User talk:EdJohnston

Re the British Order of St.John incorrect redirect of post nominal

Many thanks for your message on this on the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) Talk page. Please go to Ivison Macadam page (Sir Ivison Stevenson Macadam KCVO CBE CStJ FRSE FKC) and you will see what I am talking about. The CStJ links incorrectly to the Rome lay Catholic Order and not the British Order of Saint John (sovereign head Queen Elizabeth II, responsible for the all volunteer St John's Ambulance Brigade etc internationally and you will see the problem. Google has it right and takes it CStJ to the right order. Wikipedia headed Order of Saint John (chartered 1888).

I took it out of the post nominals earlier today because of the wrong re-direct but have reinstated it so you can see the problem.

Would much appreciate it if you can help sort it.

Many thanks,

William Macadam (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Noor

Hi Ed, thanks for your note at User talk:Noor rahim bro. I was about to file an SPI on him (more for procedural purposes) because I assume he's Harirajmohanhrm continuing the same crap, but one edit here, where he puts Mohanlal at the front of the list was odd enough to cast doubt. I am about one edit away from indeffing this guy though because reordering cast seems to be his only interest at Wikipedia. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Biryani Origin

Hey! I don't see how a fact is a POV in the case of Biryani? All the origins of Biryani are, guess what, Muslim. The Indian Muslim community has seen an ethnic turn, they tend to share many similar cultural practices. It would be a shame to discredit the creators of the dish. And I'm intending on changing it to, "Found among the Muslims of South Asia." Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please mention a WP:Reliable source which says this food was invented by Muslims. Or is distinctive to Muslims rather than (say) Hindus. Pushing an ethnic POV is not attractive and can lead to discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a reliable source on the page, but the user removed it, unjustifiably. It's not a POV, it's a fact. But thank you anyways.Hammad.511234 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you say what the source was? EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5u6me4sHNAhWE7IMKHT2_CugQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false It's also sourced many times in the page. I also have websites if you want. http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." In fact, I actually put 4 sources once, but for some reason it was removed. Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

http://food.ndtv.com/lists/10-best-biryani-recipes-696324 Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Did you check out the sources? Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

Just...you know...dropping this here for casual reading. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but if it's the one I remember, then it's a required warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It was, and I accept the warning. That said, Timothy's behavior has been far from acceptable in this matter. Thanks for weighing in, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ban User

• Keenanthedogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Major Key (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, excuse me, but can you ban User:Keenanthedogg please? He was adding false information without sources to the article Major Key (album) and User:JustDoItFettyg had asked me to deal with him. You can check the history of that article for proof. Can you please give him a ban? Thank you. EDIT: Ban User:50.53.5.194 too. I'm pretty sure they are the same person Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not post at Talk:Major Key (album) and explain what you think is wrong. You have not notified User:Keenanthedogg. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you will see what is wrong in the view history for Major Key (album). @Keenanthedogg: @JustDoItFettyg: @50.53.5.194: Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you banned the user 50.53.5.194 he keeps putting random track names for Major Key thats not even out yet or can you just protect the page?? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page and notified Keenanthedogg of this discussion. Let me know if you see him adding more unsourced material to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Banned users at AE

(Also pinging @User:Seraphimblade) Regarding this AE case against User:Aaabbb11, I'm wondering if you could address the concerns raised by User:Rhoark and myself. The filer of the complaint, as well as one of the people speaking in favor of it, are both indefinitely banned from the topic area (and another was quite possibly canvassed offline). WP:BANEX does not allow users to violate their topic bans for the purpose of filing arbitration complaints against other users. And for good reason: we don't want topic banned editors—who by definition have unclean hands, yet have nothing left to lose—to be able to continue pursuing ideological battles at AE.

On the other hand, if there is merit in the case they bring, then maybe the editor in question should be sanctioned. I actually forgot about Aaabbb11's conduct on the organ harvesting DYK process, and it was certainly disruptive (and frankly perplexing). I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is, but if you do take action to topic ban this user, it may be worth adding a caveat that this is not intended to set a precedent to allow topic banned users to file further complaints at AE.TheBlueCanoe 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Coffee has already taken action on the request. You could ask him what is best to do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: @EdJohnston: This issue really needs to be re-examined with due care. It's been said several times that Ab was disruptive at some point in the past. I don't know, because the filing is just stuffed with diffs just showing that Ab made statements that the Chinese government would consider embarrassing or disputed. That's not a wiki violation. Most of the diffs are a year old anyway. Even if we take it as a given though that Ab is on thin ice, what is the new infraction? EdJohnston linked to a page wherein Ab's only edit this year was, In my opinion the Kilgour Matas report is in a poor state (some people find it hard to believe of course so its not always easy to put the truth on a wiki article). But its not super important now due to the existence of the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China article, which should cover the whole topic rather the first of 3 books about the topic. But I don't think the Kilgour Matas Report should be deleted because there is a genocide happening in china as discussed at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Genocide. I think an article about the 2nd organ harvesting book, State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, is justified because a number of medical professionals wrote articles for it, so its a very significant book when a genocide is occurring. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the problem is. Add on top that this is driven mainly by banned and canvassed editors, and it seems clear it never should have gone this far. Rhoark (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a response in the case page. I should point out that STSC was topic banned by The Wordsmith over a statement he made which apparently supported the PRC government's elimination of FLG, which The Wordsmith stated as "incompatible with the fundamentals of WP". Considering that Aaabbb11 is one of the parties involved in constant edit warring with STSC, I felt it is only fair that similar sanctions be applied to Aaabbb11. WP is built on the grounds of NPOV and civility, and Aaabbb11's pro-FLG diatribes and desire to "embarrass the PRC government" is no more compatible with the fundamentals of building an encyclopedia.--PCPP (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)