User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
Message added 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke 19 Verse 27

Try not to feel bad: I'm sure there'll be other opportunities to see the wild sock in its native habitat. (link/snapshot). Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoilsport. You ruined a perfectly good scientific experiment. Now I have to fire my crack team of behavioral scientists. I should probably rephrase that. If I had in fact hired a crack team of behavioral scientists I would have to fire them. Still, watching the crash and burn was fascinating. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to put a spanner in the works. In my defence, though, he really exploded himself. I think he just got tired of that handle, and wanted to have some of what he thinks of as "fun" before he retired it. Besides, I didn't really think he'd get permabanned, although he certainly deserved to be; I expected he'd just get a week's block or so, which I hoped would keep him from repeating any really outrageous trolling of the sort he engaged in with those sneaky photo captions ... I say "sneaky" because the "tire crafts" thing was almost missed. Anyway, ygm re another probable sock I wanted to ask your opinion about. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sean, Your help needed.

Hello Sean, I have just re-edited this file  : A picture taken of a portrait of Professor Issa Laye Thiaw.jpg so that I can add it to the Issa Laye Thiaw article. However it is still showing me the original rather than the edited version. Can you help? Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT : Hi Sean not to worry, I've added the image to the relevant article. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

You recently stated that you support the status quo that mandates the wholesale inclusion of the boilerplate formulation. I seem to recall that you had previously expressed elsewhere that you felt it unnecessary that every settlement article required this inclusion. Please explain this apparent conflict of views. Many thanks.Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd like to add one more thing. I have nothing but respect for you Sean and I think you know that. Though we are at different ends of the spectrum, I find you to be sincere, intelligent and insightful and you know as well as I that on more than one occasion, I deferred to your judgement. However, I do recall that when I added a source to the so-called consensus statement, you gave me somewhat of a hard time about it but when Carwil starts changing things up as he did here [1], silence? Perhaps it was just an oversight. In any event, do you think that perhaps we can work on a solution together and give new meaning to I-P Collaboration?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

JJG, I haven't been around so I haven't been following things, hence the silence. I don't have much time at the moment either. I guess you are talking about this edit by Carwil which I assume he made to address concerns about SYNTH, concerns that have already been discussed and are invalid in my view because information based on a transitive relation isn't SYNTH. The simple transitive relation between the legality of the set of all settlements and an individual member of that set is used by reliable sources on a routine basis when they discuss a particular settlement as can be seen from several examples in the compilation of sources. So, I don't see the edit Carwil made in the lead as necessary and I don't support changing the standard statement in general. Having said that, if he had just added the source without changing the text, I wouldn't remove the source. I can't guarantee the accuracy of my recall about your edit because I can't remember which article it involved. From what I remember you increased the weight given to the Israeli position and added a source. I think I complained about changing the weight but left the source there. The compilation of sources shows that many sources don't even mention the Israeli position. As for the IPCOLL discussion, I think that is the clearest indication I've seen so far that another ARBCOM case is necessary. There are several aspects of WP:Legality of Israeli settlements that I don't agree with but I can live with it. For example, I think there should be a standardized way of including a statement about the legality of outposts under Israeli law, preferably a statement that is separate from the standard statement about international law to avoid changes to the standard text, I think the standard statement should say that the West Bank is part of the Palestinian territories, and I would prefer the guidance about any optional expanded legality section in the body of an article to be more specific e.g. if it is to be included, repeat the lead statement per WP:LEAD and only include details specific to the settlement rather than generic content about settlements in general. There are probably other concerns that I've forgotten but I don't think collaboration is feasible at the moment. The topic area is too dysfunctional, there are too many sockpuppets, too many people advocating for their cause and there isn't enough middle ground to make revisiting these issues from a completely source+policy based perspective a practical prospect right now in my view. NoCal is around Special:Contributions/71.204.165.25 as usual, Special:Contributions/Opportunidaddy looks like another Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet sock, another AndresHerutJaim sock was just blocked and it seems Special:Contributions/Breein1007 is unhelpfully editing logged out via multiple IPs (which has already been deemed disruptive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007/Archive#14_January_2011). There are probably others on both "sides" and there shouldn't even be any sides. Consider the absurdity of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/81.247.52.36/Archive. In the "Comments by other users", NoCal, a topic banned editor, comments as an IP that Noiseteir (an editor I'm not familiar with) is evading scrutiny by editing as an IP (just like Breein1007). Things are really crazy when people who are breaking the rules complain about people breaking the rules. Giving a new meaning to I-P Collaboration is pretty much the opposite of what I think needs to happen in the topic area. It needs to be cleared of sockpuppets, made immune to their presence and all editors who can be shown to be advocates through their editing history should be removed from the topic area in my opinion. New editors should be required to qualify for the privilege of editing in the topic area, all articles should be semi-protected and any hint of POV pushing at all should result in an immediate topic ban. I would also like to see an end to anonymous editing but that will never happen. ARBCOM are just starting the second Falun Gong case, a topic area with similar problems to the I-P topic area but with less moving parts. I think another ARBCOM case in the I-P topic area is becoming inevitable. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can you confirm whether it has always been your view that every settlement article required this boilerplate inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't explain mismatches between how things are and what you believe. Yes, every settlement article requires this boilerplate inclusion. That is what was agreed and that is also my view. I helped to implement it to ensure that it is present in every article and I monitor it although sometimes I don't see changes until long after they have been made. Perhaps you are thinking of my lack of interest in implementing the optional inclusion of an expanded legality section in the body of settlement articles unless the information is specific to the settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Raheem Kassam

