Jump to content

User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Thanks for the support

Dear Friend thanks for your support and comment on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_the_following_sources_and_articles_reliable.3F talk page. regards --Sandeep (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New Israel Fund

An exchange of accusations on a blog is not relevant to this article, no matter who wrote the blogs. There is plenty of the same in mainstream sources that address the issue properly and to the point, without getting into silly mud-slinging as in the material I have deleted, which is definitely WP:UNDUE. The article is developing nicely, but this stuff ruins it.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree but then we have to drop the Ma'ariv material sourced from the Pollak blog. We have to comply with NPOV or have nothing at all. The real problem is that I haven't really had time to look for sensible sourcing as it's a developing story hence the non-ideal sourcing. To be honest I was surprised the article wasn't swarming with people. What I thought was useful about the blogs was that they put the Ma'ariv article into context a bit and showed that it is quite notable given that the GPO are distributing it. This is clearly going to get a lot more coverage so I'm not sure what the best thing to is right now. We can't just present one side of the debate and plan to balance it with better sources later. That isn't an option. The article is in a pretty horrible state and your efforts to remove the near copyvio from NIF fluff help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't even want to cover this issue yet. It's just that another editor inserted something based on the Ma'ariv piece in Pollak's blog and I didn't want to be impolite by just deleting it. It sort of snowballed from there...I only have myself to blame. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

=> copied to article talk page.

human rights in israel

=== i have go look at the talk page===130.216.173.56 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 130.216.173.56 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks. i replied on the talk page of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i replied again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.173.56 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx

I added their response, which came out today. Doesn't seem to have received RS coverage as of yet, so just cited to the primary doc.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty responses were included in the Daily Mail and Independent sources you used but the primary source works fine to improve NPOV compliance. Thanks. Much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and am working on stubs for the following pages:

Bethel Church (Redding, California)
Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry
Kris Vallotton

I believe that the above three entries pass the test of notability.
Please check out the drafts for these at my User Subpages. Houseofisaac (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

I didn't see the discussion re blood libel. Can you kindly link to it? Is it possible to search the Talk archives? A pejorative link to blood libel or "sensationalized human sacrifice" doesn't belong on that article which describes a crossfire incident. Soledad22 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You can just text search for 'blood libel' on the article's talk page and you will find it. I've also added an archive search box. You will see that it's come up many times. I have no view on the issue. I reverted and suggested talking because edit wars on articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict usually ends up with the article being locked because they are covered by sanctions. Please could you make your case on the article talk page and discuss it with Slim and the other editors rather than edit war it out. Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

whats cooking

do you have laying around somewhere the old version of the lead that the article had a few months ago instead of the current one? the para that explains the ceasefire?

it's funny that a ceasefire expires by refusing to renew it... Cryptonio (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No but I see that you've found something. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about this article. [[1]] thanks in adavance. Cryptonio (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For restoring my comment at WQA btw. I'm not sure even an admin would care that much, would they? I mean it was a vague and general observation on a non-content noticeboard, in a thread about an edit summary Nableezy made on his own talk page, and also a jokey non-content comment he made on the talk page of an article that maybe happened to be an I-P page, but I can't even recall whether it was or not, or which one it might have been from here. I suspect only Jaakobou is bothered enough to play Six Degrees of Separation on this one. I've skirted close to the (daft, but oddly welcome) topic ban a couple of times in the past, but I don't see the problem here. A better argument against my having commented there would be that I added nothing of any real substance to the debate, other than to prolong it by three more edits. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't see a problem with you commenting either and your comment did provide an opportunity for others to enjoy the impressive POV pushing and baiting going on at Pan-Arabism. Also I didn't want Nableezy to revert it. It was partly for Jaakobou's own good as well. I think both of them have been asked to leave things to admins in the past although I might be imagining that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean you intentionally denied me the pleasure of reverting that edit? Sonofabitch. nableezy - 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I assumed you'd be busy working on alternative talk page phrasing techniques like 'shud the fud up muddyfunster' and such like. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Wont do it, cant let the terrorists win. nableezy - 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm glad you're all here. I advise you all not to return the comment by banned editor N-HH. We can discuss the matter of ban-evasion on my talk page if you insist. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha. nableezy - 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to expand on that. If you feel that N-HH is in violation of his arbitration imposed topic ban, then by all means go to arbitration enforcement to request enforcement of that ban. nableezy - 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unreadable username

