User talk:EdJohnston

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 .

Request for unprotecting Vaticinium ex eventu

Dear EdJohnston, you recently EC protected Vaticinium ex eventu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a result of edit-warring. However, the content dispute which triggered the edit war has since been resolved, and constructive editors have already found themselves unable to edit the page. Would you consider unprotecting it? Thanks, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your assurance that an agreement has been reached at Talk:Vaticinium ex eventu, though it is not easy to figure that out. Protection has been reduced to semi. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Ok, I agree to make no more reverts on English wikipedia articles I have previously edited without consensus first , but I am able to revert if the changes is confirmed to be vandalism right? or will I not be able to revert any article even if I see destructive edit 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking only , I get it no revert from me under any circumstance right? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern with an editor

Varenx101 (talk · contribs)

This editor has been edit warring over 3 articles for over a week(including logging out to continue edit warring)[1]. Considering this editor has chosen not to use the talk page, there is no way to understand why they are removing references and referenced information.

The 3 articles are:

Perhaps you can help with this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about delhi dynamos redirecting odisha fc

here's a link. Delhi Dynamos should have its page where all the records under delhi dynamos is there. odisha fc should have a separate page where only record under the name of odisha fc should be there. here's a link

https://m.timesofindia.com/sports/football/indian-super-league/top-stories/odisha-gets-its-own-isl-football-club-as-delhi-dynamos-shift-base-to-bhubaneswar/amp_articleshow/70928674.cms Imsamrat392 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Luwanglinux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I understood that you chose to not sanction Luwanglinux concomitant to his agreement of not reverting any editor on S. Asian topics. Hours after such a commitment, he is back to his usual ways over History of Manipur. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to reach a consensus by discussing with him, as @Kautilya3: noted in the edit-war-noticeboard. He is using computer-science journals/poems/fringe non-indexed journals to push fringe views that are rejected by modern historians! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latest addition seems milder than what might have been there before, though it is well short of an NPOV treatment.

I agree that he should have agreed the content with you on the talk page before putting it into the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. He has now created a new article, by copying the same content (check the edit summary) which I had disputed and removed over History of Manipur. I propose that this be considered as an indirect way of edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since my negotiation with User:Luwanglinux on their talk page was not successful, I went ahead with a one week block, per my closure of the AN3 complaint. Just today I became aware that they also have a block history. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for the blocks and protection. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 18:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Hello, back in January 2017 you semi-protected TVXQ to indefinite. However, nowadays I don't think semi is necessary anymore given the relatively low level of editing on the page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page on the musical group TVXQ is still getting 30,000 views per month. You may notice from viewing the log that the page has needed semiprotection many times in the past. I would keep the protection, but you can appeal if you want at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankful message

Thank you for blocking TWCZane and zack, They deserved it for abusing multiple accounts. Your a good admin. Scottlover20248 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it because they all had the same name. Scottlover20248 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed likely from behavior and it was also confirmed by checkuser, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TWCZack/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless edit warring

Despite your warning,[2] Generalsagar is still edit warring and resorting to bad faith personal attack.[3] I think an indef page block is the least you should do for editor. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring by Srijanx22

This user named Srijanx22 appears to be a part of Modi's PR machinery, and is repeatedly removing [4] the facts related to criticism of Modi holding election rallies - which in fact made the situation worse in the country. This is a fact which the readers must know. This user Srijanx22 is engaging in edit warring.