User talk:EdJohnston

House of Kotromanić

Dont worry, Ed, that was my second and last revert. I can understand replacement of sources, with better ones, but complete removal of sources, and even {{reflist}} template? I am open for discussion, so please help in this. Counter source would be good, and not just blind revert. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I left you a message on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respond. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the three people who are reverting should open a WP:Request for comment at Talk:House of Kotromanić, to decide what (if any) nationality should be listed for this family. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you, i or we remove this edit , as it is unsourced and questionable, and add reflist template, and other things article need? Also, Ed, 3RR goes for 3 edits in a day, and as i edited this article only two times in article history, while first time in introduction of sources, and other one revert of removed sources, i feel that your 3RR warning is very misplaced, specially when several obvious wikipedia guidelines are violated. And, even more, Surtsicna do want to cooperate very well and polite, and we are already talking, so... Rokonja's edits are not comparable. Anyway, i dont want to be in the middle of questionable ARBMAC interpretation. So, can i continue to edit article in order to fix it, or we need a mediator who will be only one to edit it. (in that situation, that would be you, i guess)? Current version, that points us on false info, and which is without even one source, cannot and should not stay there for long... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we are no longer counting edits, but we are asking:

1. Who is willing to participate in the discussion?
2. Who has any actual ideas on how to identify nationality of a ruling family in the Balkans?

Anyone who continues to revert without participating on the talk page risks being sanctioned. It seems to me that you and Surtsicna might be willing to discuss, but nothing has been heard yet from Rokonja. Surtsicna's suggestion (on the talk page) that Queen Victoria was of German descent seems to be the most astute observation so far. Should we put 'German' in the box for her nationality? EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rokonja does not appear to have any intention to discuss anything whatsoever.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And he is also edit warring cross wiki over the same subject. I propose block, as user was already blocked before for the similar thing. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rokonja is on thin ice. His last revert didn't make a big difference, though. In his edit (October 18) he added 'nationality=Croatian' to an infobox where nationality is not displayed per Surtsicna's recent change. I do have a concern that Surtsicna might need consensus to remove the nationality attribute. It is used in some other instances of that template. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

edit war

dear edjohnston,

i would like to address a concern i have.

user User:Swift&silent reverted my edit here [2] under a cover of an incomprehensible and ludicrous charge [3]. the content was clearly wp:or, an assessment reinforced by the fact that he removed two sources that are easily verifiable i.e. that prove that i'm right. it also turns out that this was his fifth consecutive revert. the animosity he has towards User:Hassanhn5 is getting out of hand, affecting other uninvolved editors and pages. i am addressing the issue here as i don't want to get involved on the noticeboard. regards.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see only four edits by Swift&silent altogether and one of them is not a revert. The diff #1 you provide above does not show any removal of references. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

this is his initial edit [4]. he backed up his claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them supports his claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told him that his edit constituted wp:or [5]. he then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [6], as they are easily verifiable. however, he didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [7]. i suspect that the other books he provided is just another cover for his wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and he is disingenuous beyond belief..-- mustihussain (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If either side of this dispute continues to revert without getting a talk page consensus, the article may be placed under full protection. Please try more discussion on the talk page. I note that Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is the logical place for alternative views of the outcome of this war to be presented. That article is very nuanced and already cites many of the conflicting assessments. It would be surprising if the summary article on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts were to give a different outcome for the 1965 war than the article which is already dedicated to that war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

agree with your points. the alternative views are already well-represented on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965-page, and a summery article on the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts-page is not the right place for such elaboration. however, i don't think s&s will ever understand this. hence, i suggest full protection.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston I agree with your point. I added that 'war ended with UN madated ceasefire though neutral sources opined' (later changed to 'sources disputed') that it was an Indian victory, backed by various sources. When mustihussain reverted the edit I took heed of his edit and added more sources and removed some old ones but one source remained that wasn't re-inforcing the content in question. mustihussain reverted [8] on the basis that one source was not reinforcing content and removed all five sources and the material. Anyway let me assure you I will discuss this matter thoroughly before making any changes to the said article. Thank You. Swift&silent (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

you also deliberately misattributed 2 other articles. nice try though.-- mustihussain (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those I had removed myself. Nothing explains why you did this [9]. If one of the five ref wasnt matching then you should have removed that particular ref instead of deleting 4 refs and content. Swift&silent (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

your behaviour clearly demonstrates that you misattribute sources. of course you had to remove the articles *after* i found out that they didn't support your claims. the question is: why did you use them *and* wolpert's book in the first place when it's clear that they don't support your claims? could you answer that?-- mustihussain (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall we all start removing content if Previous edits had refs that werent exact (they said India got better of the war rather than saying victory) or if one (of five) ref dont match? Does that justify removing right Refs who said it was an 'clear Indian victory'? Anyway, lets discuss the matter on Article's talk page instead of crowding User talk:EdJohnston. See ya at article's talk page. Swift&silent (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

wikistalking/wikihounding Issue

Please see [10]].

