User talk:EdJohnston

A ANI discussion where I mention you

Here it is[1]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Topic Ban removal.

Wait until July 9 to launch your appeal, per the terms of the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Its now been approximately 120 days since you topic banned me, under a discretionary sanctions which provided for 30 days for the first offense, which it was. So in any regard a significant sanction was dispensed. The person that asked for this sanction against me (actually had done it twice) had a long an controversial history with the article in question. In fact they voluntarily self banned themselves from the article to avoid getting topic banned by the consensus that had formed under enforcement by admins. They also ran rough shot over the article using ANI to report many many editors, which admins evaluated as using the ANI process to counter editors, rather than to seek consensus. The 3 editors of the article have now either retired from Wikipedia or are no longer editing the article in question. A new 200 page review has now been published by the Royal College of Physicians, established in 1518, which exceeds the rigor of the a Cochrane review, and the Article is not being updated for the most part with this changes. This is critical because the nature of the article MEDR citations was confounded by the preliminary nature of some of the primary sources. And that was actually what I was working on. My topic ban was premised upon I was using a primary source to refute another primary source, which was taking science which was not related to the topic. Long story short, as these other editors have moved on, and the science has moved on, I would like to be able to edit the articles. They need to be updated regardless. There are various options for my request. But it seems the most basic is for you to remove the topic ban, which as I read the instructions...you would be able to do. Thanks. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) This request doesn't give me confidence that your past problems with neutral editing have gone away. So I am not inclined to lift the topic ban. You have the other options which are listed at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. You should wait until July 9, because your ban, which was imposed on January 9, provides a right of appeal after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC) There was not a question raised to me on neutral editing. The item was in relationship to removing older content, that was superseded. The question was specific to how I justified the removal of a couple of lines of text, and was objected to because it was MEDRS compliant...or so that was the contention. I never edit warred, and the edits in question were left in as I took the topic to TALK pages, which was concluded when the Topic Ban was placed. It seems massively easier than going through the entire formal informal process to simple request the update to my status directly to you, as the warring editors are no long editing these pages Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Mystery Wolff, I don't think we have communicated before and these words are offered in a genuinely neutral way to help you. If you are topic banned, this is to protect that topic area from your editing. Just because other editors are no longer on WP (and how can we be sure of that), that does not automatically mean the topic no longer needs protection from you. If the problem was interactions between other editors and yourself, then I suspect Interaction bans would have been issued. This is not a convincing argument to having your ban lifted. I suggest you find another approach.DrChrissy (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC) DrChrissy, I appreciate your remarks, but this case is rather specific and something that EdJohnston likely remembers. I certainly do not believe the Topic Ban was warranted for a number of reasons. Not that I did not appreciate the remarks given, but that editors were exploiting a process of the discretionary sanctions onto me. I feel very much collateral damage out of long standing turf wars that existed before my editing. For example I was accused of being a sockpuppet as the premise of seeking sanctions against me. That investigation was done, and utterly failed on the merits. Perhaps my inexperience in wiki-lawyering made me make a case that by its very objections caught rebuke. I was informed that I would be "boomeranged" for example. Also my editing was part of a discussion going on in Talk. My edits were removed...and I did not war to put them back. However, as I was concurrently talking with editors like Doc James, the outcome was a Topic Ban. There was a long standing turf war going on, and Admins had to ask that participants not go after new editors. It was very much an inside Wikipedia game. In the real world, there is real disappointment on how these pages have been handled, hence my interest in the specific topic. As the new science has become available I think you would agree that these well understood secondary sourced review by the Royal College of Physicians, deserves to be incorporated into a valuable resource as Wikipedia. I understand and appreciate your comment in "the general"....I being familiar with my case, believe it needs review in "the specific." Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia deleted more of my contributions

