User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Military occupation

Though I may have misunderstood, Your comments on Talk:List of military occupations lead me to make the following change:

• The Palestinian territories - The Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem occupied by Israel since 1967.

Just wondering if perhaps that is what you meant by "Just a thought, but one possible way to resolve this potentially unsolvable issue which doesn't have a convenient binary yes or no answer, is perhaps by being intentionally vague i.e. by combining the separate lines for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a single statement about the Occupation of the Palestinian territories/State of Palestine or whatever." I don't think exactly is but it was one of the reasons I made this change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant something simple like i.e.

• The Palestinian territories - occupied by Israel since 1967.

Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understood that. However the occupation of each really is a seperate affair. There's the miltary Government of the West Bank. East Jerusalem unless I'm mistake operates under Israeli Jurisdiction and law. Gaza military action is generally limited to Sea and air. Each area of occupation is unique, anyway in my understanding. So there is a need to mention each of them. How ever there's is no need to seperate each of them as if they a seperate entity.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you. My suggestion was really just an attempt at conflict avoidance on that particular page (since these things are covered in detail elsewhere...or should be). Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway I thought that might be of interest to you. I think the next big thing will be to see if they put (disputed) back in by Gaza. Good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Wikitiki89's talk page.
Message added 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Wikitiki89's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 07:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Hi there, Sean. Thank you very much for adding references in an article where I had put a "fact" label. Next time could you please first add the reference and then delete the tag? If not it looks like the previous contributor was reverted, which is not true. Your addition of a reference shows my edit was correct. That is all. Thanks and bye. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No I won't be doing that because I don't care what it looks like. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very kind of you really. I could not expect less than a good Wikipedian. So happy to meet you... --212.174.190.23 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You may be unaware that your edit was inconsistent with the template usage notes. The correct thing to do would be, rather than tag something based on a personal belief, find the sources and add them to the article. This is described in the template usage notes Template:Fact - "If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." You added a fact tag adjacent to the article link definition of terrorism. The first sentence of that article contained the sources that you could have used. It would have taken you about the same time as tagging the article in this case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

christine quinn reliable rs http://hamodia.com/?s=christine+quinn The hamodia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How to address a non Neutral Negative editor on a BLP article

Thank You for your comment on my talk page.

I just read the page. I have not found any attack on other editors. I am letting other editors know to be aware of the comments left by John Nagle that they are not Neutral and should be taken with caution in this BLP article. I needed to support my edit and bring examples.

Maybe you could come up with a better way of addressing this concern?

I think this is a legitimate concern as per wikipedia policy that a user with a strong point of view should refrain editing an article especially if it is a negative point of view on a living person. Bordguy (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition:

Check out this policy: WP:YESPOV.

The user John Nagle is constantly stating "judgmental language", the user does not "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and often John Nagle states his opinions as facts.

User is giving WP:UNDUE to one side. This and many other are all aside mention of the BLP problems.

I would actually like a neural way to address this concern to other users.Bordguy (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"I have not found any attack on other editors"...hmmm. Your post was titled "Beware of User John Nagle's Fierce Hatred toward Mr. Rubashkin". Accusing someone of being motivated by a "Fierce Hatred" is one of the most obvious personal attacks I have ever seen. The talk page is for proposing changes to the article based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So that is what you should do, explain your concerns about content and make specific proposals for changes citing evidence. You can discuss concerns about John Nagle's editing directly with him at his talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the page WP:TALK personal attacks are defined as calling someone an "idiot" or threatening someone. I was bringing out a point that this user has a hatred towards the subject. That is not a clear violation of WP:TALK.

In either case I do agree that the wording should be corrected. Maybe using a more neutral language.

I think this concern should be posted on the talk page since it is relevant to the neutrality of this article that is about a living person. -

I just looked at the page and noticed that John Nagle himself writes against other users in seemingly in order to "warn" everyone else that they are violating the policy because the view is not Neutral.

In this talk page we should be aware that user John Nagle is constantly veering away from Neutral point of view. His constant negative comments and edits as well as his anticipation for a conviction, clearly shows a strong grudge against the subject of the article. This needs to be pointed out. Just like he has done for other users.