I've placed a notice on the incident board but didn't get a proper response (one of the editors said he'd like a response by the user being reported first and has not replied after the response since two days and the other one hasn't fully read the complaint). The activities of the editor in question are escalating, so I thought it was necessary to report it here.

Interestingly, one of the editors the reported editor has 'recruited' by canvassing is the already warned edit-warring editor User:Swift&silent (refer to the section on edit warring on your talk page and the reported canvassing links on the incident board). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AE case and Adam Carroll

Hi Ed. I hope you don't mind my posting on your TP, but just wanted to ask a quick question relating to the AE case with which I'm currently involved. I've accepted that I'm probably going to get a topic block for the Ulster Banner-related edit warring, but wanted to enquire as to how you're treating the Adam Carroll example that Domer48 also cited as evidence of my breaking the Troubles probation.

In your opinion, do my two reverts on said article to restore his (racing) nationality to the sourced, stable and correct "British" count as a violation too? Just want to make sure I avoid this sort of thing in future in case it is also covered by WP:TROUBLES. Unfortunately, if you agree it is, that incorrect and unsourced "Irish" nationality in his infobox – which depicts his racing nationality, irregardless of personal preference – would had to have stood for a week until I could revert again. Many thanks, JonC^Talk 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything to do with the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland who is sometimes referred to as British risks getting into discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES. By its very nature, this is nationalist warring. If you stare at the evidence long enough you may eventually conclude that any nationality is possible in these cases. This makes me wonder whether 'sourced, stable and correct "British"' could possibly be the case. If you read Talk:Adam Carroll you'll see there is disagreement even about his racing nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct nationality in your opinion disputed by 3 editors. And with 4 sources on the talk page to back up Irish. Mo ainm~Talk 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Jon to comment at User talk:Jonchapple#Changing the nationality of people born in Northern Ireland. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for bringing this to your talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you at WP:AN3

Hi, Ed. Thought it would be polite to let you know that I wrote this at AN3 in which I mention my understanding of your understanding of what constitutes a revert. Here's a live link to the thread, and here's a permalink in case it rolls to archives before you take a look. Thanks again, very much, for your great work here: feel free to correct or amend what I wrote if I misrepresented you in any way. There's also a "pointer" to that AN3 discussion at AN/I currently, although I didn't comment there at all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you possibly have a word?

Could you have a word here, and save me the hassell of filing a report. One editor at least is aware of the sanctions. Thanks in advance...--Domer48_'fenian' 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on AE

EdJohnston, back in May 2011, when you instituted a topic ban on me in regards to Safavid dynasty, we have followed up with discussion here, where you set forth 3 conditions for considering to lift the ban. All three conditions were fully met by myself, i.e., I opened an RfC, did not make any reverts at Safavid dynasty and, most importantly, despite obvious violations WP:HARASSMENT policy by Khodabandeh14, I did not continue with comments on the topic of violating my privacy at that time. Despite all three conditions fulfilled, you have not lifted the ban.