Why should anyone try and take the time and contribute to this project when one vote can completely delete their contributions? [2] I was not notified that there was a final vote and the where to vote appears to have been moved at least once and that by one vote, another one of my contributions was deleted. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wish, you can appeal at WP:DRV. Your comments about a 'final vote' are hard to understand. This was a routine nomination at WP:TFD and the closer's decision was based on the the information presented in the debate. It seems you want to create a new navigation template, and this might be expected to require a wider review of how navigation is currently done in that area. These templates require a lot of space on the page, and it is logical that every article linked from the template would also make space for the template. So your proposed template might be transcluded 25 times and might be in addition to other existing templates on the affected pages. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is beyond frustrating. And I am not the only person expressing this. [3] Wikipedia spends allot of time and resources destroying its own content and then not a whole lot giving people voice to find ways to improve it. Its as if you can maybe say it and no one will listen, until you get in trouble and then people will misconstrue it, to run you off. How horrible. I am still here because I still wish to contribute but the environment as it is with the hostility of other admins and this, well I have to spend allot of time planning and preparing before I can make even a small contribution. The days of me writing bios like the one I did for Eugene Webb are over as I can't imagine the mountain of work it takes to contribute new content as my old content gets deleted. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The articles you wrote on Eugene Webb and George Kline look worthwhile. I trust you don't consider those projects to be a waste of time. With a proposal like {{Slavic Orthodox Christianity}} you were wanting to change how we currently organize the topic area. (You would be changing the method of navigating certain articles). It should not come as a shock that persuasion may be needed in such a case. When you write an article from scratch yourself, you are only expending your own resources, not those of others. The work you have done on those two articles remains beneficial and didn't require much negotiation on your part. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there, LoveMonkey! Without knowing the issue at hand more deeply, you may want to familiarize yourself with an essay that tackled the navigation template problem from a overlink point-of-view (Wikipedia:Overlink crisis). For example, implementing a Template:Texas counties as such would have yielded 228 600 wikilinks alone. The overlink crisis occurred between 2009 and 2011, and I guess the folks dealing with these things tend to proceed a bit more carefully these days in this area. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am trying. It is just too time consuming all of it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's is an example of my frustration. As the only solution is deletion and destruction of contributions and we should all know it. Look go read how people deleting your time and work are justified in this article here or whatever. My content got deleted and because I created something and did not read whatever, my contribution got deleted. But somehow that's not the point? Frustration. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it can be equally frustrating for editors who want to keep Wikipedia clean from another Overlink Crisis to happen. I am sorry that you feel that you have spent a lot of time on this case, but have you tried to discuss this with other users? Perhaps they have spent a lot of time with this case too, but just have done so from another point-of-view? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Objection for deleting or modifying or merging Brahminsm article

Recently I received a deletion request for the article Brahminsm from the user Kautilya3. Brahminsm is a seperate topic related to the influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion. There are so many references are available throughout India.Aryans (Brahmins) are seperate race migrated to India around 1500 BCE through Khyber and Bholan pass.They invaded India and they influenced the religion of native people and created castes and divisions through religious texts.Even they deviced penal codes in which different punishments are available for the same crime based on caste.The mahabharatha incident ekalaiva and karna are true and can be verified.Even many reformists in India tried to reform Hinduism and tried to reduce the influence of Aryans on Hinduism. I dont have much experience in editing wikipedia article.So I am not able to provide citations. But I am having all the source material or reference material. We can discuss all of them in this talk page. If we simply delete this article in future we are stopping a chance to know about the topic. So view points of everyone is welcomed and we all can disscuss about this topic.--IrumudiChozhan (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you have been making edits at the misspelled title Brahminsm. Presumably this should be Brahminism. The latter, as a correctly-spelled word, already exists as a redirect to Historical Vedic religion. If you have proposals for anything we should do differently, I suggest you accept the deletion of Brahminsm and instead make your proposals at Talk:Historical Vedic religion. Nothing prevents you from gathering references before creating an article. You can make a list on your own computer, or use a draft page in your user space. If you add material without any references, it risks being removed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your warning

After a short break, she's at it again. You should read her individual edit summaries that comprise this diff. They are incomprehensible: "Undid revision 718030618 by LadyofShalott (talk) Make Janelle/Megan do it!"; "Fran is going to kill blond Joe?".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Violetnese is now blocked. Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding a recent issue

Hello EdJohnston,

I strongly believe it was incorrect to block user Listofpeople as you did following this case. The IP (79.177.137.186) that reported him is one of the many sock IP's of User:Yossimgim; see here the SPI case where the entire range is listed --> [4].

He has used many more IP's of that range to sock on the Circassians page as well (apart from other pages), e.g. IP 79.178.211.197, IP 79.176.91.230, and IP 109.65.217.133. All geolocate to the exact same place as well. User Listofpeople was simply very unfortunate to encounter this IP, not knowing that its another sock of said user.

I hope you can unblock said user based on this. Thanks in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 3RR report was correctly closed. If a verdict comes back from the SPI, I am willing to review it and see if it changes the situation. In any case, the person who was blocked needs to work more actively for consensus. I stepped through numerous edits at Circassians and I saw the IP making what seemed to be good edits. I would consider semiprotecting Circassians if there was a clear case to do so, but it's not evident yet. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston; I don't disagree with you about that user "Listofpeople" should've resorted to the talk page first, regardless of the fact that he didn't know that the IP was merely baiting and was another sock IP, but in my honest opinion he should now be pardoned now as after all and most importantly, the whole case that got him blocked was filed by a sock IP. By that alone, discussing whether user "Listofpeople" should be working on his consensus building should be left aside in this particular case here.

I don't believe a sock is allowed to file a case and then actually get away with it. You right now telling that the 3RR report was correctly closed, is basically justifying sockpuppetry, as you're allowing a sock to continue with his havoc here, and rather confirming that policy-breaking behaviour. According your words, the way they come across, its ok to let him sock around, as after all the person that he managed to get blocked violated WP:WAR (through warring with the sock IP) and has supposed issues regarding WP:CON, as he didn't search for a consensus with a sock IP. Sounds rather quasi Machiavellistic to me.

Lastly, are we in all seriousness waiting for a SPI clerk to confirm that multiple IP's, literally all geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, making the very same edits, all in a short period of time, are perhaps used by the very same person?

Here I've literally listed everything I just said above with verifiable material;

IP 79.178.211.197, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article

IP 79.176.91.230, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article

IP 109.65.217.133, geolcating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article

IP 79.177.137.186, the sock IP that got Listofpeople blocked, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article.

I can list more of the used IP's, but this should stipulate the point more than enough, I believe.

With all due respect. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the socking evidence is OK at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive309#User:109.64.100.131 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked) and it is possible that 109.64.* could be Yossimgim. The 3RR case is too old to make any further action reasonable. The rest is still unclear to me. Yossimgim has never edited Circassians. When you see an IP adding the {{Islam|Related topics}} template, that fact is not very distinctive. Both Yossimgim and Dr. Feldinger would occasionally become very abusive, which is not something you see with these IPs. It appears that the sock case sat open for two months with no action. It is a stretch to consider all Tel Aviv based IPs to be Yossimgim. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP's have edited other articles which Yossimgim did edit as well. Both Yossimgim and the IP's keep reinstating the same stuff, in this regard, reinstating the template at all cost. Amongst other pretty clear editorial overlap which is presented on his SPI case. Furthermore, Yossimgim stopped editing some time ago, after which the IP's started editing literally just some days after, having the same editorial pattern (once again; the islam template spamming on ethnic group articles aside).

Having said that; you also don't agree with me that the 4 IP's I listed above present a case of blatant IP socking, whether or not they are Yossimgim's? This is in fact the most important reason as for why I wanted to discuss this matter with you.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if we were to agree on the IP socking, what should we do as a result? If the range is too wide to block, we are left with blocking individual IPs whenever we notice them. Semiprotection could be more useful. Can you suggest some articles where we could try long-term semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston; sorry, wasn't there for some days. I just saw you semi'd the Circassians article. I think that's indeed a good start. I'm gonna revert the content the pre-IP hopper revision. Other good articles to protect are basically the Middle Eastern nations, of which currently Jordan seems to be a main target of him. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston.

First of all, thanks to LouisAragon for his attention. What happened yesterday made me feel really sorry. Consensus indeed matters, but I thought and still think there was nothing to discuss on the talk page of the article at stake. I don't know whether that IP user is a sockpuppet or not, but he suddenly declared an edit war just because I reverted his edit which I still believe was a vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718733033

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718560757

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718560045

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718558359 (Here, the IP accused me of vandalism, but it was that user who was doing vandalism, I thought this was obvious)

Another user has removed the irrelevant template, but the aforementioned IP who unjustly declared an edit war added the template back.

I may have made several constructive edits throughout the article and perhaps this is why you couldn't check each of my edits to decide whether my edits was appropriate or not. Seeing the word "edit war" was enough to take the IP seriously, but that IP thinks Wikipedia is a battleground. I checked that user's recent activities, and whenever he sees an edit that contradicts with her/his personal interests, s/he threatens. I have been working on that article for hours, and all my efforts was gone out of nowhere. Now, the page has all those dead links (which I previously rescued) and grammar mistakes, and typos that I fixed. I am not even mentioning the irrelevant template back on the article. By the way, you can check that I have not really removed any information from the article. At best, I moved them into different sections. For instance, I moved the sentence regarding the ethnic group's religion to the section "Religion" as it was not really relevant in the introduction given their past, but I even did not removed that information, but moved.

Sir, I am asking you, could you please check my final version and the one that was reverted to the version of the IP by another user who is actually of good faith.

Here's the comparison link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=next&oldid=718577605

Perhaps the only problem with my version was the fact that I forgot to remove the caption in the infobox, but it was not a critical mistake because a caption does not show up in the article if there is no image. The fact that I removed the image (a non photomontage single image including non-notable regular people wearing traditional costume and holding their flag, which I believe is very representative because the ethnic group at stake is quite homogenous and not a large nation. The term also does not donote citizenship as in the term "Americans") was to reach a consensus about its representativeness, but I was not going to discuss that with that IP, but other users who do valuable contributions the article. Besides, I have never removed the flag, I moved it to the section of "Tribes" since each star on the flag represent one of the 12 tribes. These are the only points that I felt the need to clarify here, because I really don't know what I did else other than constructive edits.)

I read that you wrote "I saw the IP making what seemed to be good edits." Sir, do you really think that any of the edits that the IP has done on the page so far is a good edit? I can't be the only one that it was blatant vandalism. Not even a single part of his edits was useful in my honest opinion, but I really wonder what you think. Please check my final activity on that page (as well as my previous edits, any of them because I feel quite confident about them) and compare them with the version of that IP. Perhaps, at first sight, his version looks okay to you, but it's far from being okay if you check each sentences. Please check the current links as well because they redirect to nowhere as they are from the domains that were shut down years ago. I had rescued the ones that have archived version on web.archive.is, but now they are all reverted. As I said, what happened yesterday made me feel very sorry. It was very embarrassing for me to be blocked because of my quite constructive and objective edits (which does not require any discussion in my honest opinion, please correct me if you still think I am wrong) just because of the report of an IP who declared an edit war for no tangible reason. I am afraid, many other vandals can keep their version on Wikipedia articles this way (first by unjustly declaring their single-sided edit war with users and then by reporting those users who revert their "vandalism" edits three times. I thought we could revert, when needed, even 40 times consecutively if it's against vandalism as in this case.)

Oh, I almost forgot. Before that IP reported me, I had already written a message to LouisAragon in order to ask his opinion regarding my edits at stake and the aforementioned picture that I suggest for the infobox. I wrote to him only because I know he is one of the most active users on that page, and I very much appreciate his activities on the issue in particular. I believe this is how he took notice of this issue in the first place. I am really thankful because I felt very bad when the words of a vandal were paid attention to while my words were not considered at all. As I said, I really didn't feel any need to write on the talk page of the article itself because my edits were quite objective and not very open to discussion. I just wanted to hear LouisAragon's comments even though I was pretty sure that what that IP did was vandalism and my edits were okay. It was before my 3RR and the consequent report, please check the date and time.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Listofpeople (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"I thought we could revert, when needed, even 40 times consecutively if it's against vandalism as in this case." Your charges of vandalism are incorrect; this was a content dispute. You should try to get consensus on the talk page and make your arguments there. Admins are not referees about content questions. I am not part of this dispute and don't plan to continue this here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, you approve the current version of the article, and believe that what the IP at stake has done so far on that article was not vandalism whereas what I did there was disruptive editing or vandalism as that IP (whose words were considered over mine) claimed here. Is this also to say that you have just semi-protected the article in order to avoid my further contributions? Sorry for not hiding my astonishment since that ethnic group is part of my academic and personal expertise, and I have made contributions to Wikipedia so far almost exclusively on articles that are related to that ethnic group. I would have really appreciated if you could review the issue, just comparing my version and the IP's, but I see you have made your decision. Since I was blocked by you, I thought I should discuss the dispute with you, especially after seeing a fellow user's message to you regarding the issue on your talk page. I beg your pardon if this is not the right place to discuss it. I have never been involved in such a dispute on Wikipedia, I don't know the procedure after being blocked either. With all due respect, all I know and want here is to make valuable contributions.

Regards Listofpeople (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When there is a disagreement, you try to work cooperatively with others. See WP:Dispute resolution for some advice. It is not up to some admin like mystelf to look at two versions and decide which one is better. Edit warring blocks are given when it seems the person is simply reverting and not negotiating patiently. You have not posted at Talk:Circassians since 2014, but you can easily start a new discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What I know is that when an IP adds one of the most irrelevant templates right below the infobox for an ethnic group's article, and removes the newly-added academic sources and archived web links, keeping the old dead-links as well as all the previously-fixed typos, grammar mistakes, and styling issues, there is nothing to do other than to revert. Trying to cooperate with that IP user is not even a matter of question in my honest opinion. You perhaps think that IP's edits are relevant because you don't have a background knowledge of that ethnic group, and I totally get this because the ethnic group at stake is "today" not known to many as they are a community, 90% of which were expelled from their historical homeland two centuries ago and scattered all around the world. Even before that two centuries, they were known by the majority of foreigners simply for their strong military men and beautiful women with extreme fair features, nothing else. However, one doesn't have to be an expert to understand that the aforementioned IP's edits are not good at all and is even against the neutral point of view policy. That religious template would be even irrelevant to the Wikipedia article "Arabs" as an ethnic group, let alone to the article of an ethnic group whose members are the latest collective converts to Islam, while for more than 16 centuries they were almost exclusively known for being Christian besides their cultural traditional beliefs (philosophy and mythology) though there are still Christian (in good numbers) and neopagan ones of them. However, please do not remove that template unless you fix the whole article. Sir, since you believe you are unable to look at the two versions and decide which one is better although it's crystal clear as one of the versions is a product of vandalism, I request another expert or someone who knows the ethnic group well to check and put an end to this unnecessary dispute. LouisAragon is one of them. I hope he and other users intervene into this issue.

Sir, the fact that I was unjustly accused of disruptive editing and vandalism on my area of expertise, and even blocked consequently after a report of an alleged sockpuppet IP whose vandalism (blatant to an expert's eye) edits were thought to be of good kind even by a distinguished administrator at first sight (without a deep analysis) because the ethnic group at stake is an underrecognized one, is a milestone on Wikipedia. I repeat that is a living proof that even a vandal can keep his version on Wikipedia by using some fancy words like edit warring only out of his battleground instincts and acting as if he's acting according to the guidelines of Wikipedia in order to mask his vandalism. While that vandal keeps editing, I am here to defend my aggrieved self desperately. With all due respect, I'm asking you, what kind of misunderstanding would that be? Regards, Listofpeople (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you revert Circassians back to your last revision?

• Circassians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.177.137.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe a sockpuppet of that user who got blocked, just continued his edit warring via another username. Thanks in advance. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that User:LouisAragon and User:Listofpeople are the same editor. But since we are discussing Circassians, maybe you would like to respond about your own behavior at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. It appears that a large number of Tel-Aviv based IPs, including you, have engaged in similar editing on a range of articles. Recently you have tripped the edit filter at Eritrea, and you seem to be up to five reverts at Jordan. Perhaps you can explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Epiousios

• Epiousios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your semi-protect was both unnecessary and counter-productive. While SimonP and I are certainly editing with no small amount of enthusiasm, I defy you to point out how the article is not benefiting. We are editing...not edit-warring. You might want to gain some clarity on that. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you have broken WP:3RR, but you in addition are jumping IPs. Do you have some objection to waiting for a conclusion on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there such a thing? I find referring to facts to be much more conclusive, and apparently Simon P does as well. Your semi-protect was pre-mature and will result in a lower quality article. While SimonP's edits are often over-the-top with respect to claims (e.g., "most students"..."most popular"...etc.), he is getting much better at sourcing...but needs back-up when it comes to having an editor that challenges him in kind. Suggest you remove the block. Moreover, so what if my Internet provider has jumping IPs? Is that somehow a new criteria for editing on Wikipedia...or an old one that has gone by the wayside with new IP protocols? Focus on quality of the edits. That'll make for a better encyclopedia. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It takes five minutes to create an account if you prefer to have a permanent talk page where people can contact you. WP:EW is part of the criteria for editing on Wikipedia. You might call it an old criterion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As I'd hope your powers of critical judgement can discern, that is not my "preference," Ed. You're compounding your mistake by not admitting it. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the article has been improving, these arguments should be on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I'm happy with a general pause so that we can talk more on the talk page before either of us make any more major edits. I've added some comments on how to summarize scholarly consensus, which I would appreciate your input on. - SimonP (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)