BETA ZEN
User talk:EdJohnston
Texto da Wikipédia (en), licença CC BY-SA. O BETARUBI mostra o verbete inteiro nesta página — a leitura não continua fora do site.
Changes to the functionary team, June 2026 (4)
At his request, the checkuser permission of EdJohnston (talk · contribs) is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks EdJohnston for his service as a checkuser. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Henry IV of France
Hi, would you please take a closer look at the protection history for Henry IV of France? The page has been very long term vandalism target for years and had a three year semi-protection expire in May of this year. Disruptive vandalism has once again started up since, with the few much shorter protections since not nearly sufficient. It's clear much longer semi-protection is needed for this page. All the Smarts (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I lengthened the semiprotection to three years. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Close with no rationale
You closed Royal Oak post office shooting without any explanation for the consensus, after it was relisted. It's a 4-3 with most comments being the same templated replies posted in every WP:NOYEAR discussion by the same users, I don't think closing it without a rationale is a good idea. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- A 4-3 vote against the move certainly does not create a justification to move, and both sides' arguments were valid and within policy. Can you point to an individual user's vote which you consider to be templated? EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you that it's not a justification to move, but I was mostly thinking about why you decided there was consensus against the move instead of no consensus. As for the template thing I refer to Raskuly, PlainWikiUser1 (not much of a template there to be fair but it is identical to many other discussions), Station1 and Crouch, Swale. Not to say I blame them for it, it kind of evolved naturally after they kept having the same discussion in every RM. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- In my view 'Not moved' is just a description of what was done this time, and does not rule out further discussion at a later time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you that it's not a justification to move, but I was mostly thinking about why you decided there was consensus against the move instead of no consensus. As for the template thing I refer to Raskuly, PlainWikiUser1 (not much of a template there to be fair but it is identical to many other discussions), Station1 and Crouch, Swale. Not to say I blame them for it, it kind of evolved naturally after they kept having the same discussion in every RM. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Operation Kikusui I RM close
I think a no consensus close here is reasonable, but I'm surprised this didn't get moved to somewhere per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. The previous RM was very lightly attended and nobody in this discussion supported keeping the current title. Was your analysis that there was no consensus to move away from the current title as well? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- It seemed to me unusual to name the article after just a military plan, when a real battle did ensue. The name used in the Japanese Wikipedia 'Battle of Cape Bono' at least refers to real-world events. I didn't perceive a consensus to reject the current name Operation Kikusui I, though I don't favor it myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)