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.

• Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar Thoma Syrian Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a user named 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 biases over by its own historical facts. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chad, if you are having a disagreement with this editor, why is there nothing from you on his talk page? See WP:SIGN for how to sign your posts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yes, because he repeating undoing my and now couple another users edits for months, just over the main classification, with its only attempted to backing up his own claims, but failed due of how its using a incomplete "website" version of the Church from within a third-party site Weebly to backing up. And also I'm sorry that I forgot to used my signature for my question, so I'm sign it now. Along fine, I will try to edit warn him now, but I worry my constructive edit warning won't convince it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It has respond, and it still seemly don't understand that its page is direct see its current identity as a bit different from the other Syrian Christian Churches, while still making claims its still the same Church prior to its identity reformation. And it still disruptive editing without good justification by this point with this horribly edit with "Reformed as per Holy Bible" without specifically tell what it means. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Chad and Chandy should be following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just try convinced this Chandy user (and also I knew from weeks ago that the user's name is definitely mock my username), just accept it and move on its not that hard if it just go to the official church's website to go the "Heritage" page that I was right, but still it (and its log-off clones of anonymous users who likely the same person, during the previous edit war) can't accepted regardless the evidence its on it's face. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your English is hard to understand. Are you producing it using a mechanical translator? EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suffer from Autistic Spectrum Disorder [in its worst state right now] for the occasional bad grammar, unlike that User I guess, but I just send out a request at dispute resolution noticeboard just now. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your report at WP:DRN is also hard to understand. If this is the best you can do, you may not get a favorable response. Do you know any other user who is also interested in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church who might help you draft some posts? Or, can you write in Malayalam? We have an article on the church at ml:മാർത്തോമ്മാ_സഭ. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes unfortunately, this is best I can; and no I don't either speak or write Malayalam, but I do occasionally speak and mildly write native French due of my disability; as my technically semi-second language. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DRN because there had not yet been discussion on either the other user's talk page or the article talk page. User:Chad The Goatman should allow User:Chandy of Pakalomattom to reply. DRN should only be used after discussion has been tried and has been unsuccessful. If the other editor does not reply but persists in editing, read the discussion failure essay, and report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All I have difference in opinion with some editorS because they are repeatedly classifying Marthoma Church under the category of Protestent . Marthoma church did reformation on the lights of Holy bible and has decided not to follow certain practices like intercession to saints and prayers at graveyard. That donot mean that they have accepted any reformed or protestant theology . The schism of 1961 which resulted in a sister church STECI(St thomas Evangelical church) was over this. Marthoma church has never defined any Dominical sacraments unlike any protestent or catholic church and is believing all which cannot be explained in bible as Divine Mystery and has to be followed as per the teachings of first three ecumenical synods.Since Marthoma church donot have prayers to saints and statues of them it cannot be straight away included in protestent group.

Dear Chad i did not try to mock your name. In this part of world we call ourselves with our family name. Chandy is my surname and i am from Pakalomattam. I donot have any issues to discuss the matter for dispute resulution (Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• Ultranationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeff6045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

unfortunately there became an issue with a user. He introduced a problematic POV's edit in the article, I've entered in the talk page and after reverted it per WP:BRD. The user ignored and in the edit log he pretended if i would not enter to the talk page and ignored the BRD principle. After I informed him again about our policies to read in the talk, but have no result, he completely ignores the discussion and in a weird way pointing to the "discussion necessary", although it is already there and tyring to twist the direction of BRD. At this point after multiple warnings, he entered on delibareate edit-warring (continuing after the 2nd revert, making the 3rd, in total the 4th trial of the current material), hence I ask your assistance.