And now you are commenting on AE, that I am on the path of losing editing ability indefinitely. May I know for which violation? When did I revert any article or start any dispute, besides being a victim of Khodabandeh14 repeated reporting of me, again trying to violate privacy? I understand that AE admins have a discretion over the fate of anybody involved in WP:AA2, but there is a certain logic with which this should be done. For example, what if an editor involved WP:AA2 is being targeted with an attempt to rid him off Wikipedia? What if imposition of topic bans did not result in better quality of articles or reduction of nationalist edit warring? Reviewing edits by some users, in the aftermath of my topic ban, such as this form of mass removal of info, or this, this, this, this sort of edit warring on nationalist grounds, I don't see how my topic ban (or your comments for that matter) helped to resolve the issues. They only established a precedent that any long-time editor can be targeted by any group of users and forced into restrictions, using administrative resources. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked the archives of my talk page to see when you and I last had a discussion here. Your last comment seems to be at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#Ban from Iranian articles. If you had come back after that and asked for your ban to be lifted, I might have considered it. The discussion in Archive 21 did not give me much confidence that you would be able to edit neutrally at Safavid dynasty. Khodabandeh14's use of references was better, and you didn't seem to have a good response to his points. For instance, you didn't want us to use the phrase 'Safavid dynasty of Iran' (you argued it was like 'Roman Empire of Italy') but he was able to show that the phrase is very widely used in reliable sources. It was not clear that you had any source-based reply to Khodabandeh's points. The topic ban which I imposed on May 6 was for three months, and it expired on August 6. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, when you impose a restriction and set forth conditions for its removal, you are the one to consider lifting the ban, when those are satisfied. And they were satisfied, i.e. RfC was opened, consensus was achieved, and I reversed my right to complain about WP:HARASSMENT by Khodabandeh14. So you have no argument in favor of keeping your topic ban, other than satisfying Khodabandeh14's demands to topic ban me.

What neutrality are we talking about, when you state right above: "you didn't want us to use the phrase 'Safavid dynasty of Iran'". How can I even argue my case, when you, by default, take position in an editing dispute? The fact that I supported using "Safavid dynasty" (term used on that page for years) instead of nationalist POV "Safavid dynasty of Iran" is not a ground for topic bans, and I provided sufficient amount of evidence to show that no state called "Iran" existed when Safavid dynasty established a state in 1501 in Azerbaijan. Safavid dynasty was not established over geographic region called Iran either, it was established over Azerbaijan initially, involving tribes that migrated from Anatolia. So pushing "Safavid dynasty of Iran" was clearly a POV aimed at disassociating historical dynasty from anybody else.

Ironically, in absence of User:Khodabandeh14, User:Xashaiar has taken over a task of removing any association of Azerbaijan with Safavids or other historical states, here, if I did the same thing, you would topic ban me and Khodabandeh14 would be enumerating dozens of Wikipedia regulations, ranging WP:RS to WP:UNDUE. Or how about massive removal of referenced information, huh, Ed? What happened to neutrality now? Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was supposed to magically know that you had become eligible for unban, without any request by you? Your lack of neutrality could hardly be more obvious. You are acting like a warrior for one side of the debate. It would be hard to supply more evidence that lifting your ban would have been unreasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, since you are claiming that I was eligible for unban, then I kindly request you to make a proper comment in this regard at WP:AA2. I realize that the ban has been served already, but the fact that I have fulfilled all conditions for lifting of the ban shall be reflected on WP:AA2, so that other users cannot use it as justification in editing disputes or filing cases. Again, I did not initiate this discussion until reading your AE comment, calling for my indefinite ban. And I just wanted to clarify that I have fulfilled all terms of unban, and the comments by yourself were not made in good faith. And if there neutrality observed, it should be applicable to everyone alike. The editing activity of User:Xashaiar is clearly disruptive in AA2 context. Atabəy (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is now moot, since the May 6 ban has expired. I do not expect to make any further comment at AE about it. My prediction that you are headed for an indefinite ban is only a prediction. You may yet demonstrate that you can make valuable edits elsewhere, and you can place the values of Wikipedia above your personal loyalties. In that case your return to AA may be possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I don't mean to be facetious, would you explain what you meant by "personal loyalties"? The issue is not moot, because you made a promise (a commitment) as an admin and did not deliver on it, and then go on making further bad faith comments on AE against myself, trying to justify your action. Atabəy (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwijavanti Athreya

I failed to check history, restored, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding and stalking

In relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia, I would appreciate that issues of hounding and stalking also be dealt with at this request. I haven't started another request in the past in relation to it, as I have been doing more important things, such as uploading to Commons and working on articles in userspace. But now that the issue has been raised, I would appreciate that it be dealt with in the current request, so I ask that instead of a hasty and quick close to the request that admins take the time investigate this as part of the current request. I can be contacted on my talk page for further information. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with T. Canens' statement at AE. It is tiresome to see the same names showing up repeatedly at AE. In the next round of enforcement it may be necessary to impose topic bans or widen existing ones so that the people who can't get along with each other no longer have to edit the same articles. In my opinion you are appropriately in line for sanctions since your violation of the interaction ban was so blatant and easy to see. Your violation was presumably deliberate and was intended as a salvo in the ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And what about Vecrumba's revert of my edit? And what about talk page discussion on the ESSR article? Isn't that also so blatant, that it too requires sanctions? Why don't you ask Vecrumba and Nug about those edits, and whether they too believe they should be sanctioned. Unfortunately Ed, you are totally wrong in your assessment. There are some editors who are trying to get on with editing and collaborating, and past disputes are just that...in the past. I am in this boat. So is Tammsalu/Martintg/Nug as far as I can see. Vecrumba is also partly, except he has skirted this issue in the AE request. Perhaps the only ones in ongoing dispute are the ones who file such AE requests on things they are not party to---read Biophys. His harassment is egregious, and he has a long history of it in relation to myself. And everytime he gets away with it. Unfortunately Ed, WP:EEML proves that I am not paranoid; I know when I am being harrassed, stalked and hounded. No more Ed, the buck stops here, and it is going to be dealt with at this request. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note, that I am not suggesting that other editors be sanctioned, I am merely using it as an evidence of there not being a battleground as you are suggesting. The battleground is in the minds of certain editors, and unfortunately admins such as yourself are believing it. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

«Sigh». Unfortunately no one felt it was necessary to note that the vast bulk of EEML had nothing to do with Wikipedia, let alone Russavia (I can find and provide the diff if required). Unfortunately, it is the initial gross misrepresention and blatantly prejudicial announcement of EEML as thousands of Emails "half being out to get Russavia" (I can find and provide the diff if required) which permits the meme of "hounding" to continue. Let's please keep allegations where they belong, in formal dispute resolution. As for "hounding," I can also provide Russavia's contending/reporting my edit of Aspic as violating my topic ban at the time, so let's not go there, either. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, it states:

Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Who were the specific editors? Well Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted is pretty much an indication. The harrassment on myself is not a meme, it is evidential fact.

But I fail to see what EEML has to do with this Vecrumba. I am not saying that there is co-ordination. In fact, I haven't even accused you of harrassment. In fact, we have discussed things on numerous talk pages in recent times in a civil way. As well as with Martintg/Tammsalu/Nug. Do you really consider that our interactions of late have been disruptive? Please think about this Vecrumba. Other than that, I don't have anything else to say here. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish to discuss anything. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You say EEML proves you are not paranoid. It proves nothing. "Material to the case" was a very minor part of overall mail. As for allegations of plans of, for example, planning real-life harassment versus kvetching and what-ifs, clearly all of EEML was interpreted in the maximum bad faith mode, as I was convicted of responding to alleged canvassing requests when I hadn't even read my personal Emails because I spent all my time at home caring for my mother--doing Wikipedia on breaks at work. I'd love to discuss your seeming protection of "official Russia" et al. regarding the Soviet legacy calmly and rationally at your talk page, but that would (surely) violate our interaction ban. Quite frankly, I'd support lifting the ban so we don't waste further time on its having created de facto article ownership, which helps no one and solves nothing. As for "disruption," we clearly have different perspectives on whether or not people who check Wikipedia to find out more about RT, the second-most-watched cable news network in the U.S., should be informed "up front" (i.e., in the lead) that it is the press organ of the Russian Federation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilya Grad

Hi Ed. Sorry to bother you. I created my first article here. Being that it is my first and concerns a BLP, I was wondering if you would kindly have a look just to make sure that it is okay in terms of format and is in compliance with BLP. I have already read the rules concerning BLP but I'd rather have a more experienced admin review it just to play it safe. Thank you,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article looks OK to me. I don't see any problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. Much appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent warning

Hi there, you gave me a warning over edit warring here. I was a bit surprised by your comment about consensus, as I've been on the project for a few years already and thought I have a pretty good handle on that. Could you expand a bit on how you feel my reasoning was wrong? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is where consensus lies now. A discussion is needed with at least three participants, since the first two disagree. If you can point to a past thread at Talk:East Germany where this exact point was discussed by multiple people then you might have a point about 'existing consensus.' The mere fact that the article was one way or the other way for a period of time proves little. (Maybe no one cared enough to change it, or even think about it). You may be able to leave neutral messages for other past editors of East Germany and ask them to give their opinion. For this a WP:Request for comment is best. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Jonchapple's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JonC^Talk 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to keep bumping you like this, but there's one more, I'm afraid. Cheers, JonC^Talk 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Factiod

I assumed good faith for quite a while. Thank you for shutting down that big waste of time. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes means no?