Hi, Sean, I've selected the "green-on-black" WP style, and unfortunately, it renders your username unreadably black-on-black. Maybe you should make it some dark colour, instead of black? cojoco (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll have a look. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Where is the "green-on-black" option by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

good for a laugh

the archive bot crapped out trying to archive the 50kB Wikiquette thread. See the contribs (5th from the top is taking it out, next should be putting it in the archive) nableezy - 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice! The bot moved it to its 'I'm not interested' place. It's good to see it showing some initiative at last. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bethune hooding

Cptnono (talk) is apparently counting you as a supporter of removing the line in the Ady Gil article that mentions Peter Bethune's head being covered by a hood during his arrest. The line is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ady_Gil#Peter_Bethune.27s_detention_and_arrest

The discussion is going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ady_Gil#Peter_Bethune.27s_detention_and_arrest_-_massive_deletion_of_referenced_material

Please check out the current edit (assuming it hasn't been reverted again, you may have to check the history) and review the discussion (he thinks it's not relevant, I say it's relevant because it's mentioned in the news article that's referenced and shown in the videos that are referenced, so the editors and producers seemed to have thought it was relevant). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please give it. And if you don't mind, confirm that you don't have any WP:Conflict of interest. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How come?

How come my few words on Pan Arabism talk were omitted and is this connected to a user by the name nableezy and his following me around([2][3]) and spam on my page?

Beyruthi (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Sean, how dare you. Would you like to take odds on this user being a "new" user? nableezy - 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason was provided in the edit summary 'Undid revision 351583886 by Beyruthi (talk) removed per WP:TALK and WP:SOAP'. Please read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP and comply with them. If you do that your comments won't be removed anymore. It's quite simple. Saying things like 'I agree with X that Y is a form of <insert personal opinion unrelated to improving an article's contents>' is not allowed on a talk page. Don't do it again. Nableezy didn't spam your page. He informed you of the policy about sockpuppetry and evasion of blocks and bans, waited to see how you responded and then filed a sockpuppet investigation. That is what responsible editors do. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to say, please feel free to comment as much as you like in the 'Comments by accused parties' section of the sockpuppet investigatiion filed against you. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What is sockpuppet on wikipedia?

Beyruthi (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to your talk page, click history, click the 'undo' link on the first line that says '16:18, 23 March 2010 Beyruthi (talk | contribs) m (empty) (→Welcome to Wikipedia) (undo)', click save page, click the link that Nableezy provided for you that says WP:SOCK. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it again, let me get it clear, is he saying a ridiculuos idea that i "sock"? why would I prtent to be someone else? Do I have to "defend" myself because someone has an obsession on me and follows me around?For all I see I am on the defensive position, at least he has to do, is to aopologize for being hooked on me. As to his edits I can see his Arab-Muslim background, Too bad he does not behave like the Arabs I grew up with. Beyruthi (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He is indeed saying that. He is saying that you have previously used the account Toothie3 and Geenahs. A checkuser will be run to see if this is the case. I dont know if I can withstand the anticipation, I truly am on pins and needles just waiting for the results. How about this, you log in as Toothie3 and on that account's talk page say that the Beyruthi account is not the same, then I might believe you. nableezy - 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever (Mahmoud or other) your name is, Don't know who you are or who toothiy is. I don't have to do anything "for you". Beyruthi (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If this wasnt so funny I might actually be offended. Please, carry on. nableezy - 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Stereotyping, interesting move. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)...Nableezy, please try to make your English more broken, perhaps mention belly dancing more often. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont like hummus, falafel, or ful either. Cant be an Arab, but Im still an A-rab. nableezy - 03:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Stereotyping is great. The very first thing that a smart, young, pretty and very nice Thai doctor at a state of the art hospital said to me after my last medical check up was 'You tested negative for syphilis'. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that wasnt Thai flirting? nableezy - 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Because she kept looking at my 'constitutional monarchies, down with this sort of thing' T-shirt. Okay, I made that bit up. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ramat Shlomo

