User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A-11 and please stop that guy from deleting our 100% FACTUAL post

Lengthy discussion of copyright problem at A-11 offense

Below is the correct facts put forth and please repost it. Thank you, and there is NO copyright violation: History: The A-11 Offense is used in American football, and it combines certain aspects of Option offenses, the Zone Read, West Coast offense, and the Run & Shoot http://www.A11Offense.com. The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation. The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country. Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana. Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3. In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany. Legality and feasibility in various leagues The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.” In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down. The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted." The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur. In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) This discussion is about A-11 offense, an article which has been semiprotected since you have added material there which violates copyright. Please read WP:5P about Wikipedia policy, and do not cut-and-paste material that is posted on other web sites. Unless you can prove you own that material, it is a copyright violation to put it in Wikipedia. Besides the copyright problem, there is a verification problem. We can't accept assertions about A-11 that are only based on personal knowledge; we require published references. The Scientific American article is fine as far as it goes, but you make a lot of other claims that have no references. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ed

Please post this article now that the references of facts have been listed, thank you.

History: The A-11 Offense (All Eleven Players Potentially Eligible) is an innovative new offense that blends aspects of almost every type of offense in the history of football such as the West Coast, Spread Option, Run and Shoot, Shotgun Zone Fly, Wing-T, Single Wing, Notre Dame Box, Triple Option and Veer just to name a few. Teams can use the A-11 as a “package” to supplement their own offense & feature up to eleven players as potential threats, and even two quarterbacks in the shotgun!

The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation.

The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country. Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.

Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3.

In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany. Reference: www.A11Offense.com

Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math

Legality and feasibility in various leagues

The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.”

In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS (www.nfhs.org) in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down, and hybrid A-11 concepts will come into play in 2009, on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs.

The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted."

The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur. Reference: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3779821

In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shshshsh

Yesy, the other guy had a few socks,, actually. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello YM. I see that you blocked the above guy, who was involved in the 3RR dispute at A. R. Rahman. You've also blocked 91.130.91.84 as his sock. What about 91.130.91.92 (talk · contribs) who was one of the other participants in the controversy at A. R. Rahman. Did you reach any conclusions about him? EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot. They're both him, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Soy

Thanks for the note. I wish the anon would have said what was on their mind... would have saved some trouble. I really don't care about being wrong, only about the article being right. I think it's taken care of now though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine

Under your Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine, I've added a proposed wording; please let me know what you think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OK with me. 'Broadly construed' is fair, and there should be no Talk page ban. If the discussion closes, and editors agree that a topic ban is needed, I thought I would try negotiating with Patrick on a detailed list of articles that were included, so there is no ambiguity. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I've closed it - consensus is pretty clear. Given that topics can often affect many articles, or sections of articles, we don't usually provide an exhaustive list other than handpicking a few examples (like we did in this case). But I'll leave that up to you. Full compliance with the sanction would mean avoiding any related articles as much as possible, especially with the broadly construed provision. My only hope is that no socking will follow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with how you handled that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking appropriate action. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "My only hope is that no socking will follow" — Ncmvocalist should assume good faith.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope PJHaseldine refrains from editing disruptively or violating a topic ban (even through socking - the typical response to topic bans) because failure to do so would merely earn further sanctions. It's that simple; not a matter of good faith or bad faith - time to move on, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording makes no mention of the topic ban being temporary. Nor is any restriction placed upon Socrates2008 or User:Deon Steyn — see the following discussion:

Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Were these omissions deliberate or inadvertent?---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quoting Abd's opinion and Samj's opinion. Administrators who enforce the ban are expected to use common sense. If necessary they can refer back to the full COIN discussion before taking action. I was considering proposing the ban as temporary rather than permanent, but the issue has continued for a very long time. I did not anticipate that you'd ever change your editing habits in the future, since you seem to not see any problem with what you do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. The issue is moot, because all bans are temporary and can be reversed on a showing of good faith attempts to cooperate. The ban allows Talk page participation, which may have been appropriate from the beginning for this editor with respect to certain articles in any case, given how close he is to the subject, and, indeed, he is the subject of an involved article. In dealing with other editors who may be problematic, PJH is welcome to ask for help, and he did ask for help in response to what I wrote, quoted above, and I've suggested that he act only in minimally disruptive ways, as I will, and I'm reviewing some of what he has claimed. From PJH's responses so far, I have hope that his behavior will indeed change and that he may be more effective in what is legitimate about what he wants, if he very carefully respects the ban and the need for cooperation among members of the community, including those with whom he disagrees on this or that. None of this involves a judgment by me that he got a raw deal or that he did not get a raw deal. He's been banned, the process was reasonable, and I'm taking this one step at a time. I do anticipate that socking will not follow, but if I'm wrong, well, win a few, lose a few. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Takahashi Meijin

I noticed that Takahashi Meijin was deleted by you, without discussion. As this guy was a celebrity in Japan in the 1980s, I think skipping past the AFD was a mistake. It'll be difficult for me to find sources since I don't read Japanese (neither do you, apparently), but even today he's getting pub from the likes of Business Week, Wired, and Kotaku. A general writeup can be found at Hudson's site, which was likely on the original article but outright ignored. I don't know what the rules are about recreating an article, as last time I did it with many added proper sources some admin got his panties in a wad and threatened to indefinitely block me. I believe his favorite catchphrase to newbies was, "Fuck off." What a cheeky fellow. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to work on the article, I can restore it into your user space. Your new references look good, but the article may get flak due to its poor state if the references aren't put in immediately. If you need any advice on strengthening the article so it won't be deleted, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Dear EdJohnston, hello!

You declined my unblock request and I'd like to first thank you for the kind words, and tell you something very important to avoid misunderstandings. It's just too disappointing to be blocked twice within one month when all I'm doing is fighting POV and biasness and going according to consensus and sources. I spend a lot of time discussing matters on talk pages, citing sources, but those who refuse to accept the truth and the facts derived from it cause all the troubles. They of couse get punished, but then those who try to stop them get their hard work thrown brutally at their faces. I'm one of them. I also lost my rollback, which I always used fairly and never misused it or violated its terms of use (I always use the edit summary in cases that are not vandalism). It's hard to see al that happening to me after three years of hard work and great collaboration with other admins against vandalism all for the sake of this project called Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shahid, and welcome back to regular editing. Please be aware that the enforcement of 3RR is usually quite mechanical. Editors who let themselves get carried away can be blocked regardless of the value of their edits. If you see you are in danger of crossing the 3RR line, try to widen the discussion and bring in more opinions. In cases where the other party is really violating policy, you can ask for help on a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasis

Again. [1] NJGW (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Took some action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but somehow he slipped through again last night.[2] How does that happen? NJGW (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried something else. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Correlation

About this, there is already a reference here. There is no original research, apparently. Nightbit (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about moving other user's discussion

I'm continually finding talk comments that I make being copied and pasted into discussion on other pages, giving the impression that I had participated in the discussion on the secondary talk page. What is the WP policy on selectively copying (dare I say editing) other user's comments in this way in order to form an argument? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The copying was clearly not "selective" since it included the full, unadulterated comments by three editors: Socrates2008, SamJohnston and me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a clear policy on this; you can check WP:TPG for the Talk guideline. In general it is better to *link* to the previous discussion and then summarize its significance in your own words. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Rupert Everett

Hi. To be honest, I barely recall having done that, and don't quite recall what I was doing, besides cleaning up a messy reference that was left. It's obviously a mistake and all I can do is say "mea culpa". Thanks for letting me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification

That you for the notification so I had a chance to respond jbolden1517^Talk 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your quick and great work in the help of removing User:MarkRae's banner, and resolving the situation. Thanks again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RRQ

Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= . Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

Can you take a look at the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois page if you have time, thank you.Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ

Thanks for your advice. Filed the proper format. Note also that he has admitted his conflict of interest: he is part of the organization and contributing on their instructions. Vincent (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)+

