunately, in my experience, the only "balance" some have wanted to bring to it is to jettison mention of Armenian provenance (for political reasons). Jackal 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Gee

Are you going to move E. Gordon Gee back to where it should be: Gordon Gee? Here is evidence the the latter is actually the common usuage. Thanks for your time. --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to open a new move discussion. This link to OSU's web site (see bottom of page) shows he was still signing himself as E. Gordon Gee as of January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

Ed, what's your opinion on whether this article should be subject to WP:SCWGS? I'm involved in a content dispute on the article, and I've been involved before (quite some time ago). Interesting, given al-Assad's position, the article has nonetheless stayed on the periphery of the contentious editing surrounding the Syrian civil war, but in reading it a few moments ago, I decided it probably is subject to general sanctions. Frankly, I'd never thought about it before. I'd appreciate an uninvolved opinion. If you think it is, feel free to slap on a talk page notice to that effect and an edit notice if you wish. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions on the article but for now I won't add the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop User:Sitush

SIR, User:Sitush has some serious issues particularly with Meenas wiki page. This article has been evolved, corrected and referenced over last 7 years and User:Sitush has not provided any evidence to counter any of the facts presented in this article. Simple deleting some text does not make article valid or correct. Put some efforts and ready history books, gazette letter found on Google book related to Meenas past and history. All I can see from Sitush is biased and unfair text removal from this article. Someone need to stop user Sitush, and I also see his own page is full of complains.

TO ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE: It is now confirmed that sitush is intentionally behind Meenas article..he is continuously hiding the well known Truth and distorting the article since Beginning. In his eyes..Any reference is not valid which shows the Truth. Like Tod he is fond of rajputs and Now he had inserted Negative points for the most loyal community of India/Meenas... by indirectly calling them bandits or criminals. He messed the article. THE ARTICLE WAS BEST AND COMPLETELY TRUE AS ON 01/01/2012. IN WIKI as a contributor our mission is to present the real truth and real history of a community or race. Am asking the administrators..what is the need of this great n huge wikipedia...when it fails to show the TRUTH.

Somebody has to stop him and he should blocked him to edit Minas article anymore..

You can see all other editors are complaing about him since 1year.. SIR OUR REQUEST IS "PLEASE STOP HIM TO EDIT ARTICLE MEENA" Others comment about him..

Expermely hippocratic argument and you are right about your self "we don't tolerate caste POV warriors here". I have seen more of your edits are dehumanising, derogatory towards certain communities. Also, you are just self proclaimed ignorant.

Sir Please block him for this article..this is our request since 1.5 year.Omkara1188 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conducting an edit war at Meenas. In March 2012 you were notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Caste articles have suffered from promotional editing for a long time, and these sanctions were put in place to allow administrators to take action against anyone who doesn't seem to be following Wikipedia policy. If you revert again at Meenas you risk being blocked for WP:Edit warring or being banned from this topic under the caste sanctions. Instead of reverting, you should join in discussion on the talk page. If you possess good sources for your views you should be able to provide them. It is best to supply the actual wording of the source and the page number where it occurs. Questions about the reliability of a source can be taken to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

Ed, so you left a very lovely note on my talk page. Of course, I responded. You said: WP:No personal attacks provides that "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Though I know very well the definition of "derogatory" I did look it up again for your purposes and according to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as: expressing a low opinion of someone or something; showing a lack of respect for someone or something.

Now certainly, how one defines and perceives lowly or disrespectful is subjective to the individual. My question to you, since you defend the removal of comments of others before engaging in diplomacy is this: if "I" feel a comment towards me is "derogatory" to myself, am "I" allowed to remove such comments under WP:No personal attacks? Or is this a privilege that is only given to the select elites of the community? Because surely, Ed, two can play the game and I have felt derogatory statements made against me, though you seem to sort of "pick and choose" so to speak, of what you deem worthy of your attention. It would, of course be quite nice for you to address the additional questions I posed to you on my talk page. That is, since I consider you an "involved" admin, given your relationship with Bbb23. You take care now. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

Your comments and warning are totally incorrect.

I am not reverting the page to something "New" im reverting it back! Why should i have to come to a "consensus" on the talk page as i was not looking to change the page in the first place. Also its a little bit difficult to come to a consensus when the agent provocateurs trying to rewrite history wont go on the talk page. Why does everyone on wikipedia speak like robots? There is a huge injustice happening here but no one seems to care about the facts. It seems the only concern of Wikipedia is procedure.

Please answer this one simple question for me....If other users wont come to the talk page and reach a consensus, what shall i do then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.196 (talk • contribs)

Best Regards.--Judgejoker 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Judgejoker. Please become familiar with our rules about WP:Edit warring. You're expected to follow these rules whether you agree with them or not, and whether or not we sound like robots. If you try to persuade others on the talk page, and wait for their support before editing again, you will be on safe ground. Note that our policy contains no wording about 'agent provocateurs' and your claim that you are reverting such people will not save you from a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking in edit summaries

Aloha. I noticed that you and others often provide helpful links to AN3 reports in the logs of your blocks. The problem is, these links can't be resolved after the discussion is archived. Of course, one can eventually find the links given this information, but it takes additional time. I'm wondering if you can figure out a way to link directly to AN3 (and other) reports that will allow users to find to browse directly to the linked reports. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A great idea, which I don't know how to implement. The closest I've seen is the permalink feature used at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. See an example -- in my move log there's an edit summary moved page Der weiße Rausch to Der weisse Rausch (Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink)) where the word 'permalink' goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/584864133. I.e. it takes you to a version of the page WP:Requested moves/Technical requests on which you can see the original move request.

Per this diff it appears that the permalink is the idea of User:Wbm1058. A person would have to be good at template coding to do such a thing. Maybe a similar gimmick could make permanent links to 3RR complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (WP:AN3) uses the generic template {{userlinks}} in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example when users create a new section with Click here to create a new report in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Header. I'm assuming that you and other admins would block users by clicking the "block user" link in that template. Just as {{RMassist}} is closely tied to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests and is intended to be used only on that page, where it creates edit summaries customized for that application, we probably would want to create a customized version of {{userlinks}} if we want customized edit summaries that refer back to WP:AN3. I'll need your help to test this as I'm not an administrator. Wikipedia:New admin/Blocking#User blocks/unblocks shows the typical Admin blocking form I assume that you use. Per mw:Manual:Block and unblock#URL parameters, I think I can use wpReason-other to prepopulate the "other reason" text field. I've coded that up in the sandbox for {{userlinks}}. Please test by blocking User:ThisIsaTest using the sandbox template transcluded here: . This should add a permalink to the edit summary. If you think a longer summary specific to AN3 would be good, let me know. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried blocking ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs) but, from this block log, nothing special happened, i.e. no permalink that I can see. This does sound like the right approach. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Debug:

• Here is the generated URL from the 'Block' button of your special userlinks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

• Here is the generated URL from trying a technical move:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&wpOldTitle=Colloquium+marianum&wpNewTitle=Colloquium+Marianum&wpReason=Requested+at+%5B%5BWP%3ARM%5D%5D+as+uncontroversial+%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F586338699%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29&wpMovetalk=1

OK, here is my revision of your URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason=Other&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

I think you need to set values BOTH into wpReason and wpReason-other. The word 'Permalink' is propagating now into the 'other reason' field but there is no actual permalink yet. I didn't bother setting the duration field, but that could be added. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping it would let you choose a reason from the drop-down menu and append the custom permalink reason, but it seems it's either-or. Other on the drop-down must be chosen to use the custom reason. I updated the sandbox template. Try it again. I think leaving wpExpiry (expiry time) unspecified may be the best approach, so different expiry times can be chosen for different situations. Admins should chose an expiry time and check any desired boxes before clicking on the Block button. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your change makes it work now! Perhaps I'll find a way to try it out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I see in your block log that you typically link to the specific WP:AN3 section which is helpful because that page is so long. But that section link is only good until it enters the vast Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives. So, while I didn't think permalinking section anchors was needed for technical move requests, it's needed here. I'll work on that. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippe II, Duke of Orléans resolution

