User talk:EdJohnston

Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army

• Medieval Bulgarian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. I saw that you protected Medieval Bulgarian Army. I am wondering if you might take a look at WT:AN#BulgariaSources because I think the "MBA" IP edits may possibly be related in some way to the edits discussed in the linked ANI thread based upon [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As an SPI case this wouldn't be very exciting, since semiprotection is already applied. You may have a valid complaint about long-term edit warring if this keeps up. It appears that User:BulgariaSources wants to add some tables to the article but others disagree. If you desire admin action it would be good to see some discussion on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback EdJohnston. I did open a thread about BulgariaSources on ANI for disruptive editing on some other Bulgaria national football team and some other Bulgaria-related articles, but it was archived twice with any comments received from an administrator. So, I'm not sure if that means what they are doing is generally not considered disruptive, there was a technical problem with the way I posted, or simply that the admins were just busy dealing with other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Things often get archived at ANI with no action, and you shouldn't take that as being an admin verdict. My point is that there is a content issue at Bulgaria national football team that nobody has considered important enough to bring to the talk page. Though I share your concern about this editor, we often try to engage them first on their content issue before talking about blocks. The article talk page is the place for content issues. I will leave a note for User:BulgariaSources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again EdJohnston. Just for reference, I have made a number of attempts to engage BulgariaSources in discussion about the issues mentioned in the ANI thread in edit sums, and on both the article's talk page and their usertalk a number of times. There have also been numerous user warnings placed on their talk by other editors, including blocks for edit warring and using mutlitple accounts, and they have never responded to any of them as well. I posted at ANI because all attempts made to engage them in dicscussion had failed, and they seem to have no interest in discussing things since their only response is to blank their talk page and return to making the edits in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Going to ANI was fine, I'm just advising you on the steps that may be needed if you think an edit warring block is justified. In a long-term edit war, we usually give the person a last chance and try to persuade them to justify their position. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I believe that quite a few good faith attempts were made to engage them, but to date no response has been received from them other than to blank their user talk. I saw your post on their talk page, so perhaps this time they will choose respond and things can be worked out. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do that and thanks for you advice on how to best proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

guy night mare here have a look some kind of POV bulgaria push, also deleting talkpage contents to avoid other's seeing warnings Shrikanthv (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Shrikanthv, this is not new behavior since the last warning. He has made no edits since 4 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again EdJohnston. Do you think this could be an language problem? I'm not trying to be facetious, but maybe they just do not feel confident enough to discuss things in English with other editors. That's the only remaining AGF possibility that I can personally come up with since they continue to make edits such as this despite the numerous requests on their user talk to engage in discussion with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user is accusing me for being a sockpuppet

Hello, EdJohnston, may I have your attention for a minute? There seems to be a case of a planned campaign to reduce my and other user's reputation and stir bad rumors about us due to our work in articles related to the Balkans (which fall under discretionary sanctions and are of high political debate). More specifically, an anonymous user with the IP 45.33.130.46 is accusing me (User:SilentResident) for being sockpuppet of the User:Athenean. This incident happened today the morning, at the following talk page: User talk:Edvini (Date: 11 November 2015, section title: Possible). I suspect this accident may be related to another similar accident that took place, 2 months ago, at my own talk page: User talk:SilentResident (Date: 2 September 2015, section title: Canvassing, Breaking the spirit of the 3rr). I don't think all this is a mere coincidence. Can this be looked at by you or by other administrators, please? The User:Evensteven has suggested your attention in the first incident, and now I really need the administrator's attention this time, because another such a case happened again right now. I suspect there must be a link between these two accidents, it is way too coincidental for this to be unrelated to each other. I do not know who else to ask, or which is the most appropriate option to take when such suspicious suggestions target me or aim to reduce my and other people's reputations. --SilentResident (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP range at 45.33.128.0/20 belongs to Cloudmosa.com. I am tempted to do a webhost block of that range, but have set things in motion by filing at WP:OP. Will let you know if anything further happens. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. --SilentResident (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't know if this helps, but there is something suspicious that caught my attention now, and I want to report it to you. The anonymous user, 45.33.130.46, who made today (11 November 2015) these sockpuppet accusations against me and the User:Athenean, in User:Edvini's Talk Page, happened only some days after the User:Edvini himself made the same type of accusation against the User:TU-nor and the User:Alexikoua, in TU-nor's talk page here: [8]. Is striking to me, because I do not believe in coincidences. The fact that a single user (in this case, Edvini) to be involved into two separate sockpuppet claims against 4 different Wikipedia users, both in a direct manner (against TU-nor and Alexikoua) and indirectly (through 45.33.130.46's comments on his talk page, against me and Athenean), can only raise suspicions. I feel obliged to clarify that the user Edvini cannot be held responsible for 45.33.130.46's claims against me and Athenean in Edvini's talk page, but the fact that Edvini himself was involved in a very similar case against 2 other Wiki users, at Octomber 2015, only a few days ago from today, is worrisome, let alone that I myself have received 2 sockpuppetting accusations already in such a short time period. --SilentResident (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor unblocked