PS You know you've been on Wiki too long when a section title like "COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ" makes sense... Vincent (talk)

Vfp15|Vincent

I think Vincent work for a federalist organisation he really want to block me, he lie about me and make false accusation. He dont contribute to wikipedia credibility. Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

Vandal we all well "know"

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Again!!! PARARUBBAS has opened a new account, now the gentleman's called MNHT08. He continues to glue sentences (Rio Ave FC) and glue sentences and remove links just because (Orlando Sá, Hélio Sousa). I don't want to be intrusive or anything, but how about a long-range block on this idiot (although i know others would still "suffer", but being for the common good...)?

Kind regards, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, Ed, that was surely not the response i was hoping for. As i deduce from your second reply, i see that you have already seen my report, and are not at all satisfied with my deeds. Well, i tried my best: i write names in caps because i just wanted to stress the vandal's name. In the future, and following your suggestion, that will be avoided. Also, i continue to be "accused" of not providing diffs, when i did just so in the report i, in excellent or poorest fashion, filed. All in all, with the report you have, and since you are much more qualified do deal with this than me, could you help me? If not, cool too. By the way, i already added new "user" to the sockpuppet list.

Attentively, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please try to file a WP:SPI report on your own, the best way you can. Since the guy you are reporting already has a very bad reputation, you will probably receive some help from the people who review your report, even if you don't do it exactly right. Apologies for being annoyed, but I tried to look up User:MNHT08 and found nothing. So I had to carefully study your contribution history to guess the real name of the person you had been dealing with. Thank you for adding a sock template to this guy's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Already have, and if you have seen it , what else do i add/remove there? Ty in advance,

Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. You left a talk message at WT:SPI, asking for people to help you. But so far as I can tell, there is no new item mentioning Pararubbas visible at WP:SPI. If you had made a regular sock report, it should be visible there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think (although i could be grossly mistaken) it's mentioned in the first line in the report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#SOCK_vandal_.28and_counting....29). If i am wrong, then Ed, then i am really at a loss, and really need your help. If you feel otherwise, ok, sorry 4 the inconvenience...

Cheers, Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:SPI is a *Talk page*, for people to give their comments on how the sockpuppet system is working. If you actually want to file a new sock report, in a proper way, go to Wikipedia:SPI and read the instructions for filing a report. The instructions are at the bottom of the first green area. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ed, it's been done, tell me what you think of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas). Don't know what else can i do. Regards, Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your report seems good; I have added a comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My thanks also, Ed. No doubt we'll here from another puppet in a few weeks. And to Vasco... just be patient. As each puppet appears, it will be dealt with. Keep up your good spirits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking guidance.

Well. I did not do as good a job as I should, it seems, at the ANI. The resulting silence has led to this post. I find this very disturbing. Normally, I would simply warn the editor for incivility for the "Well since the strong arming you all tried..." remark, but the editor has stated that I am harrassing, and that my edits there are vandalism. I have already dropped the article from my watch list and don't plan to edit it further, but this behaviour is offensive to me. I plan to do nothing for 2 days, then either follow some good advice I dredge up, drop it, or pursue the editor's behaviour further. If you choose not to advise me on this I will certainly understand, this is not your problem. Thank you for your time, and any advice is entirely a bonus.sinneed (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment at Talk:Sovereign Grace Ministries#After the ANI. It's funny that you've identified your counterpart as being the problem, since you both seem to be on the same side of the larger debate. In a quick look at his contribs I think he uses 'vandalism' incorrectly, but you should (ideally) still be able to work with him. Since so many people have already got burned out on this article, the field may be open to new compromises if you, Jbolden and Fender can find something you can all live with. I see you've been working on Babywise. That could be a step towards dealing with SGM eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughts. :)
  "identified your counterpart as being the problem" - but I haven't. *Some* of his behaviour is. I truly, honestly, have no knowledge of or feeling for this church or its issues. The article, before, was an advert. I thought it was under attack by vandals, and tried to keep what I thought was vandalism out. I was simply wrong.  :) I'll be wrong again.
  I am trying an RfC at Family Foundation School where there is a similar issue (serious problem, shortage of coverage in the media), and I now have an idea how to attack it. I know far less about churches than schools. I think I'll focus there, then maybe hit babywise (which looks like a whitewash, where it was once a tarring and feathering. Churches? Not so much. sinneed (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Miguel Andres Matienzo Guerra