Maybe I will put it back with a lower tone of voice.Bordguy (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a read through WP:NPA to see the kind of things that Wikipedia treats as personal attacks, and therefore policy violations. Accusations that lack supporting evidence are treated as personal attacks. The talk page is for discussing content. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked out WP:NPA. It does say that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered an attack. The evidence I presented (including that this user is only contributing negative edits, that the user seems to be anticipating a conviction, and tht the user suggested in other talk page to create an article about the all criminal activity of the subjects family (-an open violation of BLP-) may be argued as insufficient evidence. However, I am not sure if it is enough to remove the comment from the talk page without somewhat discussion. In either case the wording I used should be changed.

Again, similar to what John Nagle wrote about other users accusing them that they lack neutrality and should be cautioned, users should be aware of John Nagles views on the subject. This will help us decide how to edit the article.Bordguy (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't present evidence. You just told people what you think based on supposition. You have done the same here. It's counterproductive. I don't know what you are referring to by "what John Nagle wrote about other users accusing them..." because you don't cite evidence when you make statements. The article and its talk page has been subjected to disruption for many years. Editors have been blocked. Perhaps that is what you are seeing, people protecting Wikipedia from disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear enough. Check this out what John Nagle wrote on Talk:Agriprocessors "One way to address this might be to create Rubashkin crime family to pull together the criminal activities of the various family members". On the Talk:Sholom Rubashkin the in the section "Requested semi-protection" John Nagle suggest that 3 users (who were editing positive information on the subject) are possibly being paid to edit Wikipedia. His poor evidence was that there is a paid campaign, and that they are taking information from a paid website. Both on the Talk:Sholom Rubashkin as well as the Talk:Agriprocessors I only see negative comments from John Nagle. He even titles "Breaking news" "Rubashkin has been Arrested"...

Perhaps I should comment on "John Nagle's edits" rather than on John Nagle. Maybe I should provide more evidence of Wikipedia violations.Bordguy (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• "One way to address this might be to create Rubashkin crime family to pull together the criminal activities of the various family members"...that would be one way to address it. There's no problem with an editor making a suggestion like that. It's up to editors to find a consensus on whether it would improve the content.
• "Requested semi-protection" - admins agreed that the article needed protection and it was implemented. Like I said, that article was subject to disruption. That's why I have it watchlisted.
• "You only see negative comments from John Nagle". People see what they want to see and draw conclusions based on that. Perhaps he was simply reflecting what was happening in the published RS at the time in which case you would be shooting the messenger.

Either way, none of this really matters. What matters is the article content. John Nagle is a smart guy and an experienced editor. Your best approach would be to try to work with him to improve the article rather than getting into a conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your last note to avoid a conflict with John Nagle, who is a smart experienced user is something notable. Although I doubt that it is possible to work out with John Nagle on this subject, a conflict may not be the right path to get something accomplished. Give me a few days I will think this over. Bordguy (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. How did this suddenly become an issue? I haven't edited Sholom Rubashkin in six months, and most of my edits were in 2010 or earlier. This was a controversial subject four or five years ago, but not much has happened in recent years. John Nagle (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal issues

If you have a personal issue you may address it at the right time and at the right place. Bringing up personal issues in an en effort to distract editors from the matter at hand is not appreciated. You have already accused be of that and I am not a "sockpuppet," which no one else has ever accused me of. Furthermore, hoping that you can bully editors out of a topic area is anything but collegial. Stop wikihounding me. Please. And stop being rude. I have always stuck to Wikipedia policies and sources. If you want to discuss those, you may. If you don't, then just stop. --Precision123 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a personal issue with you. I am not trying to distract, bully, be collegial or "anything but collegial". I am trying to ensure that you act in an ethical way, comply with Wikipedia rules and give you an opportunity to do the right thing. So, please provide an explicit and honest answer to the following question, did you use the Shamir1 account ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. --Precision123 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

By "personal," I meant relating to a person as opposed to the topic matter (a device you use to distract a lot). And yes, please comply with Wikipedia rules, namely WP:CITE, WP:DR, and WP:CIVIL. Just a tip. --Precision123 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

'No', you won't provide an explicit and honest answer to the question, or 'No', you did not operate the Shamir1 account ?

Try to see things from a different perspective. It's a question of basic ethics and cost vs benefit. I already have enough evidence to file an SPI report that I think would result in your account being blocked. The fact that I haven't filed it is an act of kindness, not to you, I don't care about you, but to the project, because your edits outside of ARBPIA are constructive and benefit the project. That's me turning a blind eye, a situation that can change at any time depending on the choices you make. If you stray into the WP:ARBPIA topic area, an area subject to almost constant disruption by nationalists, where your edits are clearly compromised by your nationalistic views, I will be forced to act to protect the topic area. The cost of the presence of hopelessly biased editing and block evasion there is just too high and does far too much damage. It is simply impossible for me to do nothing when I see an editor in WP:ARBPIA on the one hand argue that something does not comply with policy, regardless of the merits of the argument, while simultaneously violating a mandatory policy to make that statement. It's just wrong. Editors in ARBPIA must, at the very least, be able to distinguish between right and wrong in terms of their own behavior within the simple constraints of Wikipedia's rules or else the situation there is just hopeless. They can't pick and chose which rules they will obey when they edit in ARBPIA. So, you are welcome to believe whatever you want about me and how or why I do something, I genuinely don't care, but you will get it wrong. I act in what I regard as the best interests of the project. If it causes you discomfort that's because actions have consequences. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked "Did you use that account?' I answered: "No." There is no ambiguity. LOL.

Sorry you had to had to spend a paragraph writing bullshit. --Precision123 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now read your complete response. If you insist you "act in what I regard as the best interests of the project," why can't you believe the same of others? Others may act in the same way, yet come to different policy-based conclusions. As far as "nationalistic views," I have none, and even if I did, I would never discuss them here. Any discussion I have is based on a source and its application—I never insert my individual opinion on an article. Thank you for recognizing that my edits are constructive and benefit the project. I do not check my "good ways" or "good editing" at the door of ARBPIA. I edit every page that comes my way with the same attention to detail, the same attention to NPOV, and the same attention to RS. You seem to have pegged me wrong. Please stop. It's irritating. --Precision123 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hattar393

I see you have credentials in eurocentrism! Congrats on the social, economic, political & national revisionist propaganda your ignorance spews. Your revert is invalid, exactly who are you to say what is? Who are you to define or label? Sean Hoyland - you are British, coming from a nation which contributed to a lot of eurocentrism. They invented the term "Middle East", Americans on the other hand constructed the term "oriental" to racialize, marginalize & polarize East Asians. It's ironic how you studied at the IMPERIAL college..it's no wonder!

Calm down. You assume far to much. My revert was simply because you were applying a transformation without explaining why and the transformation was invalid in the sense that it changed the title of a Nasa document. That shows carelessness on your part. I have no view on the validity or appropriateness of either term. Nor am I responsible in any sense whatsoever for the misdeeds of the UK, past or present. You really shouldn't assume things about people's identity or beliefs. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, i did assume too much. I know you're not responsible for the eurocentric misdeeds, but it is the general public that re-enforces it thoughtlessly. Just because it doesn't match the title of the citation document, it is hereby void? This is beyond technicality. Even if i find reliable sources, it wouldn't sit well with the public because they aren't used to it & are used to politically-standardized eurocentric terms. Either way, if the title did match or we changed the source it wouldn't make a difference. Thanks for your reply to say the least.

Your WP:Coatrack edits in Canada Park go against an already-formed Consensus; pls fix..

Please read the Talk page of Canada Park: the section you added, "Residents' request to return", violates the will of an already-formed majority ("Consensus" in WP parlance). I have no problem with the content you added being within Wikipedia, but it makes more sense as a section to be placed within Yalo/Bayt Nuba/etc or Ayalon/Latrun or similar articles. Canada Park does link to those articles; indeed, I'm the one who linked Canada Park to most of those articles, in all fairness to both sides so that you can have your say, too...but on pages where the title/topic matches the content which you just added.

The consensus expressed on the Talk page is already that your POV-pushing cabal has tried to politicise a park (i.e. WP:Coatrack), as:

• the park's goal is to preserve ruins (of all 3 major religions...and much older than these villages),

and

• note that the refugees are not' trying to "return" to Canada Park, this article's topic (to quote your section-title: "Residents' request to return" [emph added]); they are trying to return to Ayalon/Latrun region (or specific villages, to like Yalo, not "return" to Canada Park).

~

If you agree, please edit to comply; if not, a Sr. Editor will be contacted as this has been a long-term problem in Canada Park and the majority/Consensus of people noticed (and criticised) your continuing/long-term attempts of coatracking/politicisation. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are wasting your time trying to negotiate with me. This is how it is going to work. I have added content to the article. It is pertinent to the topic and complies with policy. The content is about Canada Park, as you can confirm for yourself by looking at the source. It's from a reliable source, an academic publisher. It is written neutrally. You are disrupting the article and misusing the talk page to write lengthy, belligerent, narcissistic comments that attack other editors. You have even written a patently false statement about "the will of an already-formed majority" here on my talk page, a spectacularly stupid thing to do. If you continue to misbehave I will be adding more content to the article. You may not like this content for reasons that don't interest me, but the content will comply with policy and improve the article for readers. You will be powerless to deal with it without violating policy. This will test your ability to follow rules and exercise self-control. I will be watching what you do and will react accordingly. This is one way to turn a cost into a benefit, the cost of the presence of a disruptive editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area into something that benefits the encyclopedia, improved content. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering

who would notice that article first. I'm glad it was you. I'm surprised it took so very long. I expected it to become scorched earth long ago.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed the article indirectly because of [1][2] Your editing is too sensible and constructive for me to notice it, but IPs catch my eye. There's a New York Times article with some more information[3]. I stumbled across it while trying to figure out who designed the logo and why it's that shape. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. From you it means quite a lot. I suppose there's some praise in the fact that an IP in the subject area is using my work without laying waste to it as well. I wonder how I missed that NYT article. I'll look into adding some material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong implementation

According to the link, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive260#Unexplainable_non-admin_RfC_closing_and_edit_warring, an alternative was "offered and agreed to be picked up at the talk page." This alternative has yet to be picked up in talk, where consensus can be built. Please avoid reverting. I kindly ask that revert to the last found consensus. --Precision123 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do that. You are a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Shamir1. We both know this is true. You are violating mandatory policy by even leaving a message here. Every edit or statement you make violates mandatory policy because you are evading a block. So, you don't get to ask me to do anything. You should walk away from that article and not edit it again. It's easy. There are millions of articles unrelated to ARBPIA where your block evasion is of no interest to me. I don't understand why you think it is a good idea to test my tolerance but you should stop before it runs out. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sean. User "Precision123" is currently engaged in an edit war in the article about Israel-South Africa relations. Would you agree to request for a Sockpuppet investigation about him?--Severino (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that would be the best approach at this stage. He was blocked before and it didn't work. He came back. I think an SPI report would result in the account being blocked again but I would expect him to come back. Indefinitely blocking editors who seem to be compelled to advocate for Israel doesn't seem to work. He appears to be making an effort to stay out of the WP:ARBPIA topic area, which is really the only thing I'm concerned about in this case, but he's skirting around its edges. I'll admit that I intensely dislike dealing with this bullshit in ARBPIA with so many socks and I won't pretend to understand the notion of patriotism at all or why it has such an influence on some people's behavior here. He probably genuinely believes that he's making the Israel-South Africa relations article better. I'll keep an eye on the article and if things get too out of hand I'll file an SPI. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not edit warred, Severino. I actually addressed all of your claims and cited everything sentence-by-sentence for you. I am no "sockpuppet." Stop trying to discredit people. You two can keep alleging that all you want. It's baseless.

As to you, Sean.hoyland, you have also been sanctioned before. Stop making rude generalisations and accusations of POV, "patriotism", "nationalism", etc. which you do a lot with many editors. Unlike Severino, I am using the sources and I am advocating no point of view. As you may see, every single sentence was cited, source by source, page by page, even with quotations in the footnotes so Severino could read it for himself. But Severino prefers to revert. Precision123 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sean. Keep in touch.--Severino (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh ? I haven't been sanctioned before. I was blocked for 24 hours once for edit warring with a racist supporter of the JDL. It was worth it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible system gaming

I would like to return your attention to template:Location map Israel incident, where Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of File:Israel location map.svg. I would like your feedback following your participation ANI discussion. I shall also inform other administrators and editors involved in that incident, now posted at ANI.GreyShark (dibra) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaza City

The sanctions were updated in 2011. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but as I said, the template is standard across ARBPIA. It's used in maybe 1400+ articles[4][5] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, my bad, you're right per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (diplomat)|Alan Baker ]] called '''Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community'''<ref>[http://jcpa.org/overview_palestinian_manipulation/ Palestinian Manipulation of the International

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bil'in may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Green Park and Green Mount, with two other companies, Ein Ami and Hefziba.<ref name=h20070225>{{cite web |url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829740.html |title=Planning council approves
• that the land of Matityahu East belongs to the state.<ref name=h20070905/><ref name=jp20080731>{{cite web |url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=109655 |title=High Court to hear Bil'in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

rfc

what do mean people cant create a rfc and add text to it? 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You can do that but you should do that in a new section below the existing comments/replies rather than before the existing comments as you did here. Those existing comments were not part of an RfC. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narus (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Crowell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Sean. Just in case you stopped watching when the thread was closed the first time. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the update. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you're enough of an oldtimer (2007, bah) to have heard of the infamous X. (I'll admit seeing the name gave me a thrill.) Bishonen | talk 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

Yes, I'm familiar with them. Louis Theroux should do a show about them. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Original Barnstar
	I hereby award this barnstar to editor Sean.hoyland for defending the neutrality of articles. IjonTichy (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Scientific papers by Israelis

You just reverted a copy edit I did on the phrase "publishes among the most scientific papers per capita of any country in the world". I changed it to "has the highest ratio of scientific papers per capita in the world". Both phrases refer to a statistical quantity. From what I understand the first phrase means

${\frac {\text{scientific papers by Israelis}}{\text{population of Israel}}}$

which is what the second phrase makes clear. Why do you thing they differ in meaning? Nxavar (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"among the most" != "has the highest". Israel is usually ranked as having one of the highest scores, rather than the highest score for this metric. Obviously it depends on the sample window size etc but other countries may score higher e.g. Sweden. The sourcing for that sentence probably needs updating at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See this study for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. What about "has one of the highest ratios of scientific papers per capita in the world" for a better wording? Nxavar (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

City of David

Did you realise you reverted twice and there is a 1R restriction? Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the ARBPIA restrictions include the following

• "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring."

The unintended side effect of this rule being that for people out to cause trouble in ARBPIA it's better to create a disposable account than edit as an IP. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'd forgotten that. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You will be gutted, vomiting blood.

You are a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.8.229 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to make an appointment for the gutting. I'm quite busy today. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked Alison, a CU and she confirmed that IP, another and some accounts as socks. Do let me know if you have any other problems please. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm beginning to get the impression that Jeremy doesn't like me. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Barraud Boys

Thanks for your messages. I based the edit you queried simply on the years of birth of the four Barraud painters, which seem to be constant across websites, as summarised at, for example, this one: http://www.art-en-jeu.ch/expositions/barraud.html#Anchor-48213. Charles' year of birth is always 1897 (d 1997), and François's always 1899 (d 1934; Aimé 1902-54 and Aurèle 1903-69), and this necessarily makes Charles the eldest and François the 2nd-eldest of the four painting brothers (I've not seen anything on the internet giving the dates or names of the other two [non-painting] brothers, and there seems to be some doubt about whether there was one or two sisters). This is confirmed by your third German-language link; the other two seem to be mistaken about the order of the family. Are you happy with this? Eustachiusz (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me. I'm a bit skeptical of the accuracy of any of the published information about these guys. It seems that it's easier to actually buy a painting by one of Barraud boys than to find reliable sources about them... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! I think that's often the way with minor artists. Just for interest here's an authoritative-looking website which confirms the dates: http://www.sikart.ch/home2.aspx?name=B Eustachiusz (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that one. It's good. There's quite a lot of info via the name links. I stumbled across it after having stumbled across François Barraud in the first place in the excellent Art Inconnu blog, if I remember correctly. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

How you identified?

How you identified that the user is a sock puppet on Template:Kidnapping? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. The edit summaries and the targeting of specific editors and articles are characteristic of this person. They also often issue threats of violence (see this threat for example), one of many made against many editors. Many of their edits, and they had made thousands, are revdel'd. They have been doing this for 10 years since they were about 15. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, it is good that you are keeping watch and reverting. You may want to update that LTA, it says "active", yet no update since April 09. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islam by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruptive conduct at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

WP:AE

Per your request: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk • contribs) 09:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall decline the opportunity to participate though because what happens to me doesn't interest me, nor does it matter. Instead, I shall simply enjoy the comedy of watching you perform your little dance from afar. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)