Use WP:DR for any further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ed, I don't think that the decision is fair. I did not merely add a paragraph saw it removed and then started trying to force it into the biography of Philippe ! I have no time to waste on fruitless conflicts and much appreciate the collective nature of writing on wiki. The litigious paragraph about Marie Louise has been part of Philippe's article since February-April 2012. I thought it to be an important chapter of Philippe's biography to mention at least briefly in his article since it's present in all published biographies (eg. Chritsine Pevitt "The Man Who Would Be King: The Life Of Philippe d'Orleans"). It is only weeks later that FactStraight started editing out bits of my editing, then some months later all of it and this without any rational explanation nor any attempt to reach a consensus with me. last month Kansas Bear "joinded the fray" writing me a "editing war" warning as if I were the culprit of the reverting ! I only ever tried to reestablish what was being removed without any rational explanation. Cross-references and a slight degree of redundancy are inevitable in any encyclopedia. If they are to be banned completely then one could also eliminate most of all the other contextual references in many articles and strip articles to the bones, leaving only the hyper-text links sending the reader back to other articles... And still over the past days FactStraight has never tried in any way to justify his reverting my paragraph in any sound and sincere way. I have never looked for conflicts with anyone but this does not seem to be the case with the other party if you look at the history of his "contributions" : he spends much energy reverting other editors' contributions. When Kansas Bear started reverting my paragraph I left a message on his talk page explaining my position and he merely reverted this text from his talk page without any attempt at any form of dialogue. I don't see this as trying to estalish a dialogue. In their recent proceedings both FactStraight and Kansas Bear have acted in a derogatory and contemptuous way. I have no time to waste in this rather pointless "editing war" initiated and waged by the other party but I don't think that your decision is fair and please ask you to look a bit more at the specific history of this Philippe II duke of Orleans article and at the dates of creation of "my paragraph on Philippe's relation to his daughter Marie-Louise. Thank you for your attention. Aerecinski (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you have been reverting the article both as a registered account and using IPs you could be sanctioned under WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, this procedural reply does not answer my remarks at all. You took a decision without looking at the origins of the problem examining the chronology of the various editings. As I state very clearly above it is the othe party that started reverting my paragraph entirely months after it was already part of the article and this witout any willingness to dialogue. The other party is I think using sock puppets and I would like to complain about that. Also since wiki is focused on dialogue and consensus I don't think it's normal to be the object of such accusations by people who it seems reduce their arguments to cryptic formulas and agressively coded language. I am not American and am unfamiliar with their procedural antagonist actions. Regards Aerecinski (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I posted a standard 3rr warning on your talk page in November.[3] I have not acted in a derogatory nor contemptuous manner, since I have used the Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page.[4] Where have you used the talk page to explain why this clearly off topic paragraph(s) should be included in the article??? Also, in response your multiple accusations of sockpuppetry,[5][6][7] I will say this,Put up or shut up! I read another sockpuppetry accusation issued by you and I will file a personal attack complaint. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article. At the time you were less antagonist and didn't systematically revert me out from your talk page the way you do now. Also please use less antagonist words. You now seem bent on writing me warnings and threats and now tell me to "shut up !". Is that a wiki way to address other editors ? Aerecinski (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) User:Aerecinski, this discussion is about the 3RR. If we look only at the substance and not at the procedural details, your edits are peculiar. Why is there a need to have the behavior of Marie Louise Élisabeth be strongly criticized in the article on her *grandmother*? What is the relevance? Bad grandparenting? It looks like you want your criticism of Marie Louise to be widely aired in a variety of articles where it scarcely belongs. The details of the daughter's scandalous life are fully told in her own article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, thank you for answering me and introducing the debate about the relevance of Berry in her father and grand-mother's articles. A debate that should long have taken place with the other party ! I don't "strongly criticize" Marie-Louise behavior and if you read the letter of her grand-mother you'll realize that she was strongly afflicted by Berry's death who was only 23 years old ! Here again I limited reference to berry's death and its causes to a few sentences. To me it's not at all a question of criticizing the behavior of someone who's long dead but only to echo the traces she left in French history and also in historical novels. I don't think that she was "bad" or "badly educated". I am a cultural historian and not a moralist. This "negative" portrait is part of history but it doesn't please FactStraight and Kansas Bear who seem eager to limit the biographies of royal family members to straight genealogy and a history without any "blemish" (cf. other recent conflictive editing situations that FactStraight opened about other royal families)... Berry's lifeways were most likely "well ahead" of her time which is in part probably why she carried such a negative reputation. She was a very emblematic character of the time period and also used as a negative figure by the political opponents of the Regent and of his relatively liberal politics (compared with the rigor of the later part of Louis XIV rule). This makes Berry an interesting character and not at all "an embarassing... ill-reputed figure" who should be forgotten and kept in the isolation of her own "negative" biography... The fact is she was the daughter of the Regent and one of the key figures of his court, which is also why I think she should be mentioned if only briefly in her father's and her grand-mother' entries... Anyway, this discussion should have taken place with the other party, but they refused any form of dialogue. And here I am only appealing to you because of the unfair manner they handled their lack of agreement with my already existing paragraph in Philippe's article. RegardsAerecinski (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article." And where in this post does it explain what I asked on Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page? Where in this post do you answer the relevance question? "The recent addition of, "from her husband. The debauched lifeways of the young widow forced her to hide several pregnancies and spirit away a live born daughter, possibly fathered by the count of Riom, who later became a nun at Pontoise..", is unsourced and is not relevant to this article. This addition will be reverted." In fact, I see NO mention of Philippe nor how this is relevant to his article! You don't like my tone, too bad. I don't like sockpuppet accusations by an editor that has categorically ignored the article talk page, editwarred for months and now is insulting two editors(ie. derogatory, contemptuous, unfair). It is quite clear you are not here to build a community encyclopedia, but to add irrelevant trivia to articles, despite other editors' objections. --Kansas Bear ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you are confusing issues on the 2 articles. We did have a brief exchange about the 2 "litigious" articles: Philippe and Charlotte-Elisabeth. As I had written you back then the source for Berry's pregnancies are in Saint-Simon and are detailed in Berry's own article (I explained you I didn't want to make the reference to Berry's death lengthy). At the time there was no "editing war" at all between us nor with FactStraight who only much later decided he wanted to delete my whole addition to the article. So please don't tell about a months-long war which does not exist, unless war has been on your mind for all that long. You have a strange notion of insult, considering my protests to be insulting while caring very little about the way you deal with other editors and tell me to "shut up!" and "too bad" if I don't like it ! You have written me threatening warnings and your wiki partner FactStraight repeatedly accused me of sock puppetry (FactStraight probably still suspects me of being a sock puppet of his arch-foe LouisPhilippeCharles). Should I have taken offense and threaten you both... No sorry I'm not that way. But I don't like this vigilante-styled attitude considering yourself the sole judge to decide what's "irrelevant trivia" on matters that you don't seem to know very much about... Or maybe you are you an expert on French History ? Et donc pour conclure, mon ami, restez courtois ! Aerecinski (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You are the one confused, I explicitly asked where your discussion pertaining to Philippe II was. Your response was the July post(your words). I believe your accusations and personal attacks have given EdJohnston a clear picture of your attitude and intent. Continue to associate Factstraight and myself at your own risk. This will not remove the fact you have not engaged in a discussion concerning Philippe II, but have taken your opinion of 3 other editors to 3 different pages! And now you have to resort to derogatory insinuations of my intellect....You are desperate! Pity you can not find the time nor inclination to type this much on an article talk page! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, does expertise on French History have anything to do with someone's intellect, I don't think so. I guess I'm "desperate" if you say so. Of course there is nothing personal, nor derogatory in your words, for after all you are the only true judge... and the one entitled to decide what's genuine "talk" and brush my "opinions" aside, the same way you deleted entirely my edits, without any dialogue...Aerecinski (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed, what does "collapse" mean ? That the contents are only visible to the parties concerned ? In any case, I think it's better that way. I don't like the way our exchange suddenly turned into another place of conflict with the other editor. At first I thought we could come to some kind of dialogue in the neutral framework of your talk space but unfortunately it didn't work out that way, turning communication into another case of war. Sorry about that.Aerecinski (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Collapse' means that I put a header on the discussion. It should continue elsewhere. The best place is the article talk page, but it should be limited to the content matters. If you believe it is essential to talk about the behavior of other editors you can go to ANI, but they will not consider content questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky (le sigh)