Thanks for letting me know. I am reprodding it, I still feel the subject fails WP:BIO and the fact the article was apparently created by the subject himself is an additional confirmation of such a feeling of mine. --Angelo (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I agree and overtagged it as a CSD. My concern was for historical accuracy (I'm pathological in my desire to see articles deleted for the right reasons). 74.69.39.11 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat returns once again

Special:Contributions/86.163.155.254 [3][4][5] 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your report. I renewed the semi-protection on those three articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandal

Hi there Ed, Vasco here,

Thank you for the note and, should i say, your kind and invaluable cooperation. I guess it will have to be dealt "one sock at a time", until the closet is full...Rest assured my friend, as far as i am concerned, from now on, i will deal with these matters solely in the appropriate fields (this was a good lesson).

Regards, have a great weekend, from Portugal,

Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pararubbas

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about reclassifying sockpuppet accounts, and I don't know if the template you describe actually exists. Sorry to be so unhelpful. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Avis kings

Hi, thanks for your message. I think there are more or less consistent WP policies regarding anglicization of foreign proper names. Names of kings before the 20th century seem to be one of the cases where anglicization is mandatory in the article's title (of course, there is no reason for hybrids in the article). My idea with "Azurara">"Zurara" was that the issue there was not anglicization. I'm not sure that I can help you somehow, but please leave another message if you think I can. Velho (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I read those rules some days ago. But it first depends on whether there is an English name for the portrayed person. There is no specific rule for monarchs, I was just mentioning a case that seems pretty clear to me. There has been a huge discussion about this kind of issues... Velho (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't get your "Bah!"... Velho (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It just meant that there was a recognized outside authority that makes the same choice as our current naming convention for the Avis kings, at least for that article. So my proposed change would be unlikely to be credible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Iraq-Russia relations

Hi Ed, I found this page on protection and would like to be able to expand the article. It was protected some while ago. Thanks. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the semi-protection. If the sock comes back, the protection may have to be restored, so I hope you'll get busy soon :-). EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

COI complaint about John Serry articles

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

Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you once again for your insight-Kindly note that some of Mr. Serry's contributions have been documented in a published book entitled A Pictorial history of Radio Library of Congress # 67-23789 from the 1960s and has been referenced in the article onJohn Serry, Sr.. Also kindly not that Mr. Serry's live performances are permantly archived at the highly regarded Paley Center for Media in New York City as documented in the article. Consequently, I am puzzled as to why an editorial committe of an wikipedia based open encyclopedia would wish to remain silent on the subject. The use of a flag to identify the article as requiring additional verification for cross referencing seems to be far more appropriate academic response to your concerns. As per your suggestion I shall be happy to include links to the Nw York Times Web page. Feel free to provide any further guidance and I shall be more than happy to respond.. Thanks again for your assistance.pjs012915

Forgive me for not responding to your questions in detail, but I hope you will read WP:5P to find the answers. It seems likely that the two articles on his individual works may get deleted, but John Serry, Sr. may be kept if it is trimmed down substantially. I hope you'll be cooperative in this process, and it will certainly be better if you confine yourself to the Talk page, rather than edit the article directly.

Regarding the New York Times. You need to search their website to locate the individual articles. Once you have a URL, it can be added to the reference. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January 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) 19:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Feces

I replied to you at RFPP, but then reconsidered. In a perfect world, the article should not be indefinitely protected. But, as you and the protecting admin say, this article is just too tempting a target. Any attempt to unprotect it would be met with the inevitable onslaught of vandalism. Thanks for talking sense, 71.182.216.55 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)