I have lifted a block you placed. There was an unblock request at User talk:Stolichanin, undertaking not to edit the article affected by the edit-warring which led to the block. Usually, I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but this time I thought that an undertaking not to edit the article in question at all pretty clearly removed the reason for the block, and also your block log, saying "There seems no other way to get your attention" seemed to imply that the purpose of the block had been fulfilled now that the editor had made a positive response. I trust that under those circumstances you won't object to unblocking, but please let me know if for any reason you do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was thinking that this user might have had a previous account, but it's hard to act on that suspicion one way or the other. Since he's unblocked I'll go ahead and give an alert under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions

Hi Ed, do you know where the best place is to ask this type of question? "Can I place a restriction on an editor requiring them to get permission from an admin before switching to a new account and/or requiring them to list all old accounts on their user page?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You could try posting at WT:AE. Arbcom itself has sometimes told people to use a single account. If you are thinking of imposing such a requirement on that person as a discretionary sanction, then they would need to have been alerted and you would need to mention the case that would justify the action. For some reason people often refuse to list old accounts. Possibly you know the old accounts already and just want to get them listed somewhere, which is reasonable. An alternative (if they won't agree to list them) is to open a pro forma SPI in which you give the names of the old accounts but don't request any action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just get your opinion? Before this editor was indeffed, they had a two week block for socking. They had a history of edit warring in contentious areas covered by discretionary sanctions (Palestine/Israel, Syria), retiring, and then opening a new account and doing the same thing over again. They insist their accounts were not used in parallel and not created to avoid scrutiny but it's hard to buy that (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive). If the original two week block had been kept, I was planning to impose the restrictions described above. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You must be asking for the case of a serial sockmaster who isn't already indef blocked on their main account. Sounds like it would be an infrequent case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How to request that an article be fixed and re-worked for accuracy and clarity

Hi There,

I was wondering if you can point me in the right direction to request that an article get's fixed for accuracies, updated or removal of outdated information, new sources and clarity? It's This Article.

Thank you and have a great day Smooth Lawyer (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You're speaking about List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. In my opinion, the people who are tryng to maintain this article have chosen a tough assignment. I hope you find yourself able to participate in good faith on the talk page. Some of your edits there suggest that off-wiki interests might have brought you to the article. If so then the WP:COI guideline may be of interest. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Attacks and blanked user talk

Hi Ed!