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation required

You recently performed this edit stating that it was executed on behalf of a banned editor and was not justified on the talk page. Please explain:

• Why you consider this "on behalf of banned editors" when this edit had been performed before his involvement, with accompanying policy explanation?
• Why you are ignoring the talk page discussion that was made.

I would appreciate an explanation as I believe that this 'sockpuppet argument' is a complete red herring and perhaps worthy of AE involvement. Thank you Ankh.Morpork 13:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why ? Because your edit summary said "Sockpuppet edits are not intrinsically wrong" whereas policy says that the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. So I reverted. I wasn't aware of a talk page discussion about how to handle edits made by a sockpuppet with respect to Wikipedia:Ban#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. I saw Brewcrewer restoring a sockpuppet's edits without any justification followed by you doing the same with an invalid justification. Run along and file an AE report. I would be interested in the outcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue was under discussion prior to a sockpuppets involvement and a policy explanation had been provided. Do you accept this? Ankh.Morpork 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to, Talk:Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#What_have_I_done.3F ? Do I accept what specifically ? I don't accept that restoring edits by sockpuppets can be done without explaining why on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken in my interpretation of your actions. I was under the impression that you hastily performed a revert believing that I had simply restored a sockpuppet's edit, which was not the case. I am aware that you are usually more considered n your edits and if my construction was inaccurate, I apologise.Ankh.Morpork 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you inserted in the article these two sources: 12 not even with attribution. I find this highly objectionable seeing as you have previously stressed the importance of using quality sources. Can you explain this? Am I to understand that the standard required has now changed? Ankh.Morpork 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Ankh, I note you added this garbage to the article "As all troops later returned unharmed and with captured prisoners, this report appears to be one of various other fabricated public relations claims made by Hezbollah during the war as quoted by Jihad Watch." cited to "Jihad Watch"[2] and "hyscience"[3]. I would ask for an explanation, but in light of your consistent pattern of editing within the topic area I think the edit speaks for itself. Dlv999 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, stop trolling my page or I will just start deleting your posts. Haven't you got some articles about ethnic groups that need to be demonized in a totally non-racist way to keep you busy ? If you want my help to clean up the sources ask for my help to clean up the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

I had to revert you as yours edit copies wording of New-York time source if you want to rephrase it and re-add it you welcome to do so.--Shrike (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you rephrase it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Because I am not so good at this.--Shrike (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll have a look at it at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for your intervention in the Operation Sharp and Smooth article. In general, do you have any advice for me how to handle problems like this. What am I to do when a group of editors delete everything I write and refuse to explain why? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult. I don't know and I'm not sure anyone does. I've edited in the topic area for over three years and it's about as bad now as I've ever seen it. For me, the most important thing is to not care. It might sound strange but it will give you an advantage as an editor and make things far more tolerable.

