![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I see you're active on COI issues; could you please do a sanity check on a situation for me? I posted it on the noticeboard the other day but it hasn't gone anywhere, and the editor in question continues to be certain that the links he proposes are useful and factual. The problem is that they all have some sort of commercial connection to AtHomeNet, including the most recent page he's proposing to add to Community association, cidgab.com - which, when the registry is checked, comes back to AtHomeNet, has banner links to AtHomeNet, has an Amazon store set up by AtHomeNet... you get the idea. Discussion is going on at both Talk:Homeowners' association and Talk:Community association, where most of us seem to be getting to the point of beating our heads on blunt objects. I know I keep reaching for the shiny red block button... the discussion really needs someone else to reaffirm what we are telling this guy. If you could take a look, that would be brilliant. Thanks very much. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already been warned about blocks from at least 3 other editors, and I have not tried to replace any of these links, nor do I have any intention of re-inserting them. I will not be silenced to have someone else who is truly nuetral, and not harping about past edits give the cidgab site an honest assessment.I have been arguing that the site www.cidgab.com should not be blocked simply because it is affiliated with the company athomenet. The site itself does not advertise any services, and all of these other seemingly sane editors refuse to acknowledge the DOZENS of external links that are blatant advertising all over wikipedia. The problem is, no where in wikipedia does it say that simply because a website is affiliated with a commercial site that it cannot be a meaningful reference. THe editors don't seem to be able to differentiate one argument, or link, or issue, or site from another. I hvae not intention of adding any links anywhere...but I will continue to rally for fair treatment of non commercial sites....if it means talking to 200 more editors to get someone to treat this case as individual without constantly bringing up past edits that I have already conceded, then that is what I am prepared to do. There are a lot of different principles involved in this issue that go far beyond one website...which I have already brought up and most of these editors seem to ignore. Edenrage ( talk) 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reorganization on COIN; it looks fine. I've added a final comment there, and at Talk:Community association, and am going to try and disengage before I get really cranky. I appreciate your help on this. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the notification. I have added my comments to the discussion. As I have said my bungling on the site stems from lack of knowledge rather than any malicious or disresepctful intent. ( Gillhiscott ( talk) 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
I have been warned by other editors of a block LONG AGO...and from that point I have not made any edits to replacing the links in question. If my intent was to just keep doing that, I would not have put out a call to other editors to get involved... Also, per the hoa page, I have pleaded and made quite clear that I am done with that page, and that link... I would appreciate all debate to be focused on the page for community associations and the cidgab link. Thank you Edenrage ( talk) 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please keep an eye on User:Nukes4Tots and his personal attacks? Since we both are part of WP Guns, we have a few overlapping articles. So far it's only been 2 or 3. But every time I make a change, it's an instant edit war and a flurry of personal attacks. I tried changing the first sentence of Firearm (I have unanimous consensus on the talk page, from 3O, and from WP:Guns project page) and he freaked out, edit warred, called me a stalker, a liar, and a mother*****er. [ [1]]. He even removed one of my comments from the talk page under the guise of 'personal attack.' He calls me a liar and a stalker, and i'm the one making personal attacks. In the realm of incivility he's displayed in the past, this was a rather minor incident; however, it's still beyond what would be considered nice behavior. I mean, just last week he 3RR'd on a talk page to INCLUDE a personal attack: [ [2]] [ [3]], [ [4]], [ [5]], [ [6]] and scared away the other editor, seemingly for good. His justification for edit warring to include the attack was "are you blind" is just a question, not an attack; and talk pages don't count as edit warring. No one should have to deal with this abuse, no matter how minor it might be sometimes. It's ridiculous. Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#User:Nukes4Tots_is_back_from_his_second_block_in_a_week Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Need more? Collect ( talk) 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Johnson: So sorry for my error regarding the use of the resolved flag. I was not aware of the fact that I am not permitted to make use of this designation and only applied it in the belief that it could be applied once I made an honest attempt to respond to the objections raised within the proposal for deletion. As per your request I have removed the flag. Feel free to notify me on my talk page if you require additional alterations to the article on John Serry, Sr. and I shall be more that happy to implement whatever legitimate editorial alterations you might wish to prose. Thank you for your assistance pjs012915 march 2009
3) In addition, his performances with the Shep Fields Orchestra in The Big Broadcast of 1938 have also been re-released by Universal Studios on DVD entitle Bob Hope The Tribute Collection (DVD # 21462) http://turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com/product.asp?sku=d28305++ and are available nationwide. This DVD contains clear close up images of Serry in concert performance with the orchestra and as a soloist. A visual comparison of the image can easily be compared with the photograph of the artist contained in the main article. 4)My reaseach also indicates that several respected classical accordion instrumentalists of the current generation may be familiar with Serry's contributions and artistic philosophy. Eric Bradler (Professor of Accordion at the Lamont School of Music University of Denver http://www.playgroundensemble.org/bios.html was a student of Professor Robert Davine http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/essays/davinetribute.html - an internationally respected concert accordionist who studied with Mr. Serry at the Biviano School of Music in new York City in his youth. Professor Davine was the former director of the Lamont School of Music's Accordion Department for several decades prior to his death several years ago and evidently conveyed some knowledge of Mr. Serry's work to Professor Bradler. Mr. Bradler expressed an interest to me in utilizing Mr. Serry's American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion as an instructional tool in his lectures at the university and accepted copies of these works. Kindly keep in mind that University of Denver is one of the few remaining music conservatories in the Unied States which maintains an active Dept. of Accordion. In addition, Professor Davine indicated an interest in cataloging both works in a history of the accordion which he intended to publish. I am not certain if the work was every completed due to Professor Davine's death. However, Professor Bradler can be reached by E-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 303 871-6977 if you wish to investigate further. 5) My research also indicates that the noted New york jazz accordionist Angelo Di Pippo may be familiar with Mr. Serry's artistry as a result of his studies in New York City during the 1950's. I do not have Mr. Di Pippo's E-mail address but can verify that he is a resident of Garden City, New York and can be contacted on the internet on MySpace.com at http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=389674763 if you wish to investigate further. As per your request I shall attempt to trim my contributions to the section of the article entitled Concert Artistry so as to present them in a more objective fashion for review. Many of the references I have made to the New York Times are for background purposes only and may not explicitly identify the topics cited. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused--my intent was merely to provide supporting information available--including advertisements from music schools in the New York Times ect. Feel free to delete the entire section of published music if this seems to create an article which is too lengthy. Thanks again for your help. I hope something in the article can be salvaged through the use of judicious and scholarly editing--Many thanks sincerely:
P.S. In the even that the editorial board expresses doubts concerning the publication of Serry's music my research into my father's correspondence indicates that his publisher relocated out of New York City sometime ago. My last known address for the Alpha Music Inc. is Alpha Music Inc., 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Spring Valley, NY 10977-6224 Phone 845 356-0800 with Mr. Michael Nurko as President. The Company Web page seems to be listed in German at http://www.alphamusic.de/shop/home/show. Sorry that an E-mail address is not available but the editors might phone the publisher directly to verify publication of this music if they have doubts. Many thanks again for your patience and I apologize for being unable to provide more authoritative documentation ---As you can imagine the professional activities of a modest free lance musician can be somewhat difficult to document after a period of 70 years. Thanks again.-- Pjs012915 ( talk) 13:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Pjs012915 ( talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Dear Mr. Johnston: Just a quick note to thank you for your assistance regarding the proposed deletion of American Rhapsody And Concerto For Free Bass Accordion. I was pleased to learn that these two articles will not be deleted from Wikipedia entirely and have been designated for merger into the parent article. I apologize for being unable to request a rescue of these articles within the required time constraint of five days--As you no doubt concluded, I am totally unfamiliar with the editing process and stumbled upon the instructions for requesting a rescue after a deadline passed. In any event, the proposed merger seems to be equitable and I appreciate your assistance. Many thanks for all your help. I am certain that future generations of music students will benefit from your kind assistance and intervention. I hope that you enjoyed your investigations into this unique period in the musical history of the USA. Best wishes for your future editing activities on Wikipedia, and thanks again. ---- Pjs012915 ( talk) 14:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Pjs012915 ( talk) 14:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Sorry ED, i need a favour,
Pararubbas has returned (7th account, named User:Thn08), and i completely forgot (and cannot find it in my history) what the link to report is. Could you be so kind and send it to me? The rest, of course, is up to me.
Ty very much, Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Vasco Amaral, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This "person" has returned. He too waited a few days, to see if we would forget (not me!!), then returned with the habitual fervour - i provided some examples there, and already reverted some of his "contributions". Cheers, Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete his page? There are plenty of gaming related articles that reference him if you just type his name into google. Here are some links:
Please bring back his page. Darkchun ( talk) 12:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ed,
Just wanted to bring to your attention the ongoing shenanigans in the
AFD for "Anki", in light of your closure of the
COIN entry regarding competing software.
To say that there is an abundance of SPAs is an understatement... so far I'm only counting two established editors, and it's becoming a bit of a free-for-all. One of the SPAs has declared an
ulterior motive for his !vote, but I'm not entirely sure whether that's genuine or just taking the piss and fanning the flames.
Anyway, there's probably little that can be done, but I thought I'd highlight it to you as not-entirely-resolved-yet.