I have a question. I put a warning in the user 186.151.51.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and he blanked the page. [9] Later, he attacked me in the summary. He told me "so shut your mouth!". [10] What can I do in this case? Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article White Latin American is now semiprotected per this AN3 complaint. Per WP:OWNTALK he can blank his own user talk whenever he wants to. I suggest ignoring the personal attack for now. If you want to continue working on the article, you can do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Johnston, I ask you before you get into a situation by force, you also have to check more thoroughly, Mr. Bleckter (a Mexican IP is now a user), the fool mistook genetic data with race, and the page white latin american speaks WHITE RACE NO GENETIC DATA, if you wish, I will not return to put the data table of 1940, but it is necessary to return the data of Argentina and Costa Rica with its fountains. You understood? or I explain you with apples?. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.51.159 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

PD.It is obvious that Mr. Becker pretends to be the victim. Say "shut your mouth", do not offend anyone. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.51.159 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You should be holding this discussion at Talk:White Latin American. And please ease off on the personal attacks like 'shut your mouth', and 'tonto'. An editor with your background should not find it difficult to create a Wikipedia account. You should also know how to sign your posts. Anybody who wants to work on race-related topics like White Latin American has my sympathy. The work is technically difficult and there is no definition of success -- others may still disagree even if you do a good job technically. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Palomaris is back vandalizing Food irradiation

• Palomaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Palomaris ban has apparently ended and is once more back at Food irradiation.

Bellow are the edits to the main page:

• [11], [12], [13]

Below is the gloating for his "victory" of harassing a previous editor until he quit on the talk page:

• [14], [15], [16], [17]

You can see the edits, I leave this to your discretion.104.2.168.238 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left a warning at User talk:Palomaris. His theory that irradiation doesn't make any chemical changes in food appears to be contradicted by the sources in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding discretionary sanctions

As you have mention about discretionary sanctions on my talk which state that I have been sanction to edit meena page.so i am asking you if I edit that page andmahensingha again rapidly revert that page what should I do in that case?. Thanks Jalodiya (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

New users editing caste articles often try to promote the caste. In some cases, they exaggerate its historical stature using sources which are not considered scholarly. (Everyone wants their caste to be warriors). Admins generally have a free hand to issue sanctions regarding such articles, because caste has caused so much trouble in the past. You would be well advised to read the talk page carefully and ask experienced people for advice. If you keep on reverting User:Mahensingha you risk being blocked or banned. But if you wait to reach agreement on the talk page (before editing the article) you will be on safe ground. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jalodiya (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)you are saying that the content which was added by me provided with there citation cannot be restore by reverting mahensingha edits.If I do so I will get blocked.I have also add discussion on Talk page of Meena regarding several topic which are to be edit because user like Mahensingha have totally disrupted the article by adding controversial and political content which is very dangerous thing.

I am requesting you to clarify my doubt regarding edits on meenas page. Thanks.02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jalodiya (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)"This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing." Does that means that If I add some content on meena It can be only reverted by the admin only.

I am also requesting you to stop relating me with Meenas.The only thing which persuade me to edit Meenas page is that user like Mahensingha are try to demote and suppressing good facts about this caste,which is not a good practice. Thanks. 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You risk a block if you restore your material at Meena again before you have found a consensus in its favor. Questions about the usability of sources can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I see you have removed material from the article that was cited to Nandini Sinha Kapur. She is an author who has been published by Oxford University Press, which seems to make her respectable. See WP:Dispute resolution for how to resolve disagreements. WP:SIGN explains how to sign your posts. You should put your name at the end, not the beginning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanma election article move

• Myanmar general election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Ed. I'm not going to take this to MR, but I would like to try and understand the rationale behind the close. Although I appreciate that there was a majority in favour of this move, I had hoped that I had rebutted their arguments successfully. If editors were against the use of "Myanma" for whatever reason, the proper alternative was "Burmese" (as this is still in use even when the country name Myanmar is used - see e.g. here). Thanks, Number 57 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two of the comments by contributors to the move discussion that I found especially persuasive:

• User:IgnorantArmies: “..Wikipedia tends to avoid unusual or non-standard demonyms..”
• User:Old Naval Rooftops: "Burmese" isn't a serious option because we don't need another round of Myanmar-related edit wars.”