On the practical side

• it's usually best to make edits in small chunks and be prepared to discuss every chunk
• never edit war about anything, it's not worth it
• if you even suspect that a source you want to use might not qualify as an RS, find another one or go to WP:RSN
• if an editor reverts you, open a discussion on the talk page.
• don't waste your time engaging with advocates, stick to the content issues
• be prepared to just walk away, work on something else you enjoy and come back to the issue weeks or months later

I guess the good thing about today's nonsense is that you now know how the 1RR rule works. Bear in mind that you will often be dealing with sockpuppets in the topic area which can be very difficult to deal with. They can break any rule without facing any consequences because they will just create another sock. In Operation Sharp and Smooth for example Tutangamon, Jabotito48 and Jeff Song are all confirmed sockpuppets of topic banned users but there are others there in the page history too. You might find Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues useful if you want to bring in some more editors to have a look at the issues and there are all of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution resources. The topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions so you should read those if you haven't already done so, although they have been rather ineffective in my view. If things get really bad and you have compelling evidence that an editor is not following the rules, discussions have proved fruitless and you run out of options, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The {{uw-sanctions}} template explains that "Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process". Don't be shy about asking an admin for advice either. Several admins are familiar with the problems in the topic area. User:EdJohnston springs to mind as an admin who I have found offers useful advice. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sidereal video from International Space Station

Hi, Sean. Slacking off for a moment, I just watched this video, and thought, because of the images you've posted at the top of this talk page, that you might appreciate it, too. It's one of the most breathtaking videos (not just "space videos") I've ever seen. It's high-definition, so unless you have a FiOS or better net connection, I'd suggest you start it playing, hit pause, and do something else while you let it load for however long it takes, before you hit "play" again. My web connection sucks at the moment; it took five minutes to load, for me. Perhaps you'd seen the atmosphere from space previously, but it never really registered for me before how very thin our atmosphere is, relative to the diameter of the earth. Maybe we should take better care of it. You have mail, btw, about a probable sock. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, that video is beautiful. I could stream it directly over my cable connection by the way without any issues. This is a sign of progress in S.E.Asia. Just a few years ago pretty much nothing worked here. We had to use satellite connections to do everything. Everytime the connection failed I could be found staring longingly at the Comcast site and making preparations to move back to the US. Fast forward a few years and it's sorted, people here can look out from the ISS and possibly catch occasional glimpses of extensive slash and burn in Laos. Baby steps. I'll get back to you on the sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Hello, Sean.hoyland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

replied. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this, odd that the software let me undo the edit though. It usually doesn't allow you to undo an edit once another edit overwrote some part of it. All's well that ends well, eh? Cheers. Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Small note

Hi Sean, don't know if you've been following the high drama going on with everything Falun Gong. Since you were an editor there for some time, just wanted to keep you in the loop. No need to respond or comment, obviously. Otherwise, happy editing! Colipon+(Talk) 01:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following that on and off although partly to see whether it's worth asking for another arbitration case to look at the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. It would be the third (...time lucky perhaps but I very much doubt it...) Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel conflicts are wholly intractable, in the real world just as they are on Wikipedia. Watching Norm Finkelstein's crash and burn gave me some time to do some 'extrapolation' from that incident to what's been happening on Wikipedia. I reckon PIA will all eventually be locked down permanently and re-written professionally by non-partisans; to me, that is the only solution. Colipon+(Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this should be its own section

Hello, Sean.hoyland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I'll get back to you. It's time for a picnic. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. A wikipedian who goes outside. I'm impressed. :-) My comments in this thread (snapshot) that you participated in at the talk page for Palestinian people are related to the socking, btw. They demonstrate to my satisfaction that Breein1007 = IP 74.198.87.73 = Accipio Mitis Frux. I'd be pleased if you'd double-check my reasoning, though, and perhaps advise how to proceed once your postprandial lassitude subsides. My first thought would be that WP:AE would be the right place to go, with a talk-page request to a checkuser to join the discussion there. My second thought would the Breein1007 SPI I linked to under his bluelinked user-id, although that would likely preclude an AE block of "Accipio". In any event, I hope your picnic is/was wonderful. Thanks Sean. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The indigenous wildlife certainly helped finish the food. I find it difficult to believe that Breein1007 would write something as foolish as the opening "What a Disgusting Re-Writing of History" comment. Breein1007 may be editing logged out in various places but I'm not sure that's him. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you as disgusted I am by all the socks? I just tripped over this very prolific new example, Eat memory (talk · contribs). He's trying to cram in as many edits as possible before getting blocked on this account, apparently. Btw, any idea why, when I go to an obvious new sock's talk page, I find Shrike has been there already, welcoming him with open arms? --OhioStandard (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dishonesty and nationalist advocacy in the topic area are out of control. I don't understand why people think it's okay to behave like that here. I don't share Shrike's interpretation of NPA but I think Shrike will support restrictions to the topic area that might help prevent sockpuppetry. It's just a case of figuring out what they should be and trying to get them implemented. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Shilo,_Mateh_Binyamin

Let's see if I have this correct. The Israeli government establishes a village/settlement called Shilo that they believe to be legal. Yossi Beilin, former head of one of Israel's many small political parties, tells Bill Moyer in a 2002 interview that he thinks there is no justification for Israel's policy. On the other hand, Howard Grief, former legal adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure writes a 731 page book giving the reasons he feels the policy of the Israeli government is justified. And you think reference to the former belongs in the Wikipedia Shilo entry, but not reference to the latter. What am I missing? What in the world is your logic? Would you please explain it to me.