Please have in mind I immediately informed by my very first entry Wikiproject Hungary ([1]) along with the problematic fact the user recently engaged and modified many political articles, though he is openly advertized his involvement and certain political views, that he blanked instantly ([2]) on his main page, this concerns me more regarding NPOV. Thank You for your assistance!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

See also an ANI discussion opened on 9 September, involving Jay Hodec rather than Jeff6045. However the topic of Fidesz seems common to both. A fairly confusing situation. But having seen that, I am not intending to do any follow-up myself. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I have filed that ANI discussion, later on by mistake a user in the ANI started to accuse me improperly referring to the article I draw your attention, but soon another administrator gave me right and that inline thread has been deleted and the accusation has been retreated, but before not recognizing his mistake the user pinged in User:Jeff6045 there because he mentioned him there. The topic is similar, but technically totally separate, should not be confused, you don't need to follow up that (practically the accuser cherrypicked from my user contributions and draw in there something unrelated of the partuclar issue). Just follow the events in this article please, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

User:Jeff6045 and User:KIENGIR have reverted about equally much in this dispute. I hope somebody opens an WP:RFC or finds some other way to get broader review of the 'ultranationalist' claim about Fidesz which is supported by Jeff6045. Normally, you would expect that Fidesz's own article would be the place to work that out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I did not make yet any further since I follow the usual DR process, but soon I will follow up. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• John of Kronstadt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can you help as an administrator to resolve the dispute for the page John of Kronstadt. Users Nicoljaus and ‎Wlbw68 write the word "moreover" in this phrase ([3]), [4]). But it is not correct and no need as I showed on the Talk page and two third party users, as I consider, agreed with me. Aleksei m (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the word 'moreover' does not appear very significant. But if it bothers you, consider opening an WP:RFC. The stylistic problem is how to make a smooth transition from the canonization of John to the rehabilitation of the Ioannites by the Orthodox Church. Without knowing any details, it is easy to imagine that those favoring the canonization would also think that the Ioannites were good people. But if anyone wants to make a definite connection between the two (and state their conclusion in Wikipedia's voice) they would probably have to read some references, perhaps Kizenko's book. The appeal of using the word 'moreover' is that it's vague, though it does hint that the two events were linked. You seem to be objecting to the hint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why there should be a non-consensual version. Why should I open a discussion, but not who wrote this word and this phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the thread at Talk:John of Kronstadt#Canonization, three editors seem to favor the use of 'moreover': User:CaptainEek, User:Rosguill and User:Nicoljaus. Are you able to find *more* than three people opposing the user of 'moreover'? You seem to think that 'also' would be an improvement, though to my ear it is almost the same thing. The words 'also' and 'moreover' would serve almost the same role as neutral-sounding transition words between two topics. Your position is hard to defend. I am starting to agree with the other commenters at WP:ANI#User Nicoljaus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". I gave an example when a word "moreover" does not fit ([5]) and user Rosguill agreed with it ([6]). Why then does it fit the phrase "John was canonized. Moreover, after the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started"? Aleksei m (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill did not agree with you, in fact he said just the opposite of what you said. There is consensus to include "moreover". Also, this discussion should be happening on Talk:John of Kronstadt, not here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dean Winchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this page is again being vandalized (you locked it up back in August 30th) now that it's again opened, though the last change was done a couple of days ago, I wouldn't rule out happening again. Thank you. DarthJenny (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We've got a problem there. Few users are activly ignoring conclussions from oshwah's page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-08#Turkish_Croatia and have destroyed article and rewrote it in pseudohistorical conspiracy theory. Why isn't anything done about that?

Ps. There was my suggestion in that discussion how to solve the situation, but user Santa is promoting his pseudohistory views and is trying to delete the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs)

If you believe that another editor has 'destroyed the article and rewrote it in pseudohistorical conspiracy theory' you should beware of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. If it appears that your point of view is so strong you can't edit Balkan articles neutrally, you may be banned from the topic under discretionary sanctions. It seems there was an attempt at discussion at Talk:Turkish Croatia#Discussion regarding the current content dispute but I don't see you providing any reliable sources. For example, you state (on 19:02, 3 August 2019) that Bihać was the capital of the medieval Croatian kingdom, but I don't see any source for that claim. Our article on the town of Bihać has nothing about that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]