If people are here to look up a topic, we shouldn't place extra hurdles in their path. Though the demonym 'Myanma' exists in English text (as shown by Google) it is not a familiar one. As I type this, my spell-checker is putting a red line under 'Myanma' because it thinks it's a misspelling. That was my impression too as I was looking at the list of moves to close. I take it your view is that when a demonym exists in English, however obscure, it should always be used. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the cited comments: Old Naval Rooftops actually opposed the move, stating "The English-language adjectival form is Myanma", and IgnorantArmies' response actually supports my above suggestion that Burmese would have been a better option as they state that one form of adjective is preferred over another – not using a noun.

My view is that the adjectival form should be used as per the guideline, which is why I would be ok with "Burmese", but not "Myanmar". Number 57 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "placing extra hurdles in their path" comment, there was already a redirect – I don't see how anyone could have failed to find the article. Number 57 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi EdJohnston . Please block this user. He is engaged in vandalism in my page. Also writes any mucks in the Azerbaijani language. Here you can examine vandalism examples - here and here. Thanks in advance.--Nicat49 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your last statement

• WP:AE#Jaakobou

Your last statement is not entirely correct. I was pushed to the limits of my patience by the support for anti-Israeli language. The group doing so, handed out barnstars to each other after their success. The reason I was topic-banned was due to finding consensus when it wasn't as clear as I thought it was. That and repeated complaints about the misconduct of a few users which were deemed not strong enough. I did not use my account to fight that lost battle or appeal the sanction. I wanted to set the record straight about the polemics policy. But you've stated your bias and ignored the questions so I'm basically talking to the wind here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with your AE sanction you can appeal to the arbitration committee. The way you've been bringing up your 2012 dispute with Tiamut repeatedly in different venues does look like forum-shopping. But going to Arbcom would not be forum shopping. When you posted at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 20#Review of past issues you did not reveal that you had received a topic ban in 2012 because of your insistence on that very issue. Failure to be candid about past events may have hurt any argument you would otherwise have for getting your ban lifted. The canvassing about the WP:UP RfC that has been documented on your talk page by User:Serialjoepsycho didn't help either. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, not entirely correct.

a) I purposefully avoided hyperlinking to Tiamut or mentioning their user-name since I am not interested in them. This became a big problem for my focus since everyone would remark: "Can you at least link to something". My interest in the general principle was focused on links to comments by admins that show they do not understand the purpose of the policy. e.g. disturbing material but "not illegal".[18] You yourself were condoning 3 advocacy quotes directed at Jews, Israelis and Zionists. It was a bit more than just "a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.'".[19] Btw, Israeli setters are occupying me, but I will "sharpen the weapons" and rise in victory does sound like proposition for violence.

b) I disclosed I was herded off wikipedia and I asked to bring the 'polemics' issue to ARBCOM.[20] This is also in the links I provided on ARBCOM.

c) I am not interested in getting back to editing in the current state of the project. I.e. rampant wiki-cliquing, purposely derailed discussions, and uneven application of policy. I notified this to T.Canens earlier, when I mentioned I have edited a bit anonymously outside the scope of the ban.

d) The participation of editors wanting to keep anti-Israel diatribes on their user-page is just as bad, if not worse than my openly linking to wikiproject France. In fact, The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion., is deemed appropriate.

e) Saying that, it was a bad idea to extend that with a few emails (to contributors of the Paris attack article). It doesn't change the current deeply rooted problems mentioned above.

Am I talking to the wind here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I probably am because you (and the others) haven't answered the policy related question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate the point:

"I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic",[21] I opened the thread to clarify policy. Esp. considering polemics supporting/promoting violence against civilians in a real conflict with daily casualties. Yes. There are casualties in Israel, and no, I don't have examples of ISIS supporters circumventing policy. It is besides the point anyway. 09:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example to illustrate the point:

