EdJohnston

Joined 29 May 2006

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chad The Goatman (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 7 September 2019 (Please give a edit warn for User:Chandy of Pakalomattom: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 5 years ago by EdJohnston in topic Yelyzaveta Oshurkova



POV-push on Greek Macedonians and Macedonian language naming dispute

Hi Ed. This is to notify you that brand new account Beat of the tapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is POV-pushing badly sourced or unsourced OR on the articles Macedonians (Greeks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Macedonian language naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They have also reverted twice at Macedonians (Greeks) and opened a discussion at the talkpage where they use PAs on the section heading like "negationism". I have already warned the account but I think that may not work, given their attitude so far. Therefore, I am making you aware of this situation. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_(Greeks)&diff=910302497&oldid=910302391 solidify my allegations. I recommend Ed has a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonians_(Greeks) and sources provided in Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. The page on Macedonian language naming dispute is unencyclopedic and horribly biased, and sources were used unlike your allegations suggest --Beat of the tapan (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It appears that this issue is adequately dealt with at Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)#False allegations of POV and blatant negationism. I am not planning to participate on these issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Palestinian Museum

Hi EdJohnston. I was just looking at the talk page of The Palestinian Museum and trying to make sense of the dispute. To me the content added by Journey of Learning looks like a good addition, but I'm not sure why it was reverted. I see it has something to do with the Arbitration Committee, but I don't really understand.

The museum just won a major architecture prize, so the media attention is beginning to ramp up. With that will come a good opportunity to build up the article with new source material. Is that going to break the rules in any way? (And I just made a small edit to the article -- hoping that I'm not breaking any rules!) Your guidance will be much appreciated. -- Aylahs (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Journey of Learning is too new to be editing The Palestinian Museum directly, but can post on the article talk page. Since you have more than 500 edits, you are free to edit the article. If you agree with the changes proposed by Journey of Learning, you are in a position to add those changes to the article. You should be alert to whether consensus favors the changes, though. Disagreement is common with matter that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick reply EdJohnston. I see this will have to be managed carefully! I'll broadcast my editing intentions on the article's talk page; hopefully others will do the same and it will reduce the chance of disputes. I don't mind publishing some of what Journey of Learning has written, but I feel badly getting credit for someone else's edits. It looks like they put honest effort into it, and it would be discouraging for a new editor to have that work go unrecognized (and for a very confusing reason). Any suggestions on how we can help keep Journey of Learning feel engaged and positive out of this mess? -- Aylahs (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It should be enough that you gave Journey of Learning the credit in your edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kosovo issue

Hi EdJohsnton. Matke.j is a new editor who is removing the word "Kosovo" from articles or replacing it with either "Serbia" or "Kosovo and Metohia". I reverted some of their edits and placed a message on their talk page [1]. They responded by saying Hi my Albanian friend ! The real name is Kosovo and Metohija , and that territory is a part of the Republic of Serbia by Resolution 1244 of UN . Greetings from Serbia !. What should be done now because they continue the disruption? Not to mention that they are not supposed to assume about other editors' nationality or ethnicity. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've alerted them to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. You might consider making a report at WP:ANI. So far, the behavior is quite blatant. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you EdJohnston. Similar cases happen very frequently and newbies are more likely to listen to advice if they take it from more than a single editor. If the disruption persists, I will file a report. Would WP:AE be a more appropriate place than WP:ANI since discussions in the latter tend to become too long and messy sometimes? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I just notified Matke.j of the discussion here. Perhaps they will respond. Meanwhile I suggest you avoid edit warring with Matke.j. It is likely that consensus will prevail before long. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Of course, edit warring is never a solution. They have never reverted on any article so it is very likely they will reflect on the issue and decide to gain experience and learn how disputes are settled on Wikipedia before they make more controversial edits on controversial articles. Some Balkan topics are too messy for many newbies. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The warning

I really don't understand how I was warned on my talk page, when all my edits (and their subsequent edit summaries) directed the user to the talk page on the article in question, where I encouraged further discussion the changes. What would have been a better solution? I seriously want to know.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unclear why this would be a defence. Edit wars take place when people keep on reverting instead of waiting for the outcome of discussion. Discuss-while-revert isn't a useful pattern when it gets up to a total of six reverts each. If there is a question of sourcing, it may help to refer the matter to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

page move request

Hi EdJohnston, I had requested page move protection on Delhi Dynamos FC page to stop recurring vandalism before official announcement. Now the announcement has been made and there's a request for page move, can you please look at it at Talk:Delhi Dynamos FC? Thanks. Coderzombie (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This move is likely to be approved, but WP:RM still has one more day to go. The simplest is to let it expire normally and then I (or some other move closer) can do the honors. The club still uses the old website and the old Facebook page, so some details of the move are not complete. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yelyzaveta Oshurkova

After a quick search I found those sources: [2][3][4][5][6]even wikidata. Regarding your site, perhaps they did not update her profile?--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding those mentions. Do you want to add them to the article? It is often worth checking to see what Wikidata says, but it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please give a edit warn for User:Chandy of Pakalomattom

There's a user named Special:Contributions/Chandy_of_Pakalomattom Chandy of Pakalomatton I give me wasting my time at the Mar Thoma Syrian Church for the last two-three months over the classification of the Church's identity, like that user is still proclaiming its Eastern Christian due of the Syrian christian origins, despite both its website's history page seen here and even its page has contrast its claim due of his naive WP:RNPOV biases over by its own historical facts.

  NODES
admin 1