User talk:EdJohnston: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

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

• UST Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Esvobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, SteveJRoss Stevejross (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at User talk:Esvobo. In the mean time, have you come across any other reliable sources which discuss the founding of the company, which might be helpful? Any press coverage which is not already mentioned in the article? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your note to Esvobo. He will not be able to provide a citation for Menon as founder because it was me who Brought Mr. Menon into the business (who I consider a dear friend) 1 year after I started the business. Thank you for watching to see if you receive a response (or no response) from this individual. We need this site to go back to a) being factual and b) so UST Global responsible individuals can go back to making accurate edits about their business.

Here is a citation about the founding of the business:

http://www.hklaw.com/news/Holland-Knight-Secures-75-Million-Award-in-Arbitration-Over-Interest-in-IT-Outsourcing-Company-01-15-2008/

I will send other citations to you as I find them.

Thank you Ed.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed,

We have noticed that over a week has gone by, and user User talk:Esvobo has not responded to your note.

Can we put the site back to where it was before this user removed the factual citations. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. I can't stop you from changing the article if you want to do so but you will be on safer ground if you first make a proposal on the talk page for the change and then wait another 24 hours. If there is an edit war and you haven't participated on Talk it won't look so good. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed,

I noticed that the UST Page is now 'Semi-Protected.' Can I ask you what does this mean. Am I able to make changes to the site while it is semi-protected ?

If the individual User talk:Esvobo continues to remove our documented edits, without responding to either you or me (and without any citations of backup) - will you then consider putting back the block on edits for a period of time ?

I do appreciate your suggestions and guidance. I will post to the talk page of User talk:Esvobo as you suggested.

Thanks for your reply to my questions when you have a chance.

Best Regards,

Steve Stevejross (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the semiprotection won't affect you. It only prevents editing by anonymous IPs. Under our policy, that is the highest level of protection that is currently justified. EdJohnston (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment here without running afoul of my restrictions? I wish to make a comment in support (ironically) of the person against whom the filing was made. Imo, the original comment that led to this filing was completely tendentious. diff An editor with an axe to grind against both parties thought they saw an opportunity for a two-fer and they took it. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed comment as a sign of good faith. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, though whatever action is taken at AE is likely to be based only on the evidence presented there. Ret. Prof, you must be referring to your recent edit, but there are no Ebionites in that ANI discussion. If you want to refer at ANI to a 'group of user accounts working together' you would normally be expected to say who your are referring to and give evidence, or withdraw your statement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the interaction ban? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two parties can be in the same thread so long as they don't interact. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then I will strike. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You semi-protected the Ephesians article, after a report that after only two edits I was accused of both sock puppet and edit warring. I request that you rescind your blocking as I have been unfairly accused and now blocked for an entire month from editing this article. I was an IP when I made one revert, and right after created an account. Then I made one more revert. So only two. Now I've created an account and would like to edit, but cannot. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page to explain the change that you favor. That's the best way to establish your good faith. Neither you nor the IP has any editing record, which is a handicap if you are hoping to be taken seriously. Starting an account and using it to make an edit, while giving the other editors no indication that you are the same person as the IP, is questionable under the WP:SOCK policy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sock puppet article, and what I did is not even close to abuse. 1 edit is not abuse. I think you are over-reaching and over-reacting. Don't you think? I ask you again to revert your protection. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain (a) why you still haven't used the article talk page? (b) why you are still using the IP even after the 3RR report was closed? Are you planning to use both identities on a continuing basis? If so you should read WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used ip as a response because that's where the user left me a message, simple. And why did you delete my comment on the trial board? Am I not allowed even one single comment in defense? This is quite concerning Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I deleted your comment, please provide a diff. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I click on the link you provided and I don't see my comment anymore. I give up. Trying is just too hard. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, the user is violating WP:MOS/WTW and is refusing to read the policy as this edit shows in this other article: [1]. What will the user do once you removed the protection? Already, this user has made this new account to send this request, and hasn't informed me yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JudeccaXIII, please use Talk:Book of Lamentations to explain your concern. It's hard to be sympathetic when two editors are in a dispute and neither one will use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... What's wrong with my other edit now? It's neutral and sourced. Please use talk page of article to interact with me, and my edits.Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo EdJohnston, with regard to the Renewable_resource conflict, there is no sign of an interest in consensus so far. The discussion on the talk page drifts into allegation of a conflict of interest on my side. I am not willing to continue like this, being asked to "explain myself" instead of discussing the sources in question. Is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Comments closed? What would you recommand? Thnx Serten (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the issue of the German-language source was resolved in your favor. Now there appears to be a dispute about the nature of renewable resources, but in a quick glance I can't tell the nature of the dispute. So long as people continue to write walls of text, newcomers may hesitate to come and give their opinion. Consider opening a new talk thread with a proposal for a specific, small change and try to gather opinions on it. Try to limit your own proposal to 300 words, including the rationale. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Preachermen in blonde to calm down. ;) Thnx for the advice, I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs)

Yes I suppose I could take that approach but to all intense and purposes I did that with the posting to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#An RM to ISIS?.

The problem is that some editors initiate talks about possible requested moves in a new section (as was this section "An RM to ISIS?"), and other who would rather not discuss moves again immediately feel compelled to reply (presumably because silence equals consent).

In the case of the editor I have given a topic ban, that editor was notified of the editing restrictions, in which I pointed out that the editor had started at least two sections on the talk page about possible name changes while the last RM was still open (it only started on 17 September 2014 and was not closed until 3 October 2014).

The editor then presumably read my statement and made it quite clear (see the exchange in the collapse box below my statement) that the statement was not going to stop that editor from initiating an RfC on a move "in the next week or so" and that as far as this editor was concerned when it was suggested that my comment was read replied "Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else".

The editor was also changing the names within the article to match what that editor thins are the most appropriate names.

So at that point I decided that it had became necessary to follow up on that part of my statement which stated "In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page". The three month ban is for the same length of time that I have stated that further requested moves/discussion about moves are disruptive.-- PBS (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston. I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but I fear you wouldn't see it because the discussion will be archived soon. User:Dark Liberty is back in action at 2014 Hong Kong protests, edit warring, blanking sections and generally being disruptive. If you had time to check out his contributions it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Are the 1RR restrictions on abortion related articles still in effect? If so, there are editors on United States pro-life movement who need notification.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GS the 1RR restriction is still in effect for abortion. I've alerted User:Goblinshark17. Let me know if anyone else ought to be notified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. I just wanted to check with you once more the eligibility of Northern Cyprus topics under ARBMAC. I am thinking of filing an AE report on an SPA and I would like to confirm with you before any decision on my part to proceed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBMAC includes "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted" which should cover Northern Cyprus. The unstated assumption is there is some kind of nationalist dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ed. The actions of the SPA involve longterm nationalist POV-pushing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]