"would be perfectly acceptable to John Locke, the father of liberalism"[22] How is liberalism connected? That argument would mean there is a prerogative to use user-pages for campaigning. Perhaps in favor of ISIL as well. This argument misses the purpose of Wikipedia and the intention of the policy. The rest of the argument is in violation of WP:BATTLE, btw. A good show. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of input from uninvolved editors, I've come up with a new suggestion - here. I'd welcome your view as well. Is it free speech for all or avoid advocating on your wikipedia user-page about real world disputes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:38, 20 Novembaer 2015 (UTC)

Since you already mentioned words from the I-P conflict in your statement of the RfC at WT:User pages#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC ("mukawama", "jihad") I don't see how you can continue the discussion there. Anything you say will be a contravention of your ARBPIA ban. Your failure to observe the ban may be taken into account by whoever closes the complaint at WP:AE#Jaakobou. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Two notes and a question:

1) I paid attention to the comments at ARBCOM. My latest comments[23][24] are very respectful of ARBCOM's concerns and completely avoid Israel-related content.

2) "mukawama" and "jihad" are not exclusive to the Israeli-Arab conflict and my links about related laws were given from UK, France, and Australia. I.e., these are applicable to the recent attack in Mali as well as recent ISIS activity in Europe. This is not a mention of the I-P conflict. I am aware that I did mention it though, talking about the recent stabbings and citing the knife hashtag as example. I will refrain further examples related to Israel-Arab conflicts even in the context of the policy discussion. I hope ARBCOM will leave some reasonable leeway here and 'not forget to clear the policy matter. For example, there is confusion whether it is or isn't permissible to use dead children from active real-world conflicts as part of your user-page advocacy.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't help it, can you, now asserting I use dead children for advocacy. Look at the editors of Death of Yehuda Shoham, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Murder of Hatuel family. They documented a tragic reality. I refrain from writing such articles for the 'other side' though dozens are possible for the same reasons. I simply don't think one should 'use dead children' to make articles. If I advocate anything subtextually, it is the necessity to feel the same way, and look at similar events the same way, whatever the ethnicity of the victim. That's not advocacy. It's called humanism, and is an integral part of the ethics of Judaism, not too speak of many ethical traditions, high and low, and the common sentiments of humankind.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No. On this thread you did that yourself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your name has been invoked

Hi, Ed. Your name has been invoked without a ping at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Logos. - Location (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but the situation doesn't require any further comment from me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! - Location (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Converts Articles

Do you think forced conversions should be allowed in list of convert articles? For example, if somebody forces a person to convert to a different religion than his own and he goes back to his original religion, should that be included in the converts list or does that violate WP policy? I think that the conversion was not sincere, so it should not be included. What is your opinion? Xtremedood (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be surprising if editors decided to count forced conversions as real conversions. Though I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bhargava

Hi Ed, last December you topic banned Bhargavaflame (talk · contribs). Since that time, there have been numerous attempts by anons to reinstate the dreadfully-sourced material at Bhargava. The most recent is this. Yes, I could take it to DRN but I doubt the anons would turn up. Anyway, my query to you is whether you think the anons may in fact be Bhargavaflame circumventing their topic ban. They did, after all, breach it very soon after you imposed the thing. I'm not good at spotting socks and in any event, SPI are not going to link an account to an IP address even if the CU evidence was not stale. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. I was going to semiprotect but User:Bishonen has already taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I guess Bish watches this page. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I thought I'd posted here to say I'd semi'd, but I guess I forgot to save. Also, I wanted to mention that when you topic banned Bhargavaflame, Ed, he said his fight for truth on Wikipedia would continue.[25] Rather suggestive. But it doesn't much matter whose IPs they are, they can be kept out with semi. If the user should create a sock account we can think about SPI and CU. My god, we speak in pretty opaque code these days. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

The fight for truth takes many forms, a variety of new accounts have been using my talk page as the refdesk for castes now, just see the questions I'm getting! —SpacemanSpiff 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Clear the requests. --The Avengers (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see ARCA

Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please correct your statement

I can accept the basic premise on why I should withhold myself from that thread, but please review the matter again and correct your statement regarding conflict enhancement jargon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)