User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Esh Kodesh

Thank you for providing the policy in the Esh Kodesh article. I knew one existed, but couldn't find it. Silvrous ^Talk 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony L. Turkevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Alamos (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) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's this.

1RR report about Z554 and the IP. Thanks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it merits some action. I was going to post something at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Tediously inane POV pushing but apparently it doesn't exist yet for some reason. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you reverted three times on Esh Kodesh in the span of one day and now have reverted twice today. If that was an "honest mistake," perhaps you should be more careful.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I often make mistakes but this isn't one of them. Reverting IP editors are exempt from 1RR under ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See, there's one right there, highlighted in bold, a very basic conjugation error. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You are recognised for being civil and for forwarding the project as you interact with a tendentious subject. Thank you! Tgeairn (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you think back to January?

I was researching a really weird pattern of edits by an IP-shifting date-happy 'editor', when I came across an edit they did apparently correctly, but that you then reverted. Any idea why you wanted 'January' in a couple places (and apparently the correct date) and 12 (December) in another place? Shenme (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To fully understand the nature of my edits it's often necessary to factor in an idiocy variable. Yes, I reverted a perfectly good edit because apparently on that day, I thought January was the 12th month of the year for some reason that isn't entirely clear. I've fixed it. Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 16 September 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. Thank you. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Israeli settler violence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1RR violation by User:Philip Cross

I am not sure if this is correct or if my understanding of the rules are wrong but User:Philip Cross has been editing on the Jonathan Cook [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Cook&diff=514901836&oldid=514901080 ] page even though it has a 1RR rule there. He was informed earlier on today about the 1RR rule on that page but has done another 3 edits there in the last 25 minutes. I have told him to self revert it but would like your advise if he has broken the rules here or not. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon, Philip appears to be claiming that some of his edits to the article are not reverts. I'm not convinced he's correct. That said, there is no doubt that you have broken 1RR. You have directly reverted Philip three times. User:Fred Bauder told you the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know I broke it and it was reported within the last 24 hours and the case was shut as far as I can see,we were told that it was 1RR as I did not know but Mr Cross who got told it was 1RR has been back to edit it yet again,even after being warned.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, I see the report at WP:ANI. You're fortunate that no one blocked you; a warning is not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

<- Zrdragon, well, my opinion doesn't matter. That said, since you asked, the 3 edits Philip made after you both became aware of the editing restrictions at that article were consecutive i.e. by pure chance no one made an intervening edit and that random factor is enough for those 3 edits to be counted as one edit or one revert depending on a person's position on the fuzzy 'what is a revert' question. Much of the edit added new categories and adjusted the sorting of existing categories so I don't think that part could reasonably be considered a revert. The other changes were minor uncontroversial copy edits to existing wording that has been present in the article for a long time. Strictly speaking, I suppose that could qualify as a revert because it "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" but the material has been unchanged for a long time (so even establishing who was reverted isn't obvious) and it was away from the part of the article involved in the edit war. Some people don't see that kind of edit as a revert (including me), whereas others do. The bottomline is that although 1RR and 3RR are bright line rules, establishing whether an edit is a revert can be subjective/non-deterministic/non-repeatable, and the rules are there to discourage and stop edit warring rather than be used as weapons in a dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to message

I read your message and understand your point. I did not intentionally miscategorize, and will look through old edits to be sure I did not do it on other occasions. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There are usually equivalent categories available for the West Bank/Palestinian territories. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

can you explain this edit?

is this 1RR or not? you did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=515272753&oldid=515271635 and then this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=515307297&oldid=515304506

just want to be clear what is and isn't 1RR. thanks. Soosim (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not he was reverting an IP--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What Shrike said. The edit by LiamFitzGilbert that introduced that material with that source was a bit odd. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP/OR

Hello Sean, please explain your explanation of this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem_Embassy_Act&diff=516096178&oldid=516089541 - how do you spin a dictionary definition as a case of OR? Narc (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Spin ? The clue is that you started your sentence with "Thus". Read the opening sentences of the OR policy "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." (my bold). That is what you have done. You have taken 2 pieces of information, "the policy of these countries towards the State of Israel" with respect to the status of Jerusalem and a dictionary definition, combined them and synthesized the conclusion that there is a deviation. That is your conclusion. We don't get to put our conclusions in an encyclopedia because there is a mandatory policy that expressly forbids it. I'm fairly certain that if you look, you will find a secondary source, probably several, that make this argument or one that is very similar, but it will be someone's argument and it will need to be attributed to them, not expressed using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear your point. But if you truly believe such a secondary source exists, why don't you look, find, and insert, rather than merely revert? Reverting is lazy and sets the article back in time, adding such a source takes more effort but would advance it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't "truely believe" anything, including this sentence. If I thought the edit would make the encyclopedia better and the only issue was unfamiliarity with the rules, I would help. But I don't think that. I think the edit is a routine attempt to advocate Israel's position on Jerusalem, based on a method that has no validity. Lots of "notable" people say things to advocate for their cause and sometimes reliable sources publish what they say, but the notion that dictionary definitions of the word capital can be used to deduce something reliable about Jerusalem is nonsense. As a method, it's useful if someone wants to prove that The Hague is "objectively" the capital of the Netherlands despite what the Dutch constitution says, but a synthetic method like this that can produce invalid results is of value only to advocates and propagandists, and that is setting aside the fallacy of composition people with "Green Line" blindness usually make when they talk about the status of Jerusalem. So, from my perspective what you are asking me is why I don't facilitate the misuse of a charitable educational resource to promote nonsense that is based on a patently false methodology, and the answer to that question is that I think it is wrong, so I choose not to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting that my edit was an attempt at propagandizing a certain position on Jerusalem. It wasn't, it was in fact an attempt to objectify and rationalize what is otherwise an emotional issue. There is the fact of what is a "capital" based on the accepted definition of the word. Then there is the political decision not to "recognize" that fact when applied to Jerusalem. By calling this statement of fact an act of "advocacy" and "nonsense" you are the one taking a non-objective stance. What I hear you saying is that you don't really care what valid sources might say on the application of an objective definition to the question, because you a priori reject out of hand the assertion that Jerusalem is objectively the capital of Israel. That is a subjective opinion. I suspect that the average reader of an article such as this has not thought through the various issues and therefore the article has the potential to highlight them without taking sides. The definition is indeed an objective fact. Therefore the refusal of countries to "recognize" Jerusalem as the capital is a rejection of reality. Jerusalem is in fact the capital. The recognition issue is either (a) a symbolic stance representing their desire to appear sympathetic to Palestinian territorial claims or (b) an attempt to affect the future change in the fact (eg, that the Israeli government should move to a different location). But the lack of recognition does not change the fact of where the government is located (the objective capital), and the article should clarify this.Narc (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AJH socks

Hey there Mr. Hoyland,

I share your frustration with the persistence of socks manipulating a slew of articles. In an effort to halt this as much as possible and to tire out the sock, I requested page protection for the article Arab-Israeli conflict, which was granted, so we won't be seeing sock edits on that article for now. I have not requested protection for other articles though, since this article seemed to me like the one he frequented most. On the whole, I am not as familiar with the case as you are probably, so feel free to request that additional pages be protected or ask me to submit such a report. I did the same to some Jewish-related articles due to socks by Dalai lama ding dong. It's plain annoying.

I do hope this fixes the problem to an extent, and should socks reappear, someone/people will hopefully spot them quickly and take similar measures or other measures if necessary.

Thanks. --Jethro B 23:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder whether there should be a play area for socks, a small but sufficiently interesting set of articles in the topic area where they can edit without being disturbed. As for semi-protection, its powers are limited unfortunately. See Special:Contributions/Ihacklozer for example where AJH made the 10 edits required for part of the autoconfirmation process. They happened to have been blocked just before they would have passed the account age > four days old part of the process, at which point they would have been able to edit semi-protected pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the semi protection of the area could be helpful but I don't think it will be implemented.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection can't be increased to say 50 edits and 10 days, without going through ArbCom? --Jethro B 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair though, the fact that the sock now needs to get 10 edits on some random articles should help to easily identify the account as a sock. --Jethro B 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Shrike meant getting approval for semi-protection to be implemented across the whole topic area in any form would be difficult. As Dlv999 says here (where you can see Tim's comments too), something probably needs to be done to adjust the current 1RR rules so that they apply equally to both IPs and registered editors that meet some kind of age/edit based criteria. A presumably unintended consequence of semi-protection and the current ARBPIA 1RR rules is that they make socking through registered accounts a better choice for socks. I don't think those edits a sock needs to make to become autoconfirmed will necessarily be random or attract attention. They could just be edits they wanted to make anyway to unprotected articles. And if a sock has multiple accounts with different ages and edit counts, I think the current form of semi-protection just delays them a bit at the beginning when they start to use that set of accounts. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Page history

I noticed your comments at User talk:Timotheus Canens. It is possible to get the history of a page using the API, and I have Python code to do that. Given a list of titles (or a way of generating a list, such as a category), I could get a bunch of local files, each with the history of a page (either history for last X months, or complete history). Of course that would be hard to do (in terms of resources), and pretty useless, for anything more than a few hundred pages. I'm super busy but I guess you are not in hurry, so if you want to explore what's possible, contact me (here, my talk, or email). It would be better to work on the toolserver so whatever you want to do does not require tedious working with hundreds of local files that are soon obsolete, but that is outside my experience. Perhaps you could give me an idea of what processing you have in mind. FYI, my code was developed for this. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a think about it when I get a chance and get back to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Palestinian_territories#"Palestinian territories" vs "Palestinian Authority". You expressed your opinion on a similar issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Another discussion

There is a low chance, but you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Catullus 16/GA1. Feel free to expresse your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

This is the source. http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/critique-norman-finkelstein-bdsEvildoer187 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Which part, "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel" ? If that is it, and you would like to include something about it, please accurately summarize AbuKhalil's statement, quoting if necessary, without editorializing, and cite the source. Since AbuKhalil is a living person, the article is covered by the WP:BLP policy. And since the topic is the Israel-Palestine conflict it is also covered by editing restrictions/discretionary sanctions. I have added headers to the top of Talk:As'ad AbuKhalil describing those restrictions. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Input request

Hello, as previous participant in a relevant discussion, i would like to ask your input on the issue of the status of Palestinian Authority as an autonomy at Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Organization or Place.3F.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox

You might be interested in participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox because you participated in a similar discussion at Talk:Palestinian_territories#Infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ds

giggle. Wanna be tough guys always give me a chuckle. nableezy - 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

unacceptable behavior

sean, while you and i might disagree on a dozen POV items, your abusive language is completely uncalled for. i ask that you please remove it. if the other editor (ds - and you and nableezy can giggle about it) is not polite and aggravating, why not take the high road? this edit of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&curid=27550585&diff=522857064&oldid=522838155 goes way way way overboard. please fix it. thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate and uncalled for ? I think not. Seems entirely called for and appropriate to me. There wasn't enough room in the edit summary to write an even more accurate and appropriate description. Uncalled for is more appropriate for the non-stop idiotic advocacy here that turns almost everything, almost every discussion, into a heap of stinking crap. What I do or say doesn't matter at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

mind if i get a second opinion? Soosim (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are here instead of here? Because the edit summary was only part of the problem, the more important one, which you dont seem to care about, is a user putting crap into an encyclopedia article. Maybe you should be asking for a second opinion on that. nableezy - 17:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your useful and helpful comments, nableezy. i am here because sean wrote something disgusting. offensive. i am asking sean to remove it, edit it, etc. i do care about the other guy, but i have a relationship with sean, and felt i could talk to him. ok? Soosim (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you are wasting your time, both because it was not disgusting and because a user cannot remove an edit summary. nableezy - 18:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, you can do anything you want to do and the outcome and anything that is said will be of no importance whatsoever, least of all to me. If you find certain words disgusting and offensive, learn to not find them disgusting and offensive. Not being concerned about the language people use and focusing on what they do to the encyclopedia is how I have managed to edit in a topic area awash with apologists for the morally indefensible, hypocrites of the worst kind, racists, ultranationalists, neofacists, pathological liars, all sorts of astoundingly dumb and dishonest people, and even the rare but fully fledged sociopath, for years. Everyday I decide not to do what the armies of dishonest nationalist sockpuppets and their army of facilitators do is a good day for the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone might be on a holy mission against worst kind of sad excuse for a human beings. I'm not surprised that the term "self-righteous" is often considered derogatory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Who you calling a meatpuppet and dishonest fuck[1]?

Meatpuppet=you for restoring the edit of a topic banned, indefinitely blocked, abusive serial sockpuppeteer after it had already been removed twice...although well done on the edit summary. Dishonest fuck=AndresHerutJaim aka Sonntagsbraten the topic banned, indefinitely blocked, abusive serial sockpuppeteer. To clarify further, when I said "use the fucking talk page for fuck's sake" I meant Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, not this one. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:MEAT, I am not a meatpuppet, please refrain from making such accusations again. And I am using this talk page to ask you a question, which is not related to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to be described as a meatpuppet, consider not behaving in a way that is indistinguishable from a meatpuppet by restoring content added by topic banned, indefinitely blocked, abusive serial sockpuppeteer that has been removed twice by editors in good standing. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation response requested

Can you please respond to the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem? The deadline to do so is approaching. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

...referred to the nation as both Myanmar and Burma.

Good call. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some advice

I have proposed here and here on respective talk pages that one article should be deleted and the other renamed. Assuming that I do not receive any opposition how do I go about deleting (and redirecting) and renaming articles? I have never done that before.

Regards, Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You can move Operation Changing Direction 11 to the new title via the Move link which you can see if you hover over the down arrow just to the left of the search box. Once you have incorporated any content from Battle of Wadi Saluki you want to retain into Operation Change of Direction 11, you just need to edit the Battle of Wadi Saluki article and replace the contents with the following (without the nowiki tags and assuming you want to redirect it to Operation Change of Direction 11)

#REDIRECT [[Operation Change of Direction 11]]

There are a couple of existing redirects that will need to be redirected to the new title. You can see these if you go to Battle of Wadi Saluki, click on the 'What links here' link in the Toolbox menu on the left and then click on the 'Show redirects only' link. You'll see

• Battle of Wadi al-Hujeir
• Battle of wadi saluki

Click on both of those links and edit the redirects replacing Battle of Wadi Saluki with the new name, Operation Change of Direction 11, or whatever you decide. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that the changes are quite uncontroversial. Is there any normal waiting period before doing these changes? I'm not in a hurry. The articles about the Lebanon war of 2006 have been complete crap for many years. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. You may as well just going ahead and see whether anyone objects afterwards. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Next question: How do I go about having an article deleted. I'm talking about this one. It is full of crap and doesn't cover its title. It is only a disorganized time line of the war and we have several such articles. It doesn't even mention any of the main battles of the war such as Bint Jbeil, Ayta ash-Sha'b, Maroun al-Ras or Change of Direction 11. If there is a need for such an article I could volunteer for writing such an article but I would have to start from a clean slate, making a summery of the articles of individual battles.

I don't think that this is politically sensitive either but the article may contain some sourced information that is worth saving.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy (and the Articles for deletion link at the top of that page). In cases like this where it's not an obvious candidate for deletion, it will probably be an uphill struggle. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrator's noticeboard of incidents discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding possible violations of Wikipedia's bullying and civility policies. Thank you. Factcolony (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi there, thanks for your formatting help on the worker policing article! Now that I've seen an example, I'll try to get the other articles formatted as well. =] GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I thought I'd seen all the articles by the University of Sydney/Chulalongkorn University collaboration but I can't remember reading these 2, so thanks for spotting them. I may have messed up the URLs. I assumed they were static but I think they are dynamically generated by Springer's site, so there's no point putting them in the citation. The DOI is enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that lovely

that two socks fighting each other[2]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, shouldn't laugh I suppose but the topic area is quite comical at times. If only they could use their enthusiasm to tell stories and build things in a more constructive way. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re AnthonyMark00

I've reported him at WP:3rrnb. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. You are a patient man. It is tempting to start using naughty words with that one to get their attention but a edit warring report is a better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not patient, I just have friends who enjoy hearing me say horrible things. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have an undiagnosed condition whereby my ability to detect and appreciate the comic content of a statement is orders of magnitude better than my ability to detect and appreciate the pain it may cause others. I blame society. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you try being a man once in your life & saying what you feel directly too me? (Instead of being someone elses Waterboy) What you think I wouldnt read this? Thats quite pathetic! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Get the fuck off my talk page. After that, try harder to keep bigoted ignorant filth from contaminating an encyclopedia. Also, grow the fuck up. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Head's up

I've just blocked Bon et Copieux as a confirmed sock of Factcolony. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, I tried to reason with him and give him fresh start but it's probably for the best. Although, maybe it was his sister who hacked his account this time... Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

My apologies: I meant that there was no need for blocking for the edit war, as he had agreed to stop edit warring. I wrote something to that effect, but it got lost in edit conflicts, and I forgot to add it back in when I finally got to reply. Obviously, there are other grounds for which a block might be justified, but I'm probably involved by now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The guy has trouble written all over him, he's new though, but I will be pleasantly surprised if he can be turned around into a productive editor and make that article better in a policy consistent way. I think he needs very firm guidance (not from me, that's for sure) and zero degrees of freedom. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's, uh, not looking good. What I think he needs is to stay far away from that article, and probably you and Ian now, but I'm not sure he'll take my advice. He's got one last chance to drop it before blocks start going out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

gaza strip

Apologies, when you removed my edit the first time, I thought it was because my original source, was not considered a reliable, published source, as per WP:OR.

I thus put this as a source instead, figuring that the CIA web page was a reliable, published source. I now realize I misunderstood. However, I do not think I am synthesizing information.

The statement I am following and clarifying, is "While the majority were born in the Gaza Strip, a large percentage identify as Palestinian refugees,[3] fleeing to Gaza as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." I would gander this information is provided to help give some demographic information. The fact that 97.5% of Gaza's population were born 1948 or later merely gives more clarity to the amorphous statement speaking about "a large percentage" being refugees from the 1948 war. The information is clearly available on the CIA's website, and not synthesized. (unless adding and subtracting numbers counts as a synthesis. By this logic, many charts of information would be useless as people would be limited to the information actually presented without option to simple addition/subtraction/etc. which is implicitly available to chart readers in order to expand information, which on a chart, by definition, is limited). I would like some clarification on this issue, if at all possible.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Update Well, the point might be moot, as I realized the sentence "While the majority were born in the Gaza Strip, a large percentage identify as Palestinian refugees,[3] fleeing to Gaza as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." has a false attribution, and I am removing it altogether. Footnote 3 leads to this source and there is no such assertion made therein as the Wiki page claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pausing and leaving the message. It's much appreciated. I've edited your links above so you can see another way to format them to reduce the wall-of-text-ness of messages for future reference. I haven't got time to look at this in detail yet, but regarding synthesis/original research, Wikipedia's rules are not always obvious in the way restrictions they impose work. Routine purely arithmetic calculations are fine, per WP:CALC, but it's when people start to draw conclusions based on them that it can become original research in the form of unpublished conclusions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indirectly mentioning you at ANI

It's about AnthonyMark00, would appreciate your help. It's WP:ANI#Admin attention needed at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know but I suspect my presence there or anything I say is likely to antagonize them. While that doesn't bother me personally at all, and I wouldn't hesitate to terminate their editing privileges with extreme prejudice if it were up to me, it's probably for the greater good if I stay out of it. I'll put John Todd (occultist) on my watchlist though as I wasn't aware of that article or its susceptibility to this kind of disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that article does attract the conspiracy crowd. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 28 November 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. Thank you. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

amiram goldblum

hi sean - i am coming to you "on purpose", knowing that we don't always see eye to eye. and despite this, we have been productive wiki editors for the past few years. so, i am starting with you. will you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum and the article itself. it had been deleted in august, and the deleting editor explained why. i corrected all of the 'issues', and basically, wrote an entire new article (you can see it in the first diff). since then, a user named rastiniak (who sometimes claims he is goldblum himself, and sometimes not) and an anon IP (who also claims to be goldblum and sometimes not), have taken apart the article. i have given these editors the benefit of the doubt (and certainly if it is the subject himself, then he knows, right?). but, it can't possibly be that 4-5 RS are all wrong, are all too extreme, etc. - it just isn't right....imho. and his style of commenting on the talk page (and in the edit summaries) is quite alarming. so, please, take a look at the article, his edits, the comments on the talk page, etc. i would appreciate it. Soosim (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look through this next week. I know absolutely nothing about Amiram Goldblum, which is probably an advantage. If things get out of control on a BLP article, I think it's always worth considering posting something at WP:BLPN. It seems to be watched by quite a lot of editors and I've seen it help solve issues and result in more monitoring of an article many times. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

in the few hours since i wrote to you, it did get worse.....i'll try blpn, and you can look too. thanks. Soosim (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, this is a horrible mess. The article is being vandalised by Runtshit socks, who keep adding defamatory content. An earlier article on Goldblum was deleted, at his request, because of Runtshit libels and vandalism. It's true that he is himself editing the article, and apparently edit-warring; but he is facing an apparently coordinated attack, which may be linked to a libel action in Israel. I'm not sure what is the best approach here. Both scierntifically and politically, Goldblum would appear to be notable, but the article is such a magnet for defamation that perhaps it should again be deleted. Failing that, it should certainly be edit-protected, to prevent IPs and throwaway SPAs from adding abuse and libel. It would certainly be wrong to take any action against Goldblum/Rastiniak alone. RolandR (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Runtshit socks...I can see how that poses an ethical dilemma for Wikipedia. I see that "pending changes" has been implemented for the article. It'll be interesting to see whether that works. If it does, it should probably be done for a lot more articles in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

here here! Soosim (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sorry

I was wrong, you did not say you had a copy of the book, you said you were looking at the GBooks version. Please accept my apology. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, there was a complaint filed at AE by Nableezy which mentions Darkness Shine's comment to you. That complaint has been closed with an ARBPIA warning to Darkness Shines. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

the dots connected

Sent you an email. nableezy - 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

109.225.102.172

See 109.225.102.172 (talk · contribs) - he reverted you. This is part of the range used by WitsBlomstein (talk · contribs) to sock - let me know if you see anything from this range or 77. acting in a similar way. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the 1 month range blocks have worked for now. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pessimistic as I've seen a lot of edits from his socks this month. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested in delightful characters like WitsBlomstein, you might be interested in Special:Contributions/220.245.213.132. It appears to be a static IP. Thankfully it doesn't appear to do much but it's probably worth keeping on your radar. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger Stump Article

1. Facts are facts no matter where they come from. I used the official copy of a marriage certificate available at the avpublications.org site to verify Riplinger's original name (Gail Anne Ludwig), general birth date (October 1947), place (Columbus, Ohio), and the marriage that gave her her current last name (to Michael D. Riplinger at the age of 36). These are verified facts and just the kind of biographical details that belong in an article but which are conspicuously absent from your absurd stump article. 2. Who are you and why do you think you have a right to continue to suppress FACTS? Aletheia O'Brien has documented what she says are misrepresentations of Riplinger's autobiographical material, which, by the way, you've uncritically accepted, such as her academic credentials (supposedly working as a "professor" when the evidence is only that she was an "instructor.") You've simply accepted her own word from her self-published book and then you interfere with real scholars trying to report the truth. The pdf is available on line. 3. Again, facts are facts, regardless of the source. One youtube video is of D. A. Waite speaking about Riplinger. Another is of a debate with Riplinger and James White. They are primary sources which in real history is the best sources. They are incontestably verified and accurate. Since nothing is copied, there is no "copyright violation"! The article you are guarding is poorly written, a stump, it uncritically repeats unverified material from a self-published book, and misses much significant material. It is that way because of your interference in an issue you are either too emotionally invested to be unbiased or simply because you are too ignorant as to understand what makes for a good biography generally and what is pertinent for this subject in particular. Either way, please revert to my latest edit; you can make some needed copy-editing if you'd like but other than that, you obviously lack the expertise to be making significant alterations. Yeoberry (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You should confine your messages to the article's talk page. I have it watchlisted so I can see replies there. It's clear that you don't understand Wikipedia's policies. Also, try to keep your emotions in check or I will start being very blunt with you. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence

I will post some secondary sources later. In the meantime, I have removed Ubikwit's own revision to the sentence, itself containing POV pushing, by deleting it entirely.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Sean.hoyland. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jerusalem. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My initial statement was 181 words. Each of my responses to statements by others all fall within the 500 word count limit (164/203/301/209). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Update

Here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Settler_colonialism#Source

Evildoer187 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

email

Sent you an email. I must be slipping, cant seem to connect the NoCal web on my own. nableezy - 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Colonialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#Israel Please help us resolve this dispute, when you have the time.

Thank you.

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Given the concerns you've raised, I've brought the matter to ANI to see if another admin can look at it and review it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed. Many thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

More on civility

Hi Sean, I tried to post this on AE four times, but there were problems with internet each time, so I decided that there may be a good reason why my comment there is unwanted :). Indeed, it is unfair to BU to post there what is a discussion of a general nature. I think with your comment about noise and signal, you are implying that when user A makes an uncivil comment about user B, there is usually (or often) an underlying reason, and specifically, that user B is somehow at fault. I don’t think in most cases this is the case at all. It simply means that (1) A and B disagree about something, often something as trivial as punctuation, and (2) user A is short-tempered and is unwilling to control his emotions. I say ‘unwilling’ rather than ‘unable’ because nearly all adults are able to control their emotions when it is really necessary. As for the evidence, I think no evidence can justify personal attacks. Justified accusations of policy violations or of incorrect statements can be made in a civil manner without resorting to name calling. I think this is so obvious that is kind of weird that we are even discussing this. But clearly many people think differently. Maybe I am just old fashioned… Cheers.

Old fashioned is good. I think we probably agree about civility more than would be apparent from my comments about ARBPIA. First let me say that incivility doesn't exist in my personal or professional worlds pretty much ever, other than the places people usually encounter it, drunks in a bar, raving person on the street in need of psychiatric care etc or between friends where it has a slightly different role. In general I find Wikipedia as a whole much like the real world in terms of civility. Almost everyone is genuinely civil almost all of the time. I don't think that is because there is a civility policy. Then there is ARBPIA (and some other areas) at the far, far end of the distribution where extraordinary views (at least to me), bad behavior are fairly commonplace and almost the norm. BU mentioned honor and honesty, things I value far more highly here and in the real world than civility and there is a shortage of those in the topic area. It's true in theory that "Justified accusations of policy violations or of incorrect statements can be made in a civil manner without resorting to name calling" but in practice it's far easier for people to deploy a few choice attention grabbing words that from their perspective neatly summarize the evidence and try to exact a bit of their own justice. I can understand why and I've been guilty of it. Compiling evidence is tedious and admins won't look at it if there is a lot or the issues are fuzzy. I don't blame them but it doesn't help. People get frustrated that things never get fixed. I agree that evidence can't justify personal attacks but I think it's better to try to steer people towards providing evidence than shutting them down for using naughty words. It's not that I think there is usually (or often) an underlying reason. There usually isn't as you say. But sometimes there will be and addressing it might, just might, make the topic area function a little bit better. Perhaps civility will come naturally then like it does elsewhere but I think many people in the topic area enjoy conflict. I guess it's easier than joining the IDF or a Palestinian militant group. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for the detailed response. I understand better now where you are coming from. You are right that sometimes people resort to incivil remarks when others' behaviour drives them nuts; but no less common people resort to name calling when they don't have a valid logical argument. I don't actually want to sound prudish. Occasional slips of the tounge and loss of nerves is normal and understandble (and I am guily of this as well, especially at home - nothing to be proud of). But when people stand by their word and insist that this is the right way, then I would draw a line. As for policies, you are again right that standards of behavior are not determined by policy, but Wikipedia is such a diverse enviornment, that written standards may be useful. Another random point: you suggest that the problem is largely confined to these extremely contentious areas, but I have seen rather extreme incivility in perfectly peaceful areas over minute details. Anyway, I think we have a good mutual understanding. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestinian territory development

Template:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestinian nationalism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Greyshark09 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Data behind your ANI post

Hello Sean. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ? Have you made your analysis publicly available somewhere? I am interested in the 500-edit limit, since there conceivably are ways that such a criterion could be used. Any system that requires filing a lot of cases at SPI is unlikely to meet the needs, because it is so time-consuming to analyze the cases. But just checking that someone has more than 500 edits is information that might conceivably be used. There is an example in WP:ARBAA2 of trying to use 500 edits as a criterion in certain cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not yet. I just have it in an OpenOffice spreadsheet for now. I'll put it somewhere public when I get a chance. It would be nice if article editing histories included various editor attributes for each edit e.g. edit count at time of edit, sock/block/topic ban flags etc and were color coded on that basis. If I had time and direct access to the database it would be interesting to generate a Wikipedia disruption heat map for article sets like File:Heatmap.png. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put the OpenOffice spreadsheet here (note that the results differ slightly from before because I've corrected 3 miscategorized edits out of the total sample of 508). You can read it with Excel if you use that although the fonts might need adjusting. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I've replied at my talk. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
Message added 10:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Great job

Great job in removing someone's own words describing their position on torture from their biography. Brilliant. — goethean 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cite the biography then. It's a BLP. Follow the rules and your content won't get removed will it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)