Just wondering how this could have possible been interpreted as not accepting the deal. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The complete talk entry makes clear that your acceptance was *conditional* on us allowing you to finish some negotiation you were in the midst of on an article talk page. At this point an unconditional acceptance was what I was looking for. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ariel University Center of Samaria

Do you think that this is a revert that should be undone? I honestly think so, but I have reached the 1RR limit by reverting him once. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not post a request on the talk page (including your rationale) and maybe someone else will undo it. Either that, or wait 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, may I point you to the history of Israeli-occupied territories, where he has reverted once? He has only reverted once, but still. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That revert was the icing on the cake. If he had not done that, you might figure that it was worth trying to negotiate with him instead of blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Not only that, his reverts to Ariel University Center of Samaria earlier today look like they cite reasons that aren't very good to revert on.

Also, mmmm cake. the cake is a lie! :P LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ed, need some assistance please

Hey Ed, how are you doing? I don't know if you remember me from the snake articles, if you do then you know I have been working on snake articles and I've especially put in a lot of hard work and research into the Black mamba article. I am now trying to move or change the name of the article to Dendroaspis polylepis, which is the scientific name of the black mamba. If you go and look around, you'll find most snake articles are have their scientific name as the title to the article (ie. puff adder, lancehead, saw-scaled viper, Death adder, sea snakes, kraits, and countless others). I want the same thing for the Black mamba article. So I requested a move at WP:REQMOVE - I'd really appreciate it if you'd just click the link and "support" my request to move. It'll take you a few seconds to do. Please and thanks, I'd really appreciate it. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that your move request will get consensus, but you should wait the full seven days. It's not quite kosher to ask people to vote in a certain direction. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's not cool to ask people for votes, but it's so frustrating when you put so much work into articles, only to have 1 user stand in the way of you finishing the article off (and I have improved many snake articles that were just a complete mess). It's just that I had this one user (Dodger67) badger me about moving it because I did change it and then he changed it right back shouting all these "policies and rules" at me. Almost every other snake article is formatted exactly the way I want to format the black mamba article (with the scientific name as the title of the article). Yet, he kept badgering me about a subject he clearly knows very little about. I'm going to wait the seven days, but what if nobody really joins the discussion? As an Admin, do I have your permission to change the name of the article to Dendroaspis polylepis? Bastian (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to get consensus first. If the move discussion gets closed one way or the other after seven days, all parties should accept that. If you think there is a general problem about snake names, you could ask for advice at WT:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. There is already a discussion in progress there about Latin versus common names that may be relevant. Some time ago I asked some experts for advice about the article name for a pine species, and they told me the Latin name was better. It appears that WT:AAR may be heading in a different direction. Some people there prefer to use a common name whenever there is a well-established and widely-recognized common name. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance, please

Hi, Ed. Regarding User:Josephkugelmass, some administrator guidance and advice regarding something else with this user that has cropped up here over the issue of WP:FORUMSHOPPING (in the section "Request for commentary: Formatting and content of "Critical Reception") would be greatly appreciated. And - I just want to say: sorry to bother you with this petty kind of crap. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN would not be my first choice of a place to start a discussion, but it ought to be sufficient. Perhaps you could leave a talk message for User talk:MilkStraw532 to get him to say more on the article talk page. Kugelmass's harsh attitude doesn't say much for his interest in a negotiated solution. If you become stalemated and if nobody else comments, you could request a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would it be too much to ask for you to kind of keep an eye on things? I really don't think this thing is going to go smoothly; I'm relatively certain it will become more drama-laden with more uncivil behavior ensuing before it's all over. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Honestly, if I've created a problem by "forum shopping" or by posting complaints in too many different places, apologies. Please delete the forum shopping or do whatever else seems meet. My only defense is that I don't think Wikipedia makes it all that clear how to proceed in these situations. Remember, this all started this morning when I woke up to find that my original additions to the article page were simply gone. In any case, I'm really not invested enough to pursue this issue any further. While I would ask that Lhb1239's last revert be undone, I'm content to let the matter rest, as the subject is (obviously) exhausted. Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass