User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Query about outcome of edit warring report

Closure of an AN3 report about Melissa McBride
Melissa McBride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Zombie girl509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Asdfghjkl38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, Thank you for looking into the report I made about user 'Zombie girl509' reverting an edit made to Melissa McBride's Wikipedia page.

Please can I ask why I am receiving a warning? I cited reliable sources to prove that the information I edited is accurate, and I provided explanations for this edit. Zombie girl509 has been reverting this with no explanation as to why, even after I reached out to communicate about it. I have been trying to provide accurate information while it seems to me that Zombie girl509 has been reverting this with malicious intent. I reached out on Zombie girl509's 'Talk' page and I posted on the article talk page about the edit, but I received no response. If there's something else I should have done, please let me know. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have reverted about four times since October 12. If my count is correct then your behavior can be described as long-term edit warring. So it is not just the other party who is at fault. You did the right thing by opening a talk page discussion. Usually, when there is a complaint of edit warring the admins only look at who is continuing to revert, unless the thing being reverted is blatant vandalism or misinformation. So being right is not a defence here. Let's see what User:Zombie girl509 does next. Be careful about phrases like 'malicious intent' since they don't seem to be trying to make the article worse. They could be sincere in thinking their version is better. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate and understand your explanation.

Thank you for your advice about the phrase 'malicious intent'. My concern stems from cultural context, which is external discourse surrounding Melissa McBride's role in The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon, which is the subject of this edit. The context is that despite the fact that her part is widely described as 'Lead role' and that she is an Executive Producer, a minority of social media users have been known to express hateful discourse about her and the character she plays in this programme. This includes attempts to downplay her role. These specific edit reversions seem, to me, to align with the behaviour that is seen on other platforms. I do believe that removing 'Executive Producer' and changing 'Lead role' to 'Main cast' is misinformation, especially as I have cited sources that prove the information in my edit to be accurate. But I appreciate that this may be a coincidence and that this specific user may be sincere. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zombie girl509 has been blocked 48 hours for continuing the war after being warned at AN3 to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing to ask for guidance on how to proceed as the other user has reverted this edit again and has not responded to any of my attempts at communication. Following their reversion, the information now on the page has removed and changed the correct information, which is proved by the two sources that are cited. Since the other user is not engaging in discussion to reach consensus and is continuing to revert the edit, despite the information I added being proved by the cited sources, please can you advise how to proceed? Thank you very much for your help. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at a film-related Wikiproject. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please could you tell me what that is? Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring IP at Fort Mose

Fort Mose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having trouble with an edit-warring IP at the Fort Mose article who insists on making unsourced changes to sourced content and adding misspelled proper names. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected Fort Mose one month due to the unsourced IP changes and the edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. I think he'll come around to respecting other editors. He's no dummy.;-) Carlstak (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carlstalk,

This is completely unfair. My edits were very legit. Why did you erase all I did? And your words "Learn English" are very inappropriate. What kind of Wikipedia user you think you are by erasing others contributions and writing them what you wrote? Please reconsider. 31.164.184.21 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore all I did is to provide more sources. Francisco Menéndez was considered spanish you like it or not. 31.164.184.21 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused. You did not add any references to the article. Get your story straight. Of course Francisco Menéndez was considered Spanish. It's confusing to readers to say he was "Spanish Mandinga" without clarification, which an actual source would provide. And really, by now surely you know that we capitalize the word "Spanish" in English, but you persist in not capitalizing it. Carlstak (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit presents Spanish in uppercase letters, which is noteworthy. Moreover, it should be emphasised that this matter does not pertain to the ongoing discourse. It is imperative that Spanish be articulated with precision in those sentences, as this practice mitigates the risk of misidentification. 194.230.146.181 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mistreated and Inhumanity blocking to Royiswariii and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Royiswariii Talk! 05:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case request has been declined as premature because other dispute resolution steps would need to be used first before requesting arbitration. SilverLocust 💬 10:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, User:SilverLocust. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]