Cheers,
one
brave
monkey 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sir! I was preparing to join Wikipedia and work as a part of the community that documents terrorist incidents on March 19th. Then I observed as you must of some kind of dispute between the User:Jersay and User: Wikifan145, where User: Jersay kept deleting incidents and not explaining why. Therefore I held off from joining Wikipedia until March 25, 2009 when several other articles caught my attention. However, I have been saving terrorist incidents that I believe need to be posted in list of terrorist incidents 2009. I also believe the same situation will not occur as User:Jersay has been banned and Wikifan145 hasn't been on list of terrorist incidents 2009 since March 26 2009. However, if vandalism does occur again I for once would support another protective ban, protecting the site from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there ED, VASCO here,
I think this account (the seventh!!!) has been blocked indef as well, good teamwork. This leads me to three comments: I have noticed that in the 7th and the 6th's talkpages, no message regarding the blocking of the account is shown? To what is this due?
Also related, i do acknowledge again the rude language and the insults are totally out of order in this site (i reiterate again i will try to improve in this area of interaction), but i should (and so should every well-intended user) be allowed to, at least, question the intelligence or good faith of this "person" which has been warned and/or threatened in every possible fashion and could not care less about other people's work. I noticed that, whilst in some articles he does add some stuff (infoboxes highly appreciated, i told him that once or twice, but mostly it's POV/WEASEL stuff, in very very poor Engish), i noticed, including in the latest account that he does the following: he enters one article, glues sentences, removes links/refs/signs/some templates and adds nothing, so he's a pure downright vandal, nothing more.
A third note, this one more personal (albeit not intimate :)) - Since you are an admin, obviously you have had your share of vandalism in all its forms and shapes. My question is: is this Pararubbas case not one of the worst in sockpuppetry you have ever encountered?
Ty in advance, have a very nice week, Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll take it to the editors talk pages right away next time. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.
This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.
This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram ( talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ed,
Previously I got into a spat with user Themfromspace on the article on simple living. It was my fault since I was not using an account. I am learning some of the nuiances of Wikipedia etiquette as I go along though it will take quite a lot of time to master it.
Now I have an account and I discussed the issue of an external link [8] to be put in the article. The editors Oked and so the link to a newspaper article was put by me. In fact some of them even suggested that it should be put in the article simple living from where Themfromspace was continously removing it. Immediately Themfromspace removed it saying that since I had tried to insert some material in simple living before without an account hence it should be removed. I find that very immature behaviour and a personal vendata.
I am now requesting your help in resolving this issue.
Thanks.
Ruralface ( talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your feedback. As an outcome of these discussions is that one user User:Ckatz has been systematically trawling the Wikipedia and removing all the links posted by me even if they are 3-4 years old. Nobody has objected to those links till now but it seems this user has taken it on himself the crusade of removing them. Qiute a number of these links are of scientific papers published in leading journals in the world and I get a feeling that the user is neither aware of their significance or has cared to read. If this is not vandalism then what is it? I will greatly appreciate if you can kindly note this and do hope a corrective action is taken.
I appreciate that Wikipedia provides an open format for people to insert links and material but in the absence of maturity and appreciation of the subject it is becoming an exercise in shallow editing and removal. I have been associated with Encyclopedia Britannica to some degree and most of the articles were written by experts and peer reviewed. Somehow with the type of immaturity and disregard shown by the some of editors that I have interacted in Wikipedia is a cause of concern. I do hope you as one of the adminstrator and an editor would like to bring this to the notice of other senior editors. I must also say that there have been pleasant interactions with quite a number of editors.
Thanks. Ruralface ( talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The links are in articles on Phaltan, renewable energy, solar energy and anywhere where the link nariphaltan.virtualave.net is shown. It seems Themfromspace and Ckatz are working in tandem. I do hope they are not the same person with different wikipedia identity.
Thanks for all the help in the resolution. If there is a genuine mistake on my part I am ready to accept it but ganging up is not very helpful for Wikipedia. Ruralface ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ed, hello, sorry you've been dragged into this matter. The editor in question appears to have a direct conflict of interest; in addition, the links I've reviewed and removed appear to all be either linkspam in the EL sections (in some cases,
groups of three or four!) or "references" used to justify
text with limited or no encyclopedic value. Several editors on different pages have questioned the links; the standard response is a claim of "vandalism" from Ruralface (or his/her other related accounts.) Anyway, do with this what you will; please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions. Thanks. --
Ckatz
chat
spy 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
I want to pose you another wiki-question, my friend: you said earlier that i should not notify many people about a vandal (sock or not) and do it in the proper fields, lest it should be a potential waste of time of everyone involved. Although i agree totally it should be done in the areas for the purpose, i fail to see how warning people about a disruptive vandal is not helpful, but that's another story (speaking of which, i have no news on the Pararubbas front, i even fear to have a look at Portuguese football articles and see them damaged, but if/when i will and find his "contributions", he will be reported and "socked").
This leads to me the question, as i also want to waste my time as little as possible: if a vandal's account (sock or not) is blocked indefinitely, will ALL his edits be reverted? If so, it is a great help, because then, i (and everybody else who faces this situation) will only have to: 1- Insert sock; 2- File report/checkuser; 2.1 - Provide a couple of examples, much less tiresome.
Thank you very much in advance, keep up the good work,
Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"Catch" you later, hopefully with no bad news,
Vasco - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ed,
I am amazed at the paranoia of Ckatz. I have nothing to do with the new account. I had two accounts Akraj and Rural face and hence am amazed at the accusations that you level.
I must however say that the relentless vandalism that user Ckatz has done has gone totally unchecked by all of you. This is what ails Wikipedia and more and more people are writing articles on it. If there was any improprierty done by me I accepted it (and said it in so many words to you) but removing the links which had been on the wikipedia for almost 3-4 years just because they had nariphaltan.org or nariphaltan.virtualave.net is height of vandalism. All those links were about articles on various projects and papers and because of the vendatta that you are all engaged in they have now been removed.
I will still urge you and your adminstrators to please see reason and please stop vandalising and being paranoid.
Ruralface ( talk) 08:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks EdJohnston. Arilang talk 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Roving ambassador for China, do you think it can survive as a wiki if I move it out of the sandbox? Arilang talk 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As you say, I'm taking a break (nothing dreadful, just fancied a change). However, I've commented at the DRV. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello ED, VASCO here,
Thanks for the tip. This situation seemed unsolvable, as everyoby warned this person about three-revert rule and akin, and he engaged in no conversation whatsoever, nor did he write edit summaries. One day, out of the blue, he responded to me, in what i longtime suspected to be his (mine too) mothertongue, Portuguese.
I have since (after a few - last month i believe - friendly messages that "promised" hard teamwork) lost all track of him, although i notice he continues to write no summaries and has received some (NEW) warnings about edit warring in his page. In his first message, he assured he was not a vandal, only a newbie who was trying to know his way around. I believe(d) him, so have pretty much shut that case. Cannot say the same about Pararubbas though, would not be surprised if the 8th account has been opened as we speak, i have been trying to avoid Portuguese soccer articles as much as possible...
Ty very much for the attention, have a nice week, from Portugal,
Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for looking in at the article. I would delete the section in question myself; User:Collect has already deleted it and reworded the text. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, Thank you for your cautionary note. This "war" is not about winning popularity contests, but rather an attempt to introduce style to a clique of rabid conservatives and pharisees. It is a forlorn battle against entrenched mob rule which is grandly styled "consensus". Some of these are people who would not know aesthetics if you handed it to them on a skewer - do see the history and discussion at Walter Hood Fitch for the latest demonstration. ciao Rotational ( talk) 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ed, Many thanks for looking into this. I accept Administrators have the right to edit entries from time to time, but how do I know who is an Administrator? It looked to me that this was a personal attack by IanMacM. If he’s an administrator it would be nice to know that in some way as we could have avoided all this. I also accept Wikipedia articles doesn’t like links with alleged copyright violations, but that was an assumption on IanMacM’s part, as I DO have written permission. -- Tlrampa ( talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Oldy2 has taken User:Super1122's place in reverting this article. -- Leuqarte ( talk) 03:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Ed, Vasco here,
Pararubbas opened his eighth account, User:Asz08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asz08), and i reported him here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas#Report_date_April_9_2009.2C_00:51_.28UTC.29).
Could you drop a word, please? This time, i kept the insults, and they are many, to myself. In a related note, i won't leave Wikipedia, but i'll work less and less on Portuguese soccer, this guy is sick in the head or i don't know, but he is IMPOSSIBLE to work with, i have failed to see his approach - being myself an eternal optimist who can't know a vandal if/when he sees one...Pityful.
Ty very much in advance, Vasco Amaral - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the second issue, what do i mean with signs in infobox? Take this example: if you see the infobox closely, when a player is loaned (as opposed to sold) to a new club, an arrow points out that such business has occurred, not a buy (looks something like this →); it's been a pattern used in great deal by the vast majority of users, the vandal removes it just because.
That's all for the moment (i still shake at the idea of what you told me once, that this is NOT the WORST case of sockpuppetry you have come across), ty for your inputs, "see you", Vasco Amaral, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
He's back 218.186.8.226 ( talk · contribs). NJGW ( talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for responding. My frustrations are definitely not directed at you. Besides semi-protection, could you and a few others keep eyes on those pages and be quick with any suspicious accounts? We've got a passel of banned editors playing games with us. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you have just {{ prod}}ed this article. Just FYI I originally proposed it on 1st April (in this version) and Directorichr ( talk · contribs) removed the tag 9 hours later, so I imagine this one will have to go through AfD. The Proposed deletion policy says an article can't be renominated anyway. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston. I noticed your comment and I'd like to ask you to just go ahead and block the two socks indef. This is pretty standard, and since they were already blocked as socks, a check is not likely to be ran on the two accounts. Syn ergy 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell, as it appears you brought up an issue on COIN a few months ago regarding the same editor. Best regards — Eustress talk 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that User:130.86.14.40 has placed what appears to be some sort of legal or vandalism threat on my talk page. Dan D. Ric ( talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ed.
After a period of rest, user:Phogg2 is back claiming the removal, and removing the free 2002 illustration of the Zachman Framework, now at the John Zachman article.
Phogg2 and I have argued about it for a very long time, and in the mean time I dug up the real history of this illustration: That it was created in 2002 by the Enterprise Architecture projectteam of the US department of Veteran Affairs, in a time when John Zachman was working as an advisor. But as Phogg2 confirmed, he had nothing to do with the production of this image.
The situation seems to be that seven years later, the Zachman cooperation has developed several new versions of the framework, and he wants that 2002 framework eliminated, claiming it doesn't represent the current view/it is outdated/incorrect labelled/we should respect Zachman International's wishes.
I think it is unacceptable, that Zachman cooperation continues to try to turn the John Zachman and Zachman Framework article into their promotion material, censoring developements by others.
Now you know the situation, and I wonder if you would think of any solution here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I am not an expert, but the whole idea of the idea of the VA Zachman Framework image being a derived work seems to makes less and less sense if we go into the details.
When the VA Zachman Framework was created in 2002, there where already dozens of different illustrations of the Zachman Framework, developed by dozens of people and published in dozens of articles and books. The most original framework is considered the 1987 version, see here, republished in A Framework for Information Systems Architecture". In: IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 2&3, 1999. IBM.
Now if we compare the 2002 VA Zachman Framework and the 1987 Framework for Information Systems Architecture by John Zachman, I notice a lot of differences:
The similarity, in my perception, is only in the idea of a matrix representing different a mix of views. That idea is not copyrighted. I just established that the expression of the idea in the VA Zachman Framework is different from it's 1987 original in all it's visual building blocks.
The 2002 VA Framework does have more similarities with the 1997 Framework for Enterprise Architecture, which the Zachman framework article allready explained was based on the 1992 Framework by John Sowa and Zachman, and others. These 1992 and 1997 frameworks are also derivatived from the 1987, and it doesn't seem to me they could classify as the original.
The funny thing is that the 2005/2007 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture has more similarities with the 2002 VA Zachman Framework. It seems to me that 2005/07 Zachman Framework is much more a derived work of the 2002, then the other way around.
An one other thing. John Zachman didn't coined the term "Zachman Framework". It seems the idea was named after him somewhere in the 1990s. All Zachman Frameworks ever created in theory or applied in other frameworks have some similarity with Zachman's 1987 original. I can't image that because of that "some similarity" John Zachman owns the copyright of all these images ever created, ever to be created until 70 years after his death. I read some where that in case of applied art, there is only a period of 15 years after publication.
So you see, if you look into the details there is almost no indication there is a matter of derived work here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe it would be nice to ask an Wikipedia expert to look into this for once.
P.S.S. The other publication of the VA Zachman Framework was in Bill Inmon (2005) John Zachman - One of the Best Architects I Know.
Hi Ed, could you rename the Zachman framework to the Zachman Framework. Three months have passed and nobody objected. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
GANGS:
Please stay out of this as I am attempting to deal with your structural issues with cobaltblue. To wit:
And how do I file a complaint about nasty language and personal attacks by an editor? Specifically Nightshift36. Or is that a one way street as well? I am disgusted not by your content rules but by your double standards and the way in which you administer the rules. Is there a ladder of administration where I can point out the structural problems that I have encountered. Again, I am not referring to the rules but in your enforcement techniques and how each editor turns a blind eye to it while throwing a well-meaning and informed contributor of much needed and valuable information under the wikipedia bus. I am on the verge of being blocked while "editors" get away with bad language, sarcasm and general disrespect under a color of authority. You allow and support loose cannons who in effect put an end to contributions by their manner and style and it is resented. I will be spreading this information to my collegues as I go about my work. Stevonmfl ( talk) 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you call it? "raised their voices"? there is that double standard again. i am new to this and made some beginner mistakes. I will follow the advise of cobaltblueTony and pursue the admin channels. I raised my voice to a person with a major superiority complex and who likes to verbally beat up on people (Nightshift36, a police officer). And you ignored it and jumped on me. Maybe I should have used a surname like "Smith" like I thought of doing in the first place. You see, we are used to this crap. Maybe the both of you need to do something else rather than blocking those of us who have much needed knowledge we wish to share with those who are looking for same in order to work better with minority young people. Stevonmfl ( talk) 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl ( talk) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I will attempt to use the RFC option and am officially notifying you. Please hold off on your BLOCK button until I figure out how to do this. Stevonmfl ( talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/86.158.180.15 Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir Religious violence in India Special:Contributions/86.156.210.46 British Pakistanis Special:Contributions/86.158.234.178 Special:Contributions/86.162.68.48
This jerk never disappears forever... Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting Npovshark to the WP:ANI report. I don't know if you noticed but I had already informed him 1 day beforehand at the time the report was posted, as is usual. I didn't give the link and it's possible he doesn't know his way around that well. :-) Mathsci ( talk) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A new IP ( Special:Contributions/131.94.25.123) just showed up using the same edit pattern as the last several you blocked ( WP:Suspected sock puppets/131.94.22.74 (2nd)) for vandalizing George Weisgerber. Given the threats issued by this particular user, it would be great to get a speedy block. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Abecedare ( talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please revert them for me? I'm quite worried if I'd violate the 3RR. Thanks. -- Mark Chung ( talk) 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Can some administrator look at this case on the noticeboard? It has been going on for days with no help and is still going on. All other cases have been addressed, even all of the more recent ones. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
you'd be interested to know after you warned User:Zip1010 for potential conflict of interest, another user (that Zip1010 has admitted knowing) is now suddenly editing the same articles in very similar style. see Ansonrosew ( talk · contribs). thanks LibStar ( talk) 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Copstead. I see that you have resumed editing YourTravelBiz.com and related articles without joining in any discussions. It is likely that you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia if you are unwilling to engage. You have not replied to the complaint at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
How am I suppose to discuss this with anyone? The information that has been created about the company has been created by competitors to attack YTB. I'm trying to put up actual information, and correct the page from YourTravelBiz.com to YTB. So what is the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copstead ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record and maybe more as it is important to keep insults credited correctly here as this seems to be a favored method of operating, the above discussion by Smatse is NOT CREDITED CORRECTLY. To wit: "...It was clear that Stevonmfl was in the wrong pretty quickly. Comments like "Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you" [9] don't really help us to have civilised discussions." In fact, the above comment on being "bowled over" was actually uttered by Nightshift36 as an insult to me. Smartse assumed it was me and I was blocked like a child. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you made such an assumption. At any rate, I am too used to these kinds of "mistakes" and suffering the repercussions from same and wish you all well. Have a white day. Stevonmfl ( talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl ( talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
Longtime no "see" and, unfortunately, i am addressing with more bad news: Mr.Pararubbas has returned, now as Qaz08 - never mind the customary 08 in account name, if it wasn't i would recognize the patterns in a nanosecond.
I have reported the situation here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), could you "drop a line" there? Guess he won't stop...Guess what? I won't either, until the cows come home!!!
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Johnston: Thank you for your message concerning the merger of this article into the parent article John Serry Sr. I am currently attempting to complete the redirect of this page to the parent article and shall also attempt to merge the Concerto For Free Bass Accordion article into the parent article as well. Thank you for your patience in this regard--I have been attempting to reference the Wikipedia Help instructions in order to execute the merge as expeditiously as possible. Thnaks again for your help and advise--it is greatly appreciated. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) User:pjs012915
Since you are already watching the article, could you look into the talk page antics? Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These seems to be a flood of WP:SPAs engaging in circular discussions. This is quite overwhelming and disruptive to the good faith editors who are trying to improve the article. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason I was the only one warned? I've asked for additional comments on the Massachusetts WikiProject talk page. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. -- Polaron | Talk 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/86.158.235.93
Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
[British Bangladeshi]] Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you at least block his current ip Special:Contributions/81.151.100.127 Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Block wikireader the vandal and ill stop 86.162.70.70 ( talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
new ip Special:Contributions/86.162.70.70 please block Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a very serious issue to deal with that requires a secure medium. Please advice, -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding: Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces
Upon that, Hans Engstrom includes personal threats in the forum like, I know where you are ,,, I can google who you are, which is out of the scoope fo the article.
What do you recommend me to do? -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 08:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well done for piercing Tennis expert's smokescreen, EdJohnston! The responses by Tennis expert are indeed risible. Over the last 6 months, I have learned all about his modus operandi - his conspiracy theories, legendary edit warring, and attempts to pervert the truth by calling black white, and cooperation 'tag-team warring'. Of course, Tennis may sincerely believe what he's saying, in which case he appears to inhabit a rather different reality than the rest of us. Optimistically, he may be brought back into the same universe as everyone else, but then, pigs might fly. Ohconfucius ( talk) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Administrator Johnston - Just a quick inquiry regarding the editing practices of User:Damiens.rf on the parent article John Serry, Sr. and the recently merged article American Rhapsody. Please note the User:Damiens.rf established a redirect tag to the article American Rhapsody without making an effort to preserve any portion of the article despite the clear outcome of a deletion review which called for the articles to be merged. In addition, he complained on my talk page that I improperly removed his redirect before I could make an effort to salvage part of the article and correctly establish the redirect link (I needed time to review the instructions). Futhermore, he is consistently tagging the archive section of the article John Serry, Sr. as requiring cleanup and failing to provided proper verification despite the fact that I have provided direct links to the listed archives with clarification as to how the links can be properly referenced to acquire verification. In addition, User:Damiens.rf advised me against seeking a deletion review concerning the photograph of the musician in the parent article--arguing that it would be virtually impossible to continue using the photograph. In actuality, an expedited review of the photograph resulted in its restoration. With these observations in mind, I wonder if I might request that you instruct User:Damiens.rf to exercise more judicious use of his editorial skills while engaged in Cleanup Activities on this article so as to avoid such unnecessary confusions and controversies in the future. He has been assured that every effort is being made to address any objections he might have to the article's content and that all interests will be served through cooperative editing. Kindly note that I have completed my editing of the article and do not anticipate initiating any further contributions to the encyclopedia. I look forward to any modifications which you deem necessary in the months ahead. Thanks again for your kind assistance. It has been a pleasure communication with you and best wishes for the future. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC) User:pjs012915
the Special Collections Archivist and librarian at the Eastman School of Music. I have been assured that copies of the scores have been accepted at the library as a gift for the benefit of students even though they have not been published as works for piano. (This is due to the fact that the Free-Bass Accordion is similar to a piano in its keyboard configuration as the article on Accordion indicates).He notes, however, that he is prohibited from listing the scores on the library's on-line directory since I gifted copies of the scores rather than the originals. (Alas, I was led to believe that even copies would be properly archived by the library).This technical distinction prohibits him as a professional archivist from presenting the scores to researchers as part of an archive within the On-line Directory at the library. I hope to learn in the near future whether he will allow me to include a link to the library indicating that it retains copies as a reference material. I'm not certain whether this would constitute an acceptable verification for the purposes of Wikipedia quality standards, however. In so far as a variety of technical issues remain unresolved and ambiguous, I shall simply eliminate any reference to the the Sibley library until I have further clarifications from you and the archivist. I'm certain that the article can be amended at some future time to include any reference to an archive in the event that you find such a lisiting to be permitted. I shall not remove any tags placed into the article, however, as per your advise. I shall simply remove the entire archive section since it appears to be unverifiable in its present formulation. I hope that this is the proper course of action. Clearly, I am operating within a realm which is beyond my level of expertise. (Interestingly enough, none of these issues surfaced when I submitted the article as a purely biographical description.) Evidently, I lack adequate knowledge of the editorial process to proceed further so I shall commend the article to your hands for final disposition and refrain from any further editorial attempts on the encyclopedia. I hope that some portion of the article will survive the final editorial process for the benefit of futre music students. Thanks again for all your help and best wishes for your future endeavors at Wikipedia. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) pjs012915 Thanks again...-- Pjs012915 ( talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) User:pjs012915
(This post is regarding WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal)
Hello EdJohnston:
I just noticed that you think Corticopia is in fact an anon. IP editing the article Geography of Mexico. I can assure you he is. He has been using multiple accounts for years. I personally have reported several of those, and I got him blocked. What is sad is that he comes and goes.
Please check my user talk to see evidence about Corticopia and his other accounts. The evidence is clear and almost stupid, since he is always editing the same articles, a very well consistent edit pattern.
Please, help us out to stop his disruptive edits. When he is gone, nobody disrupts the pages, and every person agree with the content. He is the only one starting edit wars.
Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I have been having a hard time managing the project management article, removing several new material because I want the article to give an overview.
Now a new editor keeps adding his brand new article Project management for Media and Entertainment to the see also section, dispite several of my removals, edit summaries, messages on his talkpage, and a general note on the article. I have removed that link three times now, but he has reverted this removal three times as well.
Could you please take a look, and give me your opinion. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Now I wonder if there is a more permanent solution here. I don't want to give the impression I own the PM article. But I do want to keep it in a certain shape. I guess the featured electrical engineering article is my big example here. Could you maybe give me some advice here.
Hi ED, VASCO here,
I think you might find this report interesting, and also drop a word ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas#Report_date_April_30_2009.2C_23:32_.28UTC.29). As i also say there, but am most obliged to repeat it here, i find this behaviour very odd (and/or sad): this guy had his last account Qaz08, still not blocked, and opened another, the one reported minutes ago ( Wsx08).
The patterns are all there, and the one still not observed (REF/links removal) will be too, if the account is not blocked (and, repeating what i already stated in my report, he did remove - anon - tags placed there by someone else).
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. 87.69.176.81 ( talk) 06:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested by your comment on the relationship between the filler and Corticopia. Can you please give me a bit more background on this guy? I don't want to confirm or deny any accounts as of now because I couldn't find any team tagging, but User-216-234-60-106 is using more than one account and is editing anonymously on Mexico related articles. -- Luk talk (lucasbfr) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Look at Whois for the IP address [10] - someone should have checked it before as it is Naveen Jain himself. Is there anyway of tagging the talk page to identify him? Anything else needed right now? Dougweller ( talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if you'd like to check those edits, you'll notice that its not edit warring. I'm actually in the process of making a large edit (which I still haven't quite finished, several edits later). Ht686rg90 seems to object to the article's very existence, and keeps trying to delete it without going through the proper deletion process.
Regards, Anthony on Stilts ( talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we block this poster who makes such ugly comments and or remove my talk page entirely which now serves only as a posting board for his hate filled comments not worth repeating. This vandal clearly enjoys the game, adds nothing constructive, and only motive is to post insulting comments. Appreciate any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston, just so you know, you're protecting a shameful self-promoter that has a vested interest in a certain nasal irrigation product. I realize that my harassment of him is inappropriate, but it's hilarious, and he deserves it. In the meantime, I'm making constructive arguments to discredit all of his sources on the Nasal Irrigation page. Feel free to watch and enjoy the show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.139.55 ( talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice one bro. Real nice. Make sure to read before you block. 98.196.36.20 ( talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
Please read this, my friend, you know what it is about ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), drop a line there if possible.
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that he was unblocked. Sorry. -- Abce2| How dy! 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the poster. He continually accuses me of being Dr. Grossan which I am not and I understand this is just one more breach of wikipedia policy to try and identify an editor, however, I am not Dr. Grossan. This poster is not a medical expert or an expert in the field of nasal irrigation. I have invited a medical review of the citations or the claim by contributing ENT's or allergists. The article is nasal irrigation not neti pots. To omit pulsatile irrigation as a viable modality from the category is absurd much like the posters comments. His attempt to pick apart medical transcripts and interpet to his POV only demonstrates his lack of expertise and quite frankly ignorance. His repeated use of anti gay and obscene comments further demonstrates he should not be taken seriously and should be banned however I expect he will simply find another IP to continue his rants. On a side note I think it is worth pointing out that while the poster spends a considerable amount of time maligning Dr. Grossan that thye AMA awared the Certificate of Merit to Dr. Grossan nearly 30 years ago for his work on nasal muciliary function the basis of nasal irirgation and the importance of restoring ciliary function through the use of pulsatile irrigation. I think the poster should educate himself and refrain from further personal attacks.-- Grockl ( talk) 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston - My edits to the Frank Lorenzo page are an attempt at POV. I realize now that I have inadvertently deleted sources, which I have noted. That said, the editing on this page is not factually correct. I have posted a discussion on the board for the page noting as much and suggesting a factual consensus on the page. Please refer to my post on the page. Whether the facts paint Frank Lorenzo in a poor or positive light is irrelevant. Should all the opinion be taken out (both positive and negative) and leave only facts, it should stand unedited.
Thanks,
Wikilore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilore ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The ip that was the subject of discussion regarding Ayn Rand and whom you blocked for a week is now the subject of discussion at ANI. I have commented there regarding the discussion on my talkpage, but I see you have some comments on this page and may wish to note this at ANI. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:EdJohnston/Archive 13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston, thanks for the information. I am concerned about the conduct of TharsHammar. He has been pretty aggressive towards the situation and would revert changes that were against the consensus reached in the discussion area (even on points that he himself agreed with in the discusion). Then, he went on some tirade against me in another forum. Want to act in good faith, seeking your advice on how to handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page about AWB. I have reapplied as 7. I knew that the CHUU would end up conflicting with something. (I would normally reply on my own talk page but I am trying to let the old history of my proper name clear out of there). 7 { talk to me } 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Please revisit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Damiens.rf reported by Allstarecho (Result: Both editors warned) as more info has been added. Also see this ANI thread. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 06:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you lock down and therefore protect the edits of the IP you were supposedly protecting the article against? And why was I (Damian) blocked instead? 86.132.248.254 ( talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I filed a complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings ( talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I realize we generally require users to bear their misfortunes like a scarlet letter, but if this user is truly leaving I don't see any harm in going ahead and letting him blank his talk page. I even told him he was free to do so when I declined his request to have the page completely deleted. I've spoken with the user by email and have blanked his talk page at his request. -- auburnpilot talk 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he's changed service providers (at home rather than the cafe/library?), and I'm almost proud that he's evolved a little to using "-in life". [11] Only one vandalism this time, but I'll let you know if it picks up. NJGW ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnson, We are about ready for another edit war over the mountain being cited TWICE last season for serving alcohol to underage patrons. This is a very big problem here in Montana where the majority of roadway fatalities involve alcohol and frequently, minors in possession of alcohol. If barek does not believe that there's a concensus, or even a problem, he must not be from the area and should not dictate what goes on here.
Please do not let him protect the page again as threatened.
We have already endured a single purpose account on the Whitefish Mountain payroll doing the sanitization on the page, please don't let more editors in collusion with the mountain do the cleanup any more. Thanks 72.160.4.98 ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello-- Quicksand Survivor ( talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
[12] a couple of hours, Ratel still has not had the cup of tea. I find his continued remarks made on a personal basis about me to be tiring indeed. [13] shows he does this to others as well. [14] lecture mode accusing a person of COI. ec. If I go back more then 3 days, I find much more -- including his WQA at [15]. I hope this will help you. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Try [16] "If you cannot grasp all that, ask for help somewhere else." " you really need to learn", [17] accuses another editor of PA for his edit [18] which is a stement of seeking more eyes on the article. [19] accusing an editor of seekimng to "suppress" material, [20] accusing me of a campaign against him *as though changing a pound sign to a dollar sign is a campaign?), [21] direct PA (and I had just suggested a cip of tea), and yet another at [22] (he actually got remostrated with at [23] fpr his COI claims, and by Blueboar for his continued PAs on me at [24] etc. I only went back 3 days -- do you need more examples? Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this block that you made, a request has been received on unblock-en-l to create an account jimgaconcept ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have created it, and will monitor it, but any help you can offer will be appreciated. Fred Talk 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
This is getting personal, he will get tired before of me, this i guarantee you ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas). Drop a word if you can please.
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This user Ixtapl is possibly a new Corticopia sockpuppet. He was kinda retired, then after all the problems with Corticopia and anonymous IP users, he "went back" just to edit the articles the anon and Corticopia used to edit. Check please. Somebody has to stop this, cause it has been going for years. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You might wish to see if this qualifies as "inserting negative material" in the article. [49] removing mention of countersuit by Copperfield, [50] removing expository material, [51] extending material about plaintiff's case, [52] eliminating any accidental mention of a counter-suit, [53] reintroducing "sexual assault allegations". Mpme of these edits were mentioned in Talk, and most certainly have no consensus for them. Collect ( talk) 01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(out) [55] 00:25 20 May [56] 01:45 20 May [57] 02:26 20 May [58] 02:29 20 May (not consecutive) making 4RR in 2 hours and four minutes. At this rate, he could hit 50RR in a day. For sure Ratel is in major edit-mode. Collect ( talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
[60] 04:55 30 May - clear revert. [61] 05:30 20 May clear revert. Have we hit 3RR for sure yet in only five hours? Collect ( talk) 10:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, i'd like to know why you decided to only bring up my mistake when commenting here. I don't mind people pointing out my mistakes, its the only way to learn and move forward. But the links I provided clearly showed the trolling Rirunmot was doing! Did you only read as far as the first two diffs before deciding I was the guilty party? Because it was quite clear to everyone else that Rirunmot was trolling my talk page (with a sock puppet as well)! I'm not looking for any action from you, as far as i'm concerned the matter is settled as long as Rirunmot remains clear of my talk page. All I want is some clarification! Cheers. John Sloan @ 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You blocked 121.185.26.0/24 in response to my filing on AIV. However, I originally asked for a rangeblock of 121.185.26.0/16; this was later "corrected" by a user who doesn't seem to use the CDIR range script/gadget. The wider IP range shows 16 different addresses, the one you blocked only catches 12 of them. I've reviewed all of the edits in the reported range; they all consist of the same type of vandalism, with the earliest in 2007 and most of them occurring since April. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千?!」( Dinoguy1000) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have 'replied' to you at WP:AN3. What would you like to know about this situation? JulieSpaulding ( talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, i have a request for you,
Don't know if it is possible, but if it is, could you block these two anonymous addresses ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.3.133.156) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.6.253.152)? Rest assured both are PARARUBBAS. Furthermore, he has already worked with 5, 6 others (all starting with 92) in several other pages i visited (can't remember which or when), take my honest word for it, it's him, 100% sure!
Thank you very much in advance, good weekend,
VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Attentively, and again ty very much in advance,
VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Again ty, have a good week - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
WLU and Slp1 and their fr8iends have destroyed the permnanent linbs and content of the article about the Canadian Children's Rights Council. They have falsely stated that it is a father's right organization rather than a child rights organization.
They use some female supremacist reference as an authority.
Thhey have also attacked wevery entry in Wikipedia thaqt contains a refernce to the Canadian Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.52.160 ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please semi protect the page Central America? This anon IP, that we all know who might be, is reverting a map. He is using his IP to avoid scrutinity. Make it semi protected so only registered users can change it. No body has objected the new map but Corticopia. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED,
speaking of the devil, he has returned, with the 12th sock account (sick individual), called Wsa08. I did not file a report because, from what i have seen, he has not removed anything ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wsa08), in fact he has added, but he did just that in a couple of accounts, maybe he was in a hurry: i don't know if he was the one creating the templates, but he added both the PORTUGUESE GOALKEEPER OF THE YEAR AWARD and PORTUGUESE LEAGUE TOP SCORER templates to several articles, removing nothing. I told him, in Portuguese and English, such additions were highly appreciated, but that he was not to remove stuff (obviously you know his answer :()
This account has already been warned by me, the minute i see something is removed, the report will be filed. Also, check this (i guess i will have to go back on that "no stuff removed" statement about him): in João Pereira's article, he, once again, removed loan signs in INFOBOX (sometimes, it is habitual for a soccer team to have a player only on loan before buying him permanently), thus displaying his habitual pattern of "i don't care, i do it my way, you can go suck on a lemon".
Hope something can be done, if a block emerged just from this message it would be BEAUTIFUL, have a nice week yourself,
VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, one user quotation man is violating Wikipedia policy by constantly removing well referenced material in order to make the subject look more favourable. I looked up more than 8 verifiable sources (BBC, Irish Times, Financial Times, not tabloids), and he has removed almost all of them. He has been previously banned for 24 hours for engaging in edit wars and violating policy. The page has also been vandalised by IP addresses originating in Libertas Headquarters.
Can I (or anyone) undo his edits and restore our sourced content? Thank you.
I just don't like seeing Wiki being used as a propaganda tool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinirishpolitics ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can explain what I meant when I wrote that NIMSOffice uses a fake email address to send anonymous emails and for stalking people. NIMSOffice uses an email address that is similar to blablabla-at-yahoo.com (I am not allowed to post the actual email address, but just to give you an idea). About 1 month ago NIMSOffice wrote from that fake email address a series of messages to me, stating that he "does not appreciate" my involvement in Wikipedia. NIMSOffice did not disclose his identity, in spite of my request. I found his anonymous emails highly annoying and irrelevant. Aoganov ( talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This user is being very troublesome still and removing sources see [62] and [63]. As the user is removing good WP:RS I think something should be done. Catapla ( talk) 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to attract your attention to the following: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuotationMan ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply to unblock
Correct - I will not edit any of the pages you just named. I hope that you will also take a tough stance towards users such as Catalpa, Anameofmyveryown and Truthinirishpolitics' if you judge that they are in any way attacking the reputation/privacy of Ganley and Libertas on Wikipedia. They are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps [64] - which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas.
Wikipedia pages about living persons must be written conservatively and in favour of the persons reputation and privacy. WP:BLP I do not believe the current Declan Ganley article lives up to this. -- QuotationMan ( talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that Quotation Man has no proof I am related to some obscure blog I have not heard about. It is interesting to note that QuotationMan only edits Declan Ganleys page a) during working hours and b) When something (well sourced) which he does not like appears. While he was temporarily banned from editing IP addresses from Libertas headquarters edited the page. But of course we heard no complaints about conflict of interest then.
Would you be able to revert this users edits pleased? I accept any language that is perceived as negative, skewed etc. should of course be removed. Truthinirishpolitics ( talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, Thank you. I am still new at this and sometimes advise is conflicting and procedures not as clear as I am used to.
Iwanafish(aliases 220.102.13.244, 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202) hit the Rehoboth Carpenter family page again on 24 May at abt 2130. I reverted the page just a few minutes ago. Your warning to him is appreciated. What is strange is that he did not hit the other pages he has hit before. I am thankful for that.
It is very frustrating when he refuses to communicate. Many have tried. I have known him for over a decade on the Carpenter Roots web forum. He was difficult then, but at least he would discuss items. Here he hides under his user name.
Any help is very appreciated. And I aplogise for my clumbsy efforts to get help.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right. But at what point does edit warring under multiple aliases just becomes vandalisim? For example, the name is different, but the behavior is the same for now Kungtzu sockpuppet of Iwanafish. And the game goes on. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:David Cameron, I noticed two duplicate threads made by User:Kowalmistrz simultaneously at 21:44, 13 May. [65] [66] I don't know for sure, but it looks like the user pressed submit twice. In any case, without thinking of our agreement yesterday, I removed one of them. [67] Is this a problem? Viriditas ( talk) 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
See [68] appears to want to get even with me. I consider his acts to be objectionable. Collect ( talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Ratel is appealing an indef block for his quite odd BLP views -- and he is trying to shift the blame to me (and accusing Gwen Gale who acted on another person's complaint entirely of being my "friend". I am concerned that his continued PAs on me are actually making some believe his claims. You likely should apprise yourself of the reasoning behind the block as you are pretty well aware of his acts on David Copperfield by now. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
At it once more -- seems he can not avoid it. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Copperfield_(illusionist)&diff=prev&oldid=292854040[ 10:47 28 May Suggest you read Grand jury. We's all know if the investigation was over
[72] 6:42 28 May FBI Investigation: this is not an issue of the past)
[73] 00:26 28 May Reverted to revision 292745459 by Cameron Scott; Prefer this version. Making 3RR when he had sworn to uphold BLP to Gwen Gale.
along with very un-utile talk page comments [74] [75] [76] accusing Flowanda of being corrupt, [77] accusation of siding with "socks and gophers" etc. ad nauseam. Collect ( talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I'm the anonymous editor that is trying to cite Brian Switek's credentials on Darwinius. A few points here:
The editors in favor of hiding Brian's credentials know that by revealing his credentials, the impact of the his opinion will be diminished. In my opinion, this is appropriate; if the truth about Brian's credentials lessens his credibility, and other equally applicable sources exist that will not reduce the credibility of the article, then the appropriate remedy is to replace the weaker sources with the stronger ones, not to hide the credentials of the current source. However, as I've stated many times, I'd be satisfied just to list his credentials alongside his opinion.
Wikipedia allows for anonymous editing on the grounds that the edits themselves are more important than the identity of those making the edits. My purpose here is clearly not vandalism, and in fact my efforts are aimed at improving the credibility of the article.
I would encourage you to keep the article semi-protected. I will only edit anonymously, so long as the article remains semi-protected, I will not edit it. This is my choice. In this way, the conflict is resolved, but is the article better off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.168.237 ( talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It takes more than one person to make an edit war. You should look at what happened, and think about it before you pass judgment. You are however correct about one thing --- I have no remorse about my actions because they were justified. If at any point that page is unprotected and Brian's credentials are still missing from his opinions, I will edit them in. To do otherwise is just plain deceitful, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of me or of anonymous editing. 130.13.168.237 ( talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I prodded this one - the creator expanded it a little, added a couple of references, and removed the prod. I'm still not entirely convinced the subject meets the notability guidelines, but I'd appreciate someone with a more practiced eye looking it over and positing an opinion. Mind having a look? Also, could you please drop me a note on my talk page once you have? Thanks in advance. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about self promotion. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BARNABYRUHE
I wonder if the paintings reflect self promotion by work of the submitter than adding to the articles. Your thoughts or comments?
It also appears that the first painting used for Scott Carpenter article (near bottom) was named - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johncarpenter.JPG - and is nominated for deletion on 29 May 2009. A duplicate of the same picture at: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scottcarpenter.JPG - I am not sure if the title was a mistake or what.
Jrcrin001 ( talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you semi-protected Hungarian discrimination against Roma people. You think I should AfD the article? Most of the article just details the plight of the Roma people, and relies on some flawed logic to attribute this to Hungarian discrimination. Also, there are hardly any references available to back up the article's "claims". Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment on a 24 hour block you imposed on User:Cool Nerd, at that page. Edison ( talk) 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see and comment here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sheesh, what a storm of snarkiness. Sorry to bother you on your page, do you have any idea what is being demanded of me by this edit [78]? I don't see anyone asking me previously to 'fix my link', let alone "go fix your link already!". Really a lack of WP:CIVIL, IMO. Good heavens - all because I asked that people document their non-vandalism revisions on a talk page of an article on probation. Thanks in advance. -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding removal of Science daily press-release on the article by Oganov. Only quality reasons: Boron must go to GA and FA, as all element pages. As such, it should contain links to the original articles (such as the Nature paper by Oganov, which by all means should be there) rather than press releases. The mentioned press release (as usual) contains scientific inaccuracies, such as boron is "ionic crystal", which phrasing was vehelmently opposed by the author himself on the boron talk pages :) (Just let me know if you need the diffs). Best regards. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
First, please do sign your message with four tildas every time you edit, even from an IP (I've done it for you, but without a date as my reply is many hours late). Second, I'm not going to pick up this fight, unless specifically asked by a third party. Your peer-reviewed Nature paper was clearly mentioned there and having a separate, extra, non-reviewed, much shortened press release on the very same results is not what is expected from a GA/FA. As to "this story .. is indeed a reason", I've never heard of this particular "story" utill EdJohnston pointed me to it yesterday .. Thats to the point of face values. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, I noticed the COI/N entry for Taos Institute, and the names there rang a bell … or perhaps a gong. Within the past year, there has been an issue with this group either at COI/N, AN/I or perhaps elsewhere over those creating and editing these articles. I’ve been trying to run these down, but without success. Is there a way to <search> the archives for these pages?
Basically, the group was a nest of COI issues – which they weren’t admitting to although kept unintentionally revealing (it was a gang that couldn’t shoot straight) – producing a promotional page for the institute and creating bios for their members (autobios for a few). There might also have been a fringe issue as well with the institute’s program. As I recall, Mary Gergen and one or two other bios were AfD’d and perhaps an article on the institute itself. I think some of the Taos editors were blocked as well. In any case, this time around Dialogical seems to be the main editor, although other Taos Institute-related SPAs include Correspondencebias, GoVeg, Josephlogan69, and Jean Redmass. In short, this submission may require deeper digging to resolve. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I made a very minor change to your comment at the COI page because I really really don't like being called 'Jethro' - I trust this minor change won't concern you too much. Aside from that, thanks for your comments. My main concern is with the self-promotion of the user's website, which prior to their own addition of links to it in Wikipedia articles, did not seem to be a well-known resource. But it doesn't seem appropriate that a website gain some kind of perceived notability in Wikipedia articles by its introduction into those articles by the creator of the website. Perhaps I am being overly concerned? I'd like to emphasise that I'm not suggesting the user should not be editing articles.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick protection of Hey, Slavs, I'll get back to you once we've got everything sorted out. Cheers! Dotty••| TALK 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
Just found this, and have to share it with you:
PARARUBBAS, here anonymously ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.0.145.142), removed signs in INFOBOXES, links and REFS at Orlando Sá and Luis Aguiar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Orlando_S%C3%A1&diff=292630286&oldid=288717155 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Luis_Aguiar&diff=prev&oldid=292663905). Most incredibly, the person i often accuse of writing appalling English in a variety of football articles (not my fault if he writes in poor fashion), did this in a user's page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Rjgibb&diff=prev&oldid=204664454, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Rjgibb&diff=prev&oldid=204664713 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Rjgibb&diff=next&oldid=204664713)
Almost erudite level of English, incredible the level of mockery he can achieve. So he vandalizes, writes in poor english when he can write well, removes whatever he wants, and what is done? NOTHING!! And now that i know he "contributes" from England, more than nothing!! I guess i would be more at risk, if i dare insult such a kind man (although i do acknowledge it does not solve anything, but neither does NOT insulting).
What a pityful disgraceful man (not you ED :)). Seriously, even though i know a long-range block is impossible, something has to be possible man...How about blocking anon IPs one-by-one? Is that a possibility?
Cheers from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ty very much in advance, VASCO - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Attentively, VASCO, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Was getting a love note every few days, but now it's spilled over into other users' talk pages and article space. [79] NJGW ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information but I can't find myself!
With compliments.
With compliments.
Need some help on the Kosovo page. It is being attacked constantly by people refusing to accept fact.
Thuranx ( I think he is an administrator?) keeps editing, for no apparent reason. I have tried to instigate discussion with him here on my talk page, but he gives no specific examples of my "vandalism". He seems to be pushing POV or in any case, wants to maintain the status quo regarding the Kosovo article. It should be noted that the Kosovo article is tagged as not neutral and full of misleading citations. I have tried to add numerous citations but there is a huge problem with the editors (possibly administrator (s)) on the page. I would like to know what you think.
( Interestedinfairness ( talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).
Thanks for your prompt reply, and thanks for the advice. I will try and apply it. (
Interestedinfairness ([[User
talk:Interestedinfairness|talk]]) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).
hi i was told my page was nomitated for deletion.. i have had my wiki page for a long time now and have not had an issue.. however i tried to update it and put alot more informationn about me and the projects i am involved in. i was then told that it was not allowed for me to do that. whick i do understand that your pages must be worded a certin way. however after talking to other people that work for the wiki i was told if i just put it back to the way it was before i had edited anything that it would be fine because that was already preapproved content. so i had dont that and put it all back to exactly the way it was last week and month the way it was when it was created.. i would hate to see it get deleted is there anyway to prevent this from happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs ( talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ed, you might want to take a look into this latest allegation by a new user. The user claims that IP 160/James Valliant/Pelargius1 are all one in the same person. [80] I have no idea if it's true. All I know is that a new user (Pelargius1) appeared today wanting all James Valliant's material put back everywhere on Wikipedia. It prompted a welcome, albeit lengthy, discussion. If the user is IP 160, the user is evading its block by way of a new account without notifying anyone. If it's Valliant, it's a conflict of interest and someone needs to be notified. And if they're all one in the same, I don't know what needs to be done. Should a checkuser report be filed on Pelargius1 to see if the user is IP 160? J Readings ( talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I am the 'one of the participants' who corresponded with James Valliant as noted above. I had been in discussion with James, bringing him up to date on the talk pages and Wikipedia review Valliant/book controversy, letting him know some scuttlebutt that he himself was posting as IP 160.
I did not assume that Valliant was posting using the IP 160 account at the time. I considered it somewhat unlikely, and wrote to James to that effect, also directing him to a link to a 'What's my IP' site, so he could see if the IPs matched. To check my own doubts, I consulted earlier emails from his address, and carefully checked the IP addresses in the headers. They matched exactly to the IP 160 address.
I wrote back to James again, letting him know that he as IP 160 was now subject to a six month topic ban. He wrote back that a topic ban was news to him, since he had just added a reference to David Kelley's 'Evidence of the Senses' to the Objectivism article. I checked the article, and a fresh reference had been made as he had stated. . . by Pelagius 1.
I then posted to Wikipedia and contacted the editor of the off-Wikipedia site noted above. It was clear to me that IP 160 and Pelagius were one and the same.
I followed the links provided to me that suggested a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser request. At the same time, I figured that the evidence I had provided James privately would encourage him to own up to posting as both IP 160 and Pelagius.
Then came the claims that Pelagius is a Valliant 'book agent' -- along with some rather unclear "my roommate did it" half-explanations. Obviously no one can prove one way or another that two or several people used the IP 160 account since last October, and similarly -- no one can prove that two or several people have been using the Pelagius account.
I am not convinced that any real sockpuppetry has been attempted: with the exception of the Kelley reference, Pelagius has made no edits, and has broken no Wikipedia policy that I can tell. I would suggest to Pelagius and IP 160 and to the various householders that someone make a clear report of the shared account, or at least acknowledge clearly what has been demonstrated privately.
To my last suggestion to James that he clear the air about shared accounts, I received an expletive-laced reply and a request to never write him again. Wsscherk ( talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A "competitors" section that lists other companies which have no connection to the article topic other than happening to provide the same service is never appropriate content in any Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
2 questions: 1. Controvercy page is created by upset customer.in my opinion it must be removed.online forums are not credible sources in my opinion. The fact that bloomex company is Canadian partner for all Canadian orders for two largest floral companies Proflowers and 1800flowers is way stronger indication on company credentials. 2. Why I could not edit the article? Floralexpert ( talk) 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to express my opinion as a person who knows the industry and have worked in in for decades. It would be more prudent to block Dougweller who does not respond to discussion page and does not follow the logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floralexpert ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnson, I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now. From my professional activities I know Bloomex operations, but I do not have direct association with Bloomex. I consider myself an expert in floral industry and I did edit in the past articles related to floral industry in USA, though I did not bother to create login until recently until I came across article about Bloomex, the Canadian company. In my opinion, the problem arise when one of the unhappy customer ( or an unhappy local florist) edited article to include words like" scam" and included posts online forums. That post triggered further editing with COI from folks from the company, unhappy customers and editors. Before that article was published for 6 month without any major editing. I am ok to include BBB mentioning, though from expert point of few it is not 100% correct: 1. All florist by default receive rating C if they are not " accreddited by BBB ( read: pay money to BBB). The process of accreditation in Ottawa BBB is faulty and it has great coverage with fraud Ottawa BBB was involved by accrediting several companies involved in fraud ( national govermant new agency CBC had coverage on that with numerous coverage in local press: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/07/ot-fraud-080207.html
2.THERE IS NONE OF HIGH VOLUME retail florists in Canada, who has good rating with BBB.- you could check it yourself, type " florist or flowers" in BBB search and select Canadian provinces or cities. there is no canadian florist with 100 or more complaints with rating higher than F. I do not agree about quoting Ellen Roseman as an expert, because
otherwise we have to quote her in all Wikipedia articles about
large Canadian business. See her articles about: a) Sears: - 35 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=sears#919
b) Canadian Tire- 42 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Canadian+Tire&sa=Search#922 c) Future shop - 50 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=future+shop&sa=Search#981 d) even grocery chain Loblaws has 18 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Canadian+Tire&sa=Search#922
Please reply to my argument in logical way Floralexpert ( talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Since you initially responded to the thread on ANI, the two editors in question have posted a number of comments, but no one outside of the conflict has said anything. Should I take it to WP:ANEW as Jayron said? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, Could you please move this page to New Creation Church in line with the consensus on the talk page - I tried but an admin needs to do it apparently. I'd be greatful if you could take a look at some of the recent edits too - the article was discussed at WP:COIN and it seems as though editors with a COI may still be editing it. I'm not quite sure how to maintain a NPOV. Thanks Smartse ( talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that you banned the IP number 72.199.110.160 from certain topics and cited "a discussion at ANI", the phrase in quotes here appearing as a blue link. When I clicked on it, I didn't find that particular discussion, but only the ANI page. Can you give a URL for the discussion? Thanks. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem with your edit, but as far as I know it was a standard 4 tilde timestamp, so if the bot has a problem with that maybe the bot needs to be fixed? – ukexpat ( talk) 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have not violated the 3RR My first revert was at 05:59, 7 June 2009, my fourth revert was at 18:31, 8 June 2009. I had well over 24 hours between my first revert and my fourth revert. After my first revert, I accidentally reverted my own edit, and promptly undid this accident. Unless, I am mistaken (please correct me if I am), this accident does not count in the 3RR Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Unfortunately a recently blocked user [ [82]] continues the same activity [ [83]]. I tried too initiate a discussion on a new basis, but there is not much to try. He also finds support to another user [ [84]] (he is also a newcommer in wiki ), in order not to break the 3rr (he continuously insists that he will not break that again and will organize combined actions). Is it something we can do? Thank you for your time. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you accusing me? I have opened topics in talkpages, and have done nothing to break any rule. You are accusing me for things you and Athenian are doing on a daily basis. EdJohnston just see for yourself that I have opened topics on talkpages. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I sent you an email with details of all the actions of Alexikoua and Athenian-- Sarandioti ( talk) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston,
The level of disruption in the articles on cities in Southern Albania is becoming intolerable. First let me begin with Sarandioti. He hasn't stopped revert-warring since his block expired and is clearly gaming the system, as these comments show [85] [86]. Although he hasn't broken 3RR, he has 3R in Delvine and Paramythia, 2R in Berat, Saranda, Himara, and Gjirokaster in the last 24 hours. He edits in bad faith, falsely claiming here that I wrote "Greek majority" [87], when in fact I wrote "minority" [88], he pretends I gave no source [89] when in fact I did [90], and he dismisses out of hand any source I bring as "unreliable" without providing a reason [91]. He has a combative attitude and battleground mentality as evidenced by these comments [92], [93], [94], [95], and these are but a small sample. But perhaps most disturbing of all is that right when he is about to break 3RR, his allies User:I Pakapshem and now this guy who just popped up [96] are there to revert in his stead. These are both brand new accounts, yet they seem intimately familiar with Wikipedia policy. The newest guy, User:XXxLRKistxXx leaves comments like these [97], to which Sarandioti replies as follows [98]. If not socks, these definitely seem like meatpuppets or a revert tag-team. Best regards. -- Athenean ( talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In Sarande I have done 2 reverts like you and Alexikoua so hwy do you accuse me? Also the sockpuppet accusations are empty, and I cannot talk however I want with people I share same views regarding certain issues(LRK). Who are you to judge others? And I still have not forgotten your explanation for removing the proper picture of fustanella :rv because this is one ugly ass picture. Yes EdJohnston thats what Athenian said, chek it if you want. So stop personally attacking me Athenian for irrelevant matters(osckpuppetry, break of rules). Always you speak without ANY piece of proof for ANYTHING. And it seems to me that you and Alexikoua are the ones tag-teaming, because you always make 4 reverts per day, 2 each. Coincidence? DOnt think so. As for the articles it has been explained MANY times by MANY editors why they are reverted, so stop your nationalist lies. EdJohnston for his comment what do you have to say? Is that an approriate answer? And Athenian you added that there is a large minority in Sarande while your source just states that it is large enough to maintain a small school which has never been asked.-- Sarandioti ( talk) 07:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sara. mainting alternative names doesn't mean that a country's borders have to change (why u feel that this is related?). Why r u talking about Greek flags and stuff like you will take revenge, in the
Saranda article? I'm sorry Sara. this is not a nice approach.
Alexikoua (
talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is my only account! What revenge are you talking about alex? -- Sarandioti ( talk) 08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As a sign of good faith I have stopped editing several articles. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The vandal is back http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=States_and_territories_of_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aftermath_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks&action=history Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
the vandal is back http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Seven_Sister_States&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=North-East_India&action=history
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
lol and this indian american vandal is blocked please do not feed trolls 86.153.128.233 ( talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nangparbat is trying to fuel the edit war at Burma. I have reported the page to Nishkid64 for semiprotection. I have not touched the page since my ban ended Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
I need your help, and no, not with PARARUBBAS this time (although he could be mentioned somewhere in the next lines):
Upon making some edits, while anon - my IP is standard - in Bruno Saltor Grau (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bruno_Saltor_Grau&action=history), i received a "tip" in an edit summary by User:Scjessey. I immediately sent him a message, logging in, debating "the goods and bads". Minutes after logging off again, i received a message in my anon account, where the said user tagged me as a sockpuppet of myself (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.129.67.28)
I always thought those tags were "handed" to vandals (like the case we all know), so logged in again, and tried to argue about what was happening and defend myself. No apologies, nothing from him, just a "as long as your intentions are good, you'll be fine". After a couple more hours editing IN and OFF, he reinstated the tag on the anon account, and i have already tried to talk with him again - his response, here( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing&diff=cur#IP_identity).
I have been at WP, since i have the account, over an year now, and NOTHING like this has ever happened. Turns out Jessey has already been blocked three times ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey#Blocked_for_3RR), whilst i, always editing IN and OFF (i also told him, and now tell you, i will continue to do so in the future), haven't been once (just a couple of warnings for harsh edit summaries, that's all).
After my essay, i hand you the verbal duties. My question is: is this guy's attitude legitimate? If not, could you intervene? Is that tag appropriate? Really confused...
Ty very much in advance, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the template per your request; however, I have a legitimate concern that this user is editing articles and engaging in talk page discussion with both the username and the IP address, flicking back and forth between one and the other. Other editors may not be aware that they may be dealing with the same individual - an individual who performs what some may regard as rather contentious edits. Perhaps you could urge this editor to self-identify in a satisfactory manner? I suggested this on the user's talk page. This would avoid confusion in the future. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
-- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your involvement at László Tőkés. I would like to pont out that the usage of city names which are related to Romania, Slovakia, Serbia is disputed between Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak and Serb users. Cities, like Oradea/Nagyvárad, Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár and the others were Hungarian cities from 1000 until 1918 with Hungarian/German/Romanian population. Those cities still have significant Hungarian population with Hungarian identity. Even so, there are Romanian users who keep removing Hungarian names because they say that using Hungarian names is nothing else, just hungarian irredentism and revisionism, and Romanian names are official (although these names are mentioned in the lead in encyclopedias [99] and can be used, according to wiki rules "Multiple local names" [100]). I thought you should know this. Cheers B@xter 9 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs ( talk) 02:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ed the problems arose out of what would appear to be missunderstandings and a lack of user communication. From my side of the problem is the way in which the WIKI structure discriminates against those who sahre my type of communication disability. I have been diagnosed as having Auditory Processing Disorder, which causes me to be dyslexic. WIKI does not provide the required alternatives for those who share my type of communication disabilities, and because of this can prevent us from contributing to WIKI successfully. Everything is just a mass of text, very few diagrams or visual examples. The support artilce and the indexs are unnavigable all text and difficult to process and understnad. I have spent day hust trying to find out how to create a new category in wiki and still have not found a really suitable and logicla explaination. It appears to be too many cooks spoil the broth,you needa proper well organised and regularly reviewed users manual which everyday foile can understand. The presenjt system is only intellegable to the very few who appear to make up the rules as the go along.
dolfrog ( talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As a comment there seems to be a general lack of understanding by those who oversee the WIKI ystem of the specialsied communication needs of those who may have, through no fault of thier own, a communication disability. This in tuen means that there is some unintentional WIKI institutional disabiliyt discrimination against tjhose who have communication disabilities such as Dyslexia , Auditory Processing Disorder , Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome , Alexia , Aphasia , stroke , etcf this list just goes on.
If wiki only wants to allow those who do not have these disabilities to access and be active WIKI users then that is pure Disability Discrimination, or WIKI needs to adapt and adopt more understanding of the communication needs of those who have commun ication disabilities, especially those WIKI users who wish to become administrators.
dolfrog ( talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If Wiki were to take Dyslexia seriously then WIKI would provide the multipl colour background oiption in the user preferences that other information web sites provide for dyslexics who have problems with black font ona whilr background. may be you should have a look at the IRLEN web sites to find out more regarding Scoptopic Sensitivity syndrome or Mears Irlen Syndrome
dolfrog ( talk) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you have miss understood the needs of those who have Scotopic Sensitivity syndrome (SSS), they are sensitive to cerain light frequwncies and each person who has SSS will be sensitive to different light frquencies os they require the whole background of a web page to be a single bavkground colour to enable them to acces the web page, and the MONObook has at least 3 background colours. Most SSS freindly web sited have at leat six single web page background options to suite the need of most of those who have SSS, So you would need to have at least six more preference options and these options mnetioned or offered on every WIKI page. Again have a look at the IRlen web site http://www.dyslexiaservices.com.au/Six-Year_Follow-Up.htm
dolfrog ( talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I know waht it is like to be a volunteer, I have been running a not for profit orgnaisation to provide help and support for those who share my disability in my own free time for the last 7 years now. But so far with regard to that particular project i have not been working on my own.
dolfrog (
talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The activity around an article I nominated for deletion a few days ago bears some similarity and connections to that of an AfD you participated in on Jacob Apelbaum that was deleted a while back. Since I'm being identified as the problem in this AfD, would you take a look at the situation and provide input or assistance? I don't care about the AfD decision, but I would like to avoid having to renominate the AfD if the article was blanked and speedied. Other related links: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 05:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on 1RR vs. topic ban? Athenean is right about 1RR, so I think a topic ban might be more effective. See User talk:Nishkid64#Question for you for more. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Greeting EdJohnson. Please forgive any perceived transgression and attribute it entirely to ignorance and not malice. The only reason I used the title “Stalking” was because I perceived that Flowanda was very aggressive and confrontational with me. To get a better advice on how to deal with this, I decided to communicate with few other editors that had similar experience with Flowanda and get their opinion. The title of the comment “Stalking” (I’m still not sure what that means in the context of Wikipedia) came from a posting that Ratel left on Flowanda talk page. Most editors suggested that I take the high road and not respond beyond supporting the article with further references. Which is exactly what I’m planning to do going forward. Also, while I have your attention just few questions...
Best-- PiRSqr ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I have collected the data you suggested. The city articles that have most heavily been affected are Himare, Saranda, Delvine, Gjirokaster and Berat (in roughly that order). The disturbance is also afflicting article of towns in Greece that may or may not have been inhabited by Cham Albanians in the past, such as Konitsa, Paramythia, Arta and Preveza. It is also worth noting that User:Balkanian`s word and I had pretty much reached a stable, unwriteen gentlemen's agreement regarding these articles, and all the recent disturbance has been occuring since Sarandioti burst on the scene.
As far as I know, the only discussion is on Talk:Himarë#Demographics,greeks,albanians of Himare, but I would not call it sensible. It mostly consists of bad faith attempts by new users to undermine perfectly legitimate sources, and I consider it closed. This thread [User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Greece-Albania articles, some thoughts.] I initiated on Future Perfect's page, though, might be of interest to you.
I am also certain that Balkanian`s word and Sarandioti are different users, although I suspect that I Pakapshem, Sarnadioti, and XxxLRKistxxX may be the same user (particularly the last two). These articles are also plagued by IPs [106] [107], who may or may not be block evading users. -- Athenean ( talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The user Alexikoua keeps adding 2 unknown greeks in notable gjirokastrits sections, in the beginning of the section. I moved them below, but he reverted it back. 1)Just because they are "greek" doesnt mean they're known. The second one especially. And he has no right to put them before nobel-nominees like Ismail Kadare, or ethnologists. They are part of the greek nationalist attempt to hellenise the gjirokaster article. Check my talkpage for your question. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Another user added an alphabetical order, and your order was not chronological. And the 2 people you added were of Vlach origin and also completely UNKNOWN. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because he was a resident that does not make him notable. He is unknown. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
POV approach? Stop dodging the issue. The ones you have added are unknown. That is what we are discussing. And other editors who are totally NPOV agree with me. Dont try to change the subject just because you are proved totally erroneous. Unknown additions=at least one of them should be removed. I agree with your alphabetical order Gordonofcartoon. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I started adding references, so I will have that finished by tomorrow. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
References were totally reliable, its not my problem if you disagree. Acording to the guidelines there's no problem. About your adds, how exactly are they notable? For Asim Zeneli for example there is a road in Gjirokaster named after him. However, your notable vlach hellenised adds are UNKNOWN!-- Sarandioti ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Again the totalitarian-regime-fairytale. Is it or is it not accepted by your country? It is, so there's no point in what you say. Official data accepted by all countries=official data should be used. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 09:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would have no problem if most of those with no articles were unknown, but Cerciz Topulli, Cabej, Zeneli, Sako, Hoxhi, Ahmeti are indeed well-known in Gjirokaster. Although, we could remove Hatzipolyzoy, Kalemi, Lolis, Marka. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the one with articles stay the rest can go. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Iwanafish is having civility problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Carpenter,_town_clerk_of_London#VANDALISM.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F
He was warned lightly by one user and the end of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iwanafish#Warning_regarding_removal_of_maintenance_templates
And more strongly at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iwanafish#Ouyang_Xiu
This because what happened at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ouyang_Xiu#Efermero_assertion
I am afraid he will go back into his hostile revert mode. His talk is disturbing. Any suggestions? Jrcrin001 ( talk) 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
Please, could you block this anon IP by "our friend" PARARUBBAS? He "contributed" here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jorge_Miguel_Dias_Gon%C3%A7alves&diff=295993102&oldid=292703280), gluing all sentences, empoverishing English (even though he knows the language) and removing REFS.
Ty very much in advance, "see you",
VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Again... sorry to bother you. Anonymous IP user (we already know who that is) is attacking the article North America. It was semi-protected by another admin, but as soon as the protection expired, this guy came back just to vandalize and disrupt the page. Notice how HE IS THE ONLY person oposing the changes and thus, vandalizing the article just because he won't accept the changes even if there is sources. My request is, please protec the article. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston, remember this person? The block expired, and they're right back at it - see [108], 2, 3. Care to reblock Special:Contributions/121.185.26.0/24? 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi -
That whole article and its history are nuts. I didn't think we had any 158kb articles, but we do, and there it is. There's talk about an RFC on the talk page, but I can't find any trace of it. And now the edit summaries of the reversions are talking about the expiration of an RFC. It's a hot mess.
Anyway, here's my thought process on it: I was going through RFPP the day that Vision Thing made a request for semi-protection. I did, but I probably shouldn't have because the IP's note on my talk page was correct - we shouldn't semiprotect in an edit war unless _all_ editors involved are anon/IPs. The IP in this discussion readily admitted his was a dynamic address and owned up to all of his edits, so I don't think he was hiding or attempting sockpuppetry.
Upon reading Talk:Fascism, I reached the conclusion that VT, instead of participating in the discussion there as vigorously as he should, was trying to get the IP editor out of the conversation. So, I unprotected and resolved to watch the article to see if the edit war resumed. Then my real life intervened, and VT went to 3RR, and you know the rest.
I don't have a problem with your block because I may have done the same if I had handled that report. I also think, though, that the edit warring will continue and that some interval of full protection to the article may be necessary to stop it. Taking a look at the history of the last couple of days, I'm about ready to pull the trigger. I'm open to suggestions. - 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie ( talk • contribs)
Hi Ed,
I've proposed again a lead paragraph for the Political Spectrum section: Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum Proposal. It's either the third or forth time I've tried to do that, though, and it doesn't seem to have worked very well so far.
I was thinking of notifying people who have been invovled in discussions on the topic previously. It would be about 30 people. Would this be an acceptable thing to do? Obviously I will invite people regardless of what their position of the question is.