Hate to end up on you talk again so soon, but I think we've reached the point of "intervention or endless edit war" over on Triune Russian people (esp. considering his past history). I can't even make a grammar edit or request citation without it being removed, so this is just textbook WP:OWN at this point. I'd try reasoning (and I have been active on the talk) but when even the smallest edit is reverted under dubious description, it's just demotivating. (sigh) - 1 (undoing all); 2 (calling my grammar edits "complete destruction and distortion of the content"; 3 (claiming I removed his sources when I never touched them) --Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. The reason I revert Lvivske's edit is that he removes large text parts and serious sources without explanation. If he wants to correct grammar mistakes or add new facts, I welcome this (as long as they are relevant and representative), but I demand that he does it in a civilized way, combining my parts and his parts and not recklessly replacing them by his own. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I never removed any sources or large swaths of text. You, however, did remove a few sentences and 3 refs I inserted last night. Also, to say I did anything "without explanation" is deliberately disregarding my edit summaries and dozen or so points I've made on the talk page in the last few days. Are we reading the same edit history here? --Львівське (говорити) 16:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And now he has made another full revert of another editor involved 4 --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ban appealed

Please be notified that I appealed the ban you imposed on me on WP:Arbitration enforcement.Cihsai (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move

I am writing this request as you made a comment at the talk page before.[8] Current RM is ongoing for almost a week. The requested name is a violation of the policy and overwhelmingly opposed by editors. So I would appreciate if you could close the RM and impose the restriction on the initiation of further move requests for an appropriate period like the previous RfC. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)