Some may think that the campaign to deligitimize the only Jewish state in the world is a noble one, which transcends any notions of fairness. But one does Wikipedia a disservice by allowing it, unwittingly, be a tool of this campaign, by refusing to allow both sides of one of the most important/contentious issues of our time to be heard.

79.176.219.115 (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) PrettyMountain

You will need to deal with another editor. I'm not willing to help you. Try User_talk:Shrike. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland: The purpose of talkpages is to improve wikipedia. Please stop changing pages that you are unwilling to discuss how to make better. Thank you. PrettyMountain 79.181.218.195 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of talk pages is to improve Wikipedia. That is why I try not to spend time discussing things with people who have demonstrated that they are here to advocate on behalf of some cause. Advocates are not here to make Wikipedia 'better'. Advocacy is not allowed. It is inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. If you would like to discuss the article, read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK, open a discussion on the article talk page and restrict your statements to arguments based on the policies and guidelines of the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

SHARP and Smoth

Regarding Ami book I didn't found that he talk about "bargaining" in P. 132.You can check it yourself [4](search smooth)--Shrike (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you see the page ? If not I'll post a screendump on Google docs. The "bargaining" part is at the start of a paragraph.

"In addition, Israel decided during this war once again to undertake abductions of its own for bargaining power. This time the IDF's attempts to kidnap Hezabollah activists were even less successful than in the past. During Operation Sharp and Smooth..." etc.

If you want to look at my changes with diffs it's probably best to treat the ones before and after the following edit as separate groups because I switched the placement of various paragraphs. Diffs that span that edit will look confusing.

15:04, 30 June 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,255 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (→‎The operation: clarify + rearrange into possibly more sensible order => time sequence

Ami Pedahzur goes on to say something in general about the effects of the special forces operations on Israeli public opinion. Not sure whether any of that should be included given that it pertains, at least in part, to this raid. I'm mainly trying to clean the article up at the moment, make sure things are clearly sourced and fill in any obvious gaps, so I'm not really interested in content like that at this stage i.e. I'm looking at the trees rather than the forest. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

African music

If you interested I can provide you access to some scholarly articles for example[5].--Shrike (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. Yes, I would be very interested. I have a massive backlog of things to do in that topic area and a very unhealthy level of interest in African music that over many years and many places has resulted in me picking up far too much music to listen to. If you could get access to that article it would be great. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

[6].In general you could search in google scholar by name of the artist and then ask the article at WP:RX and someone will help you. --Shrike (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated, and thanks for the WP:RX reminder. I always forget about that resource. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean can you help?

Hi Sean.hoyland, you are more knowledgable about images than me and I would really appreciate your advise if you don't mind. This image : File:A picture taken of a portrait of Professor Issa Laye Thiaw.jpg was removed from the Issa Laye Thiaw article. Do you know how we can add it back in accordance with Wiki policy? Thanks. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, well it was removed at least in part because of the distortion, so first you probably need to try to improve that. The painting is apparently by the mathematician Pascal Kossivi Adjamagbo (so make sure he gets credited). You can get an undistorted version from RFI. Once you have the replacement loaded you'll need a decent fair use rationale. I'm not very good at those but have a look for similar cases, living people with non-free pictures. I'll try to help you out when I get a chance. Sorry, I'm a bit short of time at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sean for your help as usual. Best Regards.Tamsier (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I added something that might help prevent it from being deleted. As it's a painting it clearly isn't replaceable. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for that. That's very kind of you. I know you are busy right now, but if you have time would you tell me what the next move is, because I am clueless when it comes to image policies. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You've come to the right place then because I'm only clueless-ish when it comes to image policies. I've replaced the image, contested the planned deletion using the di-replaceable fair use disputed template and added some info to the fair use rationale template. I hope that's enough to prevent it being deleted on July 6th but I'll try to improve the fair use rationale when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol! Thank you very much.Tamsier (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(Just saw this discussion here, so allow me to butt in): The image would only be irreplaceable, qua being a painting, if the purpose of its use here were to support a discussion of itself as an artwork. But that was not what it was being used for; it was used merely for the purpose of showing a likeness of the person depicted. For that, a free photograph would of course constitute a possible replacement, and since the person is alive, the usual rules disallowing non-free images of living persons apply. Of course we could use the painting if the painting itself was a notable piece of artwork by a notable painter, and if we had reliably sourced critical commentary on it, but apparently we don't, and even if we had, that discussion would most naturally go into the article on the painter, not the article on the subject of the portrait. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But look at the quality of his hat... Okay, thanks for the explanation. I suspected it wasn't going to be easy. A replacement is possible in theory but I'm not sure whether a free photograph is possible in practice. I guess one possibility is to follow Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, explain the situation to Prof. Adjamagbo at IMJ[7] and see if he is willing to consent to the use of his painting under a suitable license. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean, not to worry. Thank you so much for your help. If this is going to be a problem (which I suspect it will be), I will try and liaise with colleagues in Senegal, time permitting. Thanks for your help as usual. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to say thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		Just to say thank you for being there everytime I need your advice about images. You always go the extra mile to help others. As one of the editors I hold in great esteem here, heaven knows why you have not yet been made an administrator. Tamsier (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenin

Will this source will be acceptable to claim tactical victory [8] If yes it could save as some edit wars.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good source. I don't mind what the results infobox says as long as it complies with WP:V (i.e. readers can easily verify what it says from the cited sources) and WP:NPOV (i.e. it reflects what a sensible sample RS have to have on the issue). I don't know how much diversity of opinion there is about Jenin. I think from a practical perspective for these kinds of articles it would be much better if people did the research, added/expanded a section that dealt with evaluations by experts etc and then based the infobox Result on that section and its sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You may add your comment if you wish

[9]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around. Seems like it's been taken care of. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh

Can you give me a list of articles he has hounded you to? Bout time somebody did something about that. nableezy - 14:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look but I'm having difficulty caring that Wikipedia's carpets are soiled because I have dog shit on my shoe. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the shit is on my shoe now, so Id like to have the carpet cleaned. nableezy - 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandhya Mukhopadhyay

About your this edit I completely agree with it. You can bring it in the first line too like this:
'''Sandhya Mukhopadhyay''' or '''Sandhya Mukherjee''' (b. 1931)
You can delete Bengali script, according to recent consensus, Indic scripts should not be added in lead! Best, --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the discussion that concluded that Indic scripts should not be added to leads ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely missed this discussion! Just today, I have participated in another similar discussion, the last posts are irrelevant, read only first 3-4 posts: User_talk:Omnipaedista#Bengali_script.21 --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a sock

Do you really live in Thailand?

Come on! You have to admit it's funny

Yes, I really do live in Thailand. Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis is funny. Having editors around who can't be trusted to tell the truth and follow the rules really isn't funny. Wikipedia is a charity. Disrupting a charity for political reasons doesn't seem funny to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Apis dorsata

You can actually get further reading on Apis dorsata in Bees and their role in forest livelihoods. Izhamwong (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I see their colonies less and less often here. I did find one in Rayong Province a few weeks ago which was encouraging although the comb had been partially damaged by someone or something... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if you are interested, there is a documentary video about it in Malaysia done by National Geography Honey Hunter. Izhamwong (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The adventures of Lutrinae

Maybe you can reform some bar workers in the apiarial arts? Society of Rules (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sean, maybe you can explain it to me, because I really dont understand it. Why do these people keep doing things that give them away? Is there something about the psychological makeup of people who would be inclined to sock endlessly that also eliminates any creep to their game? nableezy - 04:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting isn't it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and kinda funny. Just a lil bit. nableezy - 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see report him to WP:AN/I and get over with it because its real harassment.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not impacting on content in a significant way and Tiamut isn't around so he's wasting his time there. Reporting it at ANI will just give him another place to feed his craving for stimulation and provide a platform for his nonsense. I'd rather keep it confined to SPI. He's stopped for now. I'll take it to ANI if he starts trashing content in a significant way. I think the best way to deal with this personality type is to give them nothing, just revert and ignore. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For keeping my talk page free of disruption. Tiamut^talk 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War and 190.17.232.78

Who do you think he is? Perhaps you could include the banned username in one of your edit summaries. Meters (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See here Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I see from WP:RPP who you think he is. I still think inluding that info in the first edit you rvt on the grounds of a banned or topic banned user would be agood idea. Meters (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. If you look at my edits and search for AndresHerutJaim you'll see that I do that sometimes. Edit summary consistency is evidently not my forte. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You and nme both. Meters (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Imperial English

I see you kind of busy, but maybe you could give a hand in converting User:John_Carter/Falun_Gong_books#Zhuan_Falun from a quote farm to proper Imperial English prose. Best, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My English is a semi-literate pidgin language. Nevertheless I shall have a look when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nazareth

I see that you've removed the information on the grade of the slope at Nazareth. You write: "Undid revision 503079489 by Guy Macon (talk) valid concerns about its reliability have been raised at ANI. it should stay out until those are resolved." Are you an official member of Wikipedia or of the ANI staff? If so, you haven't announced this. I wonder what gives you the authority to decide what is "valid" and when material "should stay out"?

I have communicated that the source is bona fide. It's in Bagatti's book, in the end flaps where he has the charts. I have a photocopy. This is what I've written on Macon's talk page: "I'd be happy to provide you with a scan. Just let me know where I can email it. Alternately, for the drawing in question you can look at my book "The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus" (American Atheist Press, 2008) p. 231 (Illus. 5.3). Best wishes, Renejs (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)"

Please furnish me your email and I will send you the scan, since you asked for it. You can communicate with me at <rjs (at) epud (dot) net> If I don't have a response from you within 48 hours I'll assume you're simply deleting important material by pretext and without cause. Thank you. Renejs (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't much like your attitude and there is no such thing as an official member of Wikipedia or of the ANI staff. Do not leave messages on anyone's talk page that say things like "If I don't have a response from you within 48 hours I'll assume you're simply deleting important material by pretext and without cause". The issue is being discussed at the article talk. Keep it there. You can post the scan at Google docs. If you don't know how to do that, email it using the 'E-mail this user' link under the Toolbox heading on the left and I will post it to Google docs. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

פארוק

thank you for not let some Trols destry my page. פארוק (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

Hello, Sean. This message in regards to edit. I am sure that you are acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia as you see fit but unfortunately deleting an entire section of material due to a minor, eminently fixable problem goes directly against accepted editing policy. It's called "Try to fix things". In general, I think it is more productive to try and talk to editors about fixing their changes rather than having a "revert first ask questions later" attitude to their work (which can smack of WP:OWNERSHIP and be unnecesaarily confrontational). I hope you understand that I am am acting in good faith too and all I want is for you to treat my material additions with due respect for the quality of their content. Eptified (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions so policy compliance is especially important. PRESERVE doesn't protect content that violates core policies and this content violates several. No one should be adding new content to articles in this topic area until it complies with policy. It's bad enough already. As I said in the edit summary, the way to go is to work it out with other editors on the article talk page. It can stay out of article space until it is ready and there is a WP:CONSENSUS for it to be included. There's no rush. I appreciate that you are acting in good faith but I don't treat anyone's contributions with respect including my own and I'm not going to start now, so you can forget about that. It's about the content, whether new content added by an editor complies with the rules. This doesn't. Are the problems fixable ? Yes, a graph like that seems like a good idea but the citations don't work because only the ref name has been added. The full citations are necessary. So it fails WP:V. The section about Israel "autonomously" annexing territory is unsourced but more importantly it's plain wrong. It violates WP:V and WP:OR and it can't be in the encyclopedia under any circumstances whatsoever. Israel has not annexed Gaza or the West Bank and it's questionable whether they ever actually annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan in a de jure sense. It's not clear why you are focusing on the annexation aspect rather than their status as occupied territories, which is what matters. The statement based on the UN primary source is okay but the statement that follows, "This was the first of a long number of UN resolutions against the settlements.", while true, is unsourced. One of the biggest problems in the topic area in my view, apart from the rampant dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry by topic banned users and the drive by ultranationalists etc contaminating things with their nonsense, is that too many editors add content because they believe it to be true and deserving of respect when the fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with mandatory rules that constrain what can be presented to readers. If content doesn't comply with the rules it shouldn't be there, especially in this topic area. I would encourage you to create a section on the article talk page, propose what you think should be included in the article (but fix the problems that you are able to fix first, like the citations for the graph, a source for the "first of a long number of" statements etc) and work with other editors to get a decent history section added. Please don't take things personally. If you want to stay in this topic area you will need a thick skin and the patience to collaborate with other editors on the article discussion pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply! I understand your objections now, and I'll think about your suggestions. Eptified (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

coincidence?

[10] vs [11]. At the very least, there is some obvious off-wiki coordination going on (no "new" editor would have this be one of their first 20 edits without being told where to go). What to do about it is beyond my competence. nableezy - 22:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's like they had a to do list. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Q: redacted

Go request oversight for your comment or I am reporting you for outing. I am not able to log on with this IP and it really shouldn't matter if I do or not since I am currently under no prohibitions.71.35.154.200 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Among the prohibited uses of editing while logged out is evading scrutiny. You are effectively saying that you want to comment on what are project space matters (an AE block) without people knowing that it is you that is commenting. Given the rather predictable history of your comments in that area I think that the comment is coming from you is rather relevant. And saying that isnt outing. I could for instance tag redacted with the template {{ipsock|redacted}} and that would not be outing. I dont do that because as much as I may seem like it on Wikipedia, Im not actually an asshole. Ill delete the comment if you want me to, and it appears that you do, and if you want to request oversight go right ahead. But the next time you accuse somebody of outing, read WP:OUTING.

On a personal note, you werent always like this, but then again neither was I. But I never had anything personal against you, up until the point that you somehow got the idea that you needed to serve as some sort of counterweight, and then proceeding to try to do so without doing any research on the topics you got involved in. I dont know why you developed that fixation, and I dont know why it persists. This newbie that you defend has made terrible edit after terrible edit, and has an inexplicable ability to write the most broken English in a talk page and write perfectly crafted prose in articles, all while demonstrating a remarkable ability to hop around article to article showing a rather detailed working knowledge of other editors work. But, like I said, Ill remove the comment as a courtesy, but it aint outing. You have edited with effectively multiple accounts in the one topic area, an area under discretionary sanctions. Thats up to you if you want to do that, but my saying that you are doing that isnt outing. nableezy - 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Cptnono, don't post to my talk page while logged out. If you have something to say, log in, say it and sign your post so that your editing history is visible to all. If you can't login, either don't leave comments here or sign them with your IP and put your user name in braces. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that logging in is allowed during Ramadan. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

Next time just ask for page protection that what I did.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to message

Sean.hoyland, you sent me a message saying that my last edit on Civilian casualities in the Second Intifada was not neutral. The article uses the B'tselem figure for Palestinian casualties. I added that B'tselem's statistics are controversial and the reason, giving seven different sources. I don't see how that is supposed to be biased. --68.8.13.18 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what I did. I sent you a message that said "You appear to be editing in a non-neutral way. That is not allowed. Please stop doing that." together with the link to the relevant policy. It isn't about one article. It's about your editing in general. If you are unable to comply with mandatory policies for any reason you should either change the way you edit or stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I thought you were referring to the edit on the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada page because I received the message directly after making that edit. I do not recall editing controversial articles without adding one or more sources to support it. Do you just mean the way the text is worded is non-neutral? Could you please be a bit more specific? --68.8.13.18 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

<- There are a number of issues. Here are some examples.

• Here you used an unreliable and biased source, INN, to describe an incident related to Israeli settlement Givat Harel using Wikipedia's narrative voice. I had to repair it. Please look at the difference.
• Here you made a rather odd edit to Sectarian violence. You added material about Muslims attacking Christians in Nigeria but you removed material about Christians attacking Muslims. It wasn't because it was unsourced because you left the unsourced information about the displacement of Christians (and actually all of that information came from the same United Nations/ININ article and had to be rewritten to avoid copyright violation). This kind of editing behavior is usually associated with editors who seek to portray one group in a negative light (via demonization etc) and portray another as victims. Also please see WP:LABEL about describing people as terrorists using the neutral unattributed voice of the encyclopedia.
• This is another questionable edit. It appears to promote the notion of the victimhood of Israeli settlers living in the Palestinian territories using an extremely biased source. If you have a personal desire to portray Israeli settlers as victims and Palestinians as victimizers you have come to the wrong place. Please read WP:NPOV.
• Here you added 2012 Burgas bus bombing to the List of massacres in Bulgaria but that incident is neither titled as a massacre nor is there anything in the article referring to it a such.
• You added a number of articles to Category:Massacres in Israel (2006 Tel Aviv shawarma restaurant bombing,2004 Ashdod Port bombings,Maxim restaurant suicide bombing,Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing) although none of the incidents are called "massacres" by reliable sources. Please remember that when you categorize something, it is Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice that is referring to the article in that way and it must be based on how reliable sources describe it (please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages).
• A particularly problematic edit that appears to suggest non-neutral agenda driven editing is this edit where you added the 1994 AMIA bombing to List of massacres in Argentina. You went to the trouble of renaming the article via a piped link 1994 AMIA bombing|1994 AMIA massacre apparently so that you, rather than reliable sources, could label it as a massacre and include it.
• Please read WP:RS. You are using a lot of highly partisan sources like INN, Memri, CAMERA, NGO Monitor etc. I've also seen you use high quality mainstream secondary sources like Reuters elsewhere. Why not just stick with the high quality sources. The Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is very contentious and all articles in the topic area are covered by discretionary sanctions and revert restrictions. Editors are required to edit in a neutral way and use high quality sources. You can read about the sanctions and the 1RR rule viaTemplate:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement.
• On a technical point, if you include content from an article in another article, you need to include the cited source too (see WP:CIRCULAR). In other words, it's not enough to say something like 'Text is taken from the original articles for each incident listed' in your edit summary. Readers must be able to verify what is written in a Wikipedia article via a source cited in that Wikipedia article.

If you are here to advocate because of your personal opinions, please stop and instead try to be strictly neutral. The topic area is desperately short of editors who edit in a genuinely neutral way using high quality sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that INN is not accepted on Wikipedia, as I have seen it used as a source on other articles. About using the word "terrorist" rather than "militant" to describe Boko Haram, I did that because the group's own main article calls it "a violent jihadist terrorist organization based in the northeast of Nigeria" in the heading.

On the Itamar edit, I have seen that statement, that more settlers have died from attacks than old age, in a number of articles on the Internet and thought it was worth noting.

On the lists of massacres, I added incidents with the word "bombing" rather than "massacre" in the title after seeing a number of other lists that include bombings, some of them using a piped link. On the list of massacres in Azerbaijan, I wanted to add the sources, but there is no "references" section in that article and I don't know how to create one.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying. --68.8.13.18 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:207.204.250.72 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: ). Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings and a favor to ask.

Hi! I was previously poked by you about Apis dorsata, in case you wondering who am I. I see you are one the active users who poked me (which I read in my watchlist). I'm more active in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu (WBM) and I saw that English Wikipedia has updated the reference script (sorry, I have forget the correct term for <ref></ref>). I wonder if you can point out to me the way it can be use in WBM. As you know, we, WBM seems few people know the script running in Wikipedia especially WBM including me. Because of that, I want to learn about it so that I can improve WBM greatly. Hope to hear you from you soon. Izhamwong (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think in WBM you need to go to 'Keutamaan saya' -> the 'Gajet' tab -> select 'refTools, menambahkan butang "cite" kepada palang radas suntingan untuk menambahkan templat-templat pemetikan yang biasa digunakan dengan mudah dan pantas.' -> save it. I think you then need to log out. When you log back in you should see the 'Petik' option added to the right of the bar at the top of the edit box when you open a page for editing. If you click on that you will see a dropdown menu for the various citation templates. Is that what you are looking for ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I get it now. It is from gadget section, Reference Tooltips. Thanks to point me out where I need to start it. Izhamwong (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

AHJ

Now I found another suspect edit 201.235.216.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from BA. Shall I ask a SPI right away, or just wait & accumulate? -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's already moved on. SPI is usually too slow to deal with dynamic IPs and the clerks are reluctant to apply range blocks because of the risk of collateral damage. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I get it. -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Netanyahu

Thank goodness I'll never get a wiki bio, because on my first year in Primary School, the end of year report said I was a nice little boy, but since I didn't seem to show much awareness of or interest in the teachers, my parents were advised to have me repeat bubs. Fortunately, they ignored it.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy has an novel way of managing his wiki bio. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

AHJ

Hi. On the SPI, I might have filed a report about the AHJ sockpuppet. If I did have any edit conflicts, then I am so sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I've merged mine with yours. Yours was already there so there were no edit conflicts. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, is is necessary if we should open a ban discussion on AHJ or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They are already topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic broadly construed (the only area where there is evidence of problematic behavior) and then later indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure a site ban would make a difference in practice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on some pages about somewhere hot with too many names

I'm sure you know where. Any chance of an IP block? I presume by the lack of warning templates issued that this has already gone beyond that stage. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for an IP block at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim as the IP appears to be static this time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice

What is the best way to deal when new user refuse to answer question if he had previous accounts?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It happens a lot. I guess no one is obliged to respond to questions, which doesn't help much, and if it's a sock you can be sure they won't answer it honestly. I know who you mean and if I can connect the account to a previous account I'll file a report. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)