Are we really going to start another endless battle about the settlement/neighborhood issue? It has happened on enough articles... now you want to move onto a new one? It's up to you... let me know if you want to edit in a suitable compromise. Otherwise I'll go find my typical sources and we can start duking it out on the talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding. I'm going to make a further edit to put it in line with the other suburbs of Jerusalem that share this controversy. Breein1007 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really trying to avoid these endless battles. However, an editor (not you) simply removing info from a source like the Times is annoying and no one should tolerate that kind of behavior. I'm trying to be neutral. I guess neutral will look non-neutral to anyone with the 'Jerusalem, complete and united' or 'it's on occupied land' view. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Breein1007 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On the plus side, if we keep doing this in multiple articles eventually we might discover the most stable, neutral, policy compliant wording. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about the last two edits? You think they should be fully reverted? I actually like some of what he did (like splitting it into sections rather than having 1 massive lead and no actual article). Breein1007 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one. Well, I don't have a problem with there being a political status section but its political status is without doubt the most notable thing about it. I'm more concerned about the things he has put in there, the repeated removal of material from the lead and the user's extreme shyness when it comes to using the talk page. Oh well. I keep meaning to put a message together for the talk page to try to explain why, based on the sources, it's okay to say things like 'annexed to Israel in a move not recognised by the international community' and not okay to say things like 'Some contest this move' etc. I can't get very excited about it though. I'd just be happy to get him to engage in discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

mind tricks

The framing definition, reminded me of Predictably Irrational theme. The author had very impressive, kind of eye opening appearances on TED, this for instance, "on our buggy moral code". Have fun. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not read that book. Sounds interesting. The video was really excellent as were his experiments. He's a great talker. It's always fascinating when someone shines an experimental light on these opaque processes especially when they try to systematically examine the heart of darkness aspect. I lost my faith in the ability of the human brain to behave sensibly many years ago, particularly mine, so anything that illuminates the infuriatingly non-linear feedback loop infested dynamics of simple decisions (like why it's apparently okay to steal a pencil) are very welcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Got Email?

Hey Sean, I sent you an email, not sure if you got it? Unomi (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, got it and replied. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Plus you have Russell quote and I was just reading Russell's intro to TLP this morning. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is another quote I find inspiring:
I am obviously very disappointed that you aren't an organic farmer / crazy inventor, but I will try to temper my resentment ;) Unomi (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sean

Can you please tell me, How does one send an email? Rocalisi (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the left hand frame of the Wikipedia page, toolbox, 'E-mail this user'. I don't know who you intend to email but you do not have permission to email me, so don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I wasn't going to email you though (I don't know you, but I trust you are fair... as your page states: "This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.") sorry. Rocalisi (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That only refers to article content. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article content and 'moderating' who's // which edits stay on and who's // what's not? If I study the discussion --as you suggested in your edit yesterday-- and provide my counter opinion to the one who disputes the sources, will you then let the edit on?Rocalisi (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions aren't moderated in general unless there is a formal request for moderation/dispute resolution. In this particularly case the material was removed because the sources didn't comply with mandatory policy, i.e. WP:RS, and therefore mandatory WP:V compliance fails. Sources aren't regarded as reliable by default. If you can provide evidence to show that the sources do comply with the RS policy or provide better sources then the issue of mandatory WP:V compliance will be resolved. You can then move on to discussing adding the material with other contributors to find consensus. Your opinion about article content has the same weight as everyone else's opinion as long as your opinion is consistent with wiki policy i.e. there aren't people with editorial control over the article contents that can overrule other people. Have a look at WP:BRD. The important thing is to avoid edit warring over content and use the article's talk page to resolve issues. Dealing with article content issues in small chunks often helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks, Sean. Rocalisi (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Just a thought - you might want to ask for WP:ROLLBACK rights to make reverting vandalism slightly quicker. cheers, Rd232 talk 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be handy thanks. I'll have a look later. Too busy dealing with vandalism...wait.. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Hi, who is giving you the right to censorship the Falun Gong pages? If you do not agree that this is not a dangerous sect like Scientology and others, please give arguments. Just to be "neutral" is what gave Hitler his power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.203.189.130 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read some wiki policies, start with WP:FIVE. I'm simply following policy. If you would like that category added you need to discuss it with other editors on the talk page of the article. Since you asked, I really couldn't give a fuck about Falun Gong. My edits having nothing to do with what I think. I make edits based on policy. I have the article watchlisted because it has persistent problems caused by people trying to advocate for and against Falun Gong. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

Thanks for your comments on the talk page-- I'll probably try to break it up, unless others weigh in with differing opinions. As for the tone of the discussion, I definitely agree with you -- but I'm not sure what to do. I've been editing this article for about a week and from day one it's been impossible to keep the discussion on the topic of article content and off the topic of people's motives, past wrongs, and other various ad hominems. Not sure what to suggest really; I just decided to live with it. If you have any other suggestions on how to deal with it, I'd love to have help in toning it down: my earlier request for mediation was rejected, but maybe something informal could help. --causa sui (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the personal stuff and trying to focus on the content. It's never easy. I'll try to drop by every so often to see what's going on. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on ARBPIA template

Thanks for putting the template on Gilad Atzmon. My question: Is this something that any editor can put up or just admins? If the former I'll put it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration. Though I guess we need a "Templates" section for the three that we would then have. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think any editor can add it to things that could reasonably be considered to fall within the 'Area of conflict' covered by the sanctions. I'm not an admin but I've added the template to many articles where I've seen editors behaving in a way that suggests that they aren't aware of the sanctions. I've not seen a single instance of an admin adding or removing the template. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Good tool. I'll ad it to the page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh that's hardly the usual definition of civil war

I've replied to you on my talk page. -- Kendrick7talk 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

apple kind of ethics

Hope you had a chance to hug new magical iPad. Still I'm worried about the apple kind of ethics, like raiding homes. There might be a confusion between journalism and industrial espionage. I don't know though, IANAL. It could be interesting to look at Nancy Kanwisher study of causality violations in our light cone. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I try not to look at Apple products so that it's easier for me to avoid buying them. It's a kind of gadget based state of denial that has worked well so far. I don't know if you've ever seen the Belgian film Man Bites Dog (film). It's kind of about how journalists get sucked into and corrupted by the thing they are meant to be covering. It's highly amusing and disturbing. The Kanwisher piece probably sounds more interesting than it is in reality. It was an MIT/Havard/Tel Aviv University study, however, I've never been able to track down the actual study itself, just the piece in the Huffington Post. There's no causality or contextural information in the data they looked at (in the sense that they excluded it). They just looked at killings and only killings. Nevertheless, they boldly made a recommendation based on an assumption that the killings data demonstrated a causality chain and that the chain could be broken simply by not killing. They might be right but I'm not sure how they get that from the data they looked at. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: St. Joseph

The other editor has come very close to edit-warring to get his theories into this article. In essence, he started off with a fringe theory and then moved onto inserting other text into the article that is beyond its scope. The other editor, who I do not know and have not communicated with, have rejected his edits with proper policy but the new editor has a WP:OWN sense about wanting to post something into this article. He has inserted text knowing that there is a content dispute and been cited with a generic substitute 3RR warning. The other editor and I have had to be very careful about not getting into a 3RR situation with our reverts. I am prepared to take this editor to WP:ANEW should he exceed the 3rr3 warning. --Morenooso (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand and nobody should be edit warring that but that's a separate issue. My point is that you won't get anywhere by citing the WP:CONSENSUS policy because isn't doesn't support your position and it won't persuade the editor to listen to you. Quite the opposite. There's no avoiding addressing the proposed content itself, using policy based arguments to try to resolve the dispute and using dispute resolution tools like request for comment if necessary. I don't have an interest in the content myself, I don't know whether it's a fringe theory or not, but as an outsider I would question the validity of statements like "inserting other text into the article that is beyond its scope". That's just an opinion and it seems that the other editor disagrees with it. As a disinterested editor, and setting aside the fringe theory aspect, both views with respect to the scope of the article appear to be equally valid i.e. it's a valid content dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, in a disputed article, it is almost the final WP policy that is the most effective. If you will review the history, the new editor placed the POV tag which leads me to believe he has been involved with disputed content before. I presently have five articles that are under dispute. I had to drop the Catholic Church because a separate talkpage had to be created for it because the article is locked down. To give you some further history on St.J, I counted five admins on this article. I see that you are a roll-backer like me. There is another Page Patroller, BradJamesBrown, like me on this article. If you have noticed what good admins and PPs do, is that when a citation is presented to an article, they examine it and try to improve it if at all possible. If the citation does not work or the material is basically off-the-wall, it gets dismissed. To date since the new editor has posted, none of the admins have reverted which would indicate they give consensus to his edits. BradJamesBrown will do the same. In fact, he makes me look like a weakling in terms of being a wiki-defender. He protects Wikipedia with good article improvement edits and from bad edits. If he did not agree with us, he would be reverting us and discussing the matter on the talkpage. I have been on the article long-term and just noticed when I did my review to count admins that ReaverFlash has been long-term too. And before I get accused of being pro-anything, like BradJamesBrown, I try to park my personal POV and assume WP:AGF in allowing edits that I know I would not add. I have articles under Watch that are both pro and con religious, for lack of better words porn-related (because they need protection too), obscure articles, etc. I try to be an equal-opportunity Wiki-defender. I firmly believe that the new editor knew it was fringe theory and was trying to get a rise with it. He seemed to know Spong's article or beliefs cold based upon the citations he used. However, if you look at Spong's article, it has been debunked by just about everyone to include the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the head of his faith. There is a lot of history not apparent and I have tried to give you a slice as best I can. It is very frustrating to see the lengths this new editor has gone to put in edits. Why, only today, he posted a note on the talkpage to the effect, well since no one objects when he knows that the article is under dispute by his own tag posting and that two editors disagree with him. That is Edit-warring 101 in most editor's books.
Here is the DIFF] which reads, "seeing no objections, I'll add this material in" and in his post acknowledges the dispute. Does that sound like WP:AGF to you? --Morenooso (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not questioning your motivations and equal-opportunity Wiki-defender-ness (not a word yet but it works). :) Yes, he's certainly not going about things the right way. I'll drop by the page again later. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As for the scope, scope is important to articles. Think of it basically as what should be in the article and is needed for comprehension. Beyond the scope is placing information that is not relevant to the article or goes off in a tangent. ReaverFlash was the first to know the new direction being taken by this editor and reverted. And if you read all the posts on the talkpage, this new editor refuses to read any of the policies we cited to him. If he had done one more revert, he would have exceeded the general 3RR advisory and could be brought to WP:ANEW. And, if you will look at his talkpage, you will see that I assumed good faith with him and tried to talk him through this. But after looking at some of his contribs, talkpage history and how he has fought to get his edits on St.J. now don't feel the same way any more. --Morenooso (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment about Wiki-defenderness. I like that one. I usually wikiling Wiki-defender. I agree that at first he was somewhat innocent but now have my doubts as he is being really agressive about the whole matter. --Morenooso (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that he has been blocked before for edit-warring on the Catholic Church article. Had I known that, I would have issued the 3rr2 substituted warning template. I must have missed that when I first posted on his talkpage. He knows what he is doing because he has been careful in his number of edits/reverts since May 8. --Morenooso (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... Okay, thanks of telling me. My first impression of him just being another overenthusiastic editor was wrong then. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My initial take was somewhat similar if you read what I wrote on his talkpage. I think he has skills but in reviewing his talkpage, he likes to get under people's skins. And, he played me perfectly in the sense that he knew what 3RR is and that if he just kept posting his edits, the other editor and I would run up against 3RR if we reverted him too many times. I think when I gave him the 3RR advisory warning, that set him back because he was on its threshold and another post in an article under dispute would have been a 3rr3 and WP:ANEW edit-warring noticeboard material. He backed off on the Spong fringe theory but started coming at the article from another angle as indicated. Still, much of the "historical angle" he wanted to cover is already present in the article. Historically the gospels place Joseph as Mary's husband and the stepfather of Jesus. The different religions split on what some "lost books of the New Testament" say about their having addition children and the fact that is not mentioned in the earliest gospel. Still the "historical" consensus of biblical scholars is that Joseph existed. In looking at editor in question talkpage, I can't figure him out in terms of him being acknowledged a christian. It could like me that he is "equal-opportunity" editor but what I pick up now is that he has edit-warred in the past in trying to get in his edits which he knew disturbing other editors. --Morenooso (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a new user, user:PiCo has joined the article. Kind of wish you had posted on the article talkpage now. --Morenooso (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add some comments/questions to the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am real unsure why he appears bent on disproving or adding fringe theory to St.J's article. The referenced citation to the WP:LEAD section is the latest example of him pushing edits as per the observations above. --Morenooso (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
He is also POV pushing now on Paul of Tarsus. This editor seems to be bent on pushing the buttons on these religious articles. His edit summaries are priceless - not. --Morenooso (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't look like POV pushing to me although I'm puzzled why he removed the attribution of an opinion (According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) to its source. I fully support edits like adding fact tags to things only sourced to a religious primary text as in He was a Roman citizen—a fact that afforded him a somewhat privileged social status with respect to laws, property, and governance.Acts 22:24–29[citation needed]. The Bible isn't an RS for facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Understand the bible is not RS; however, numerous biblical scholars have published articles on the historicity aspect of both Joseph and Paul of Taurus. He is definitely doing Wikipedia:Tendentious editing - too bad that's an essay because he is doing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to a number of articles and seems to be getting away with it. --Morenooso (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the Roman citizen thing is basic Roman history 101. I remember from HS courses that Rome was governed almost like a caste system. The haves and have-nots. Each level of the hierarchy stretching from tsar, senator to Roman citizen all had their benefits. And granted this might be known to all but probably would be garnered from reading a wikilink to Roman culture of that period. He seems to cherry-pick what he wants to edit into articles. --Morenooso (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

oops

Hi, in the few seconds between displaying the history and clicking "rollback", you reverted. So my rollback hit your edit instead. Cheers. Zerotalk 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop spreading hate. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted

Good work on exposing User:Momma's Little Helper. I can't say I'm surprised. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone - new version

You commented recently on some BLP issues concerning Richard Goldstone. I've written a considerably expanded and improved version of the article in my userspace at User:ChrisO/Goldstone. If you have any comments about this new version before it gets transferred into article space, please feel free to comment at Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NoCal100 again?

Check out Powder Hound 3000 (talk · contribs). An obvious sock - I'm guessing NoCal100 again, but I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First edit a revert of Harlan on the obscure article United Nations Security Council Resolution 242... It's hard to tell who it is at this stage, NoCal100 or maybe Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) is back. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

At Talk:Gail Riplinger#Incomplete biography you gave a good response to a question, but I'm not sure why you included a link to what you describe as an "attack site". I have no idea what the link is, but if it really is an attack on the subject of a BLP, perhaps you might remove the link and just say that information from attack sites has been added. No need to reply, I'll leave it to you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. I was just being dumb and not for the first time. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ynet, JPost, Haaretz

are you saying that Israeli sources are unreliable? BTW thanks for those "kind" words advocating sanction against me on the AE board. Despite our differences, I never would have done that to you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, re-read what you wrote about me filing the SPI against MLH and think about it. Maybe you didn't know it was me but that doesn't matter. I'm not kind, I have no remorse whatsoever filing reports like that and I will continue to do so. I am not emotionally or politically engaged in the I-P conflict. I will even help you file SPI's against people you think are sockpuppets of banned anti-Israel users, not because I am kind but because I want the nonsense to stop. I don't care which side people are fighting for. I'm not part of your war in the middle east and I refuse to be repeatedly treated like I am. I strongly object to anyone dragging Wikipedia or any editor into the bullshit covered battlefield of the I-P conflict. Not only that but it is expressively forbidden by the sanctions. I lived in the middle east long enough to know that it's all bullshit, all of it, a complete waste of people's lives. So, please try to understand where I am coming from, you see Israeli's and Palestinians and an important real world conflict, I just see people, a pointless conflict and a set of wiki policies. If you break wiki policy repeatedly I won't hesitate to request that you are sanctioned for it. I don't want you blocked. I just want everyone to stop fighting a war here. It's not personal, it's not about the real world conflict, it's about ensuring that Wikipedia isn't treated like a battlefield. It's just an encyclopedia.
Now, as for Goldstone, I'm trying to stay out of the debate to some extent and I haven't really formed a view on what should or shouldn't be included. My only point was that bulldozing the material back into a BLP without consensus is crazy. It has to stop, admins should do whatever it takes to make it stop and force people to follow policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry didn't know it was u who filed the sock but since u offered, can u help me with this? Remorseful--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that it might be a sockpuppet of a blocked account ? Is his style familiar to you ? I can't do much without a clue about who it might be. The existing SPI isn't enough to do anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sean, regarding Goldstone, you might be interested to know that Jimbo Wales himself has weighed in; he agrees that the material should not be in the article.[4] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I followed that discussion when it took place and added a note at Talk:Richard_Goldstone#WND. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

sean - why did you revert the changes? the unknown IP reverted changes in facts (not opinions) and you are allowing it????? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGO