User talk:Sean.hoyland
_by_Ron.jpg) | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Template:Archive box collapsible
Striving
To exert much effort or energy; endeavor. I guess you have failed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Provide specific evidence of failure to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about violation, rather an honor to present knighthood regalities. Editors who honestly believe in their neutrality, just fool themselves. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is based on a flawed assumption that people share human attributes to various degrees that would influence their neutrality in ARBPIA. The assumption, although usually true, is wrong in some cases. It's like incorrectly assuming that because someone is a human being they can experience empathy or they care about the difference between right and wrong. Some editors will be capable of neutrality within specific domains. But it isn't even about neutrality, it's about the degree to which someone can follow rules, whether they have the common sense to stay away from topics where they are likely to make bad decisions and crucially whether their objective is the same as the Wikimedia foundation's. I may be a fool in many ways but what I believe is not present in my content edits. There's none of me in my ARBPIA edits. It's just an implementation of the rules based on what I have understood from policy/guidelines and reliable sources. For the purposes of Wikipedia content, I don't have any beliefs other than the belief that a rules based smart-bot would make the same decision and therefore the same edit/revert. That doesn't mean I will get it right of course, but the approach I try to use is not very error prone and it's the only thing that other editors need to understand about why I make any given edit/revert, other than perhaps my utter contempt for stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry and drone-like behavior whatever the cause, nationalism, religion etc, attributes which are oddly over-represented in ARBPIA. Any other imagined reason or motive assigned to an edit I make will always be wrong and usually comically off target. I enjoy editing in ARBPIA because it encapsulates many of the worst aspects of human behavior in microcosm. For reasons that I've never fully grasped, it attracts so many truly appalling people who are willfully blind to evidence, believe very stupid and bigoted things and use deceptive and dishonest methods without hesitation. I find it fascinating. In my real everyday world, everyone I know is smart, unprejudiced, impeccably honest, kind, tolerant and worldly-wise. Much of the time ARBPIA is like having free online access to data from a human behavior laboratory involved in testing and validating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion is rather general and apply to any area of Wiki editing or human behavior. I'm glad that your friends and you, you've cracked the code. Still when I hear '¡No pasarán!', though I sympathize with the cry, it sounds like a partisan buzz. A doubt that we're dealing with humans after all, creeps in. My neighbor's kid always self-identified as R2D2 and dresses appropriately, but maybe he is not a robot? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I guess taking beliefs about self, others and the world so seriously is a defining characteristic of being human. I'm not able to do that anymore having adopted a happy nihilistic cynicism long ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are many arbitrated spectacular conflicts. Frankly I'm trying not to be cynical. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess taking beliefs about self, others and the world so seriously is a defining characteristic of being human. I'm not able to do that anymore having adopted a happy nihilistic cynicism long ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion is rather general and apply to any area of Wiki editing or human behavior. I'm glad that your friends and you, you've cracked the code. Still when I hear '¡No pasarán!', though I sympathize with the cry, it sounds like a partisan buzz. A doubt that we're dealing with humans after all, creeps in. My neighbor's kid always self-identified as R2D2 and dresses appropriately, but maybe he is not a robot? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is based on a flawed assumption that people share human attributes to various degrees that would influence their neutrality in ARBPIA. The assumption, although usually true, is wrong in some cases. It's like incorrectly assuming that because someone is a human being they can experience empathy or they care about the difference between right and wrong. Some editors will be capable of neutrality within specific domains. But it isn't even about neutrality, it's about the degree to which someone can follow rules, whether they have the common sense to stay away from topics where they are likely to make bad decisions and crucially whether their objective is the same as the Wikimedia foundation's. I may be a fool in many ways but what I believe is not present in my content edits. There's none of me in my ARBPIA edits. It's just an implementation of the rules based on what I have understood from policy/guidelines and reliable sources. For the purposes of Wikipedia content, I don't have any beliefs other than the belief that a rules based smart-bot would make the same decision and therefore the same edit/revert. That doesn't mean I will get it right of course, but the approach I try to use is not very error prone and it's the only thing that other editors need to understand about why I make any given edit/revert, other than perhaps my utter contempt for stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry and drone-like behavior whatever the cause, nationalism, religion etc, attributes which are oddly over-represented in ARBPIA. Any other imagined reason or motive assigned to an edit I make will always be wrong and usually comically off target. I enjoy editing in ARBPIA because it encapsulates many of the worst aspects of human behavior in microcosm. For reasons that I've never fully grasped, it attracts so many truly appalling people who are willfully blind to evidence, believe very stupid and bigoted things and use deceptive and dishonest methods without hesitation. I find it fascinating. In my real everyday world, everyone I know is smart, unprejudiced, impeccably honest, kind, tolerant and worldly-wise. Much of the time ARBPIA is like having free online access to data from a human behavior laboratory involved in testing and validating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about violation, rather an honor to present knighthood regalities. Editors who honestly believe in their neutrality, just fool themselves. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Apis florea nest thailand.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Apis florea nest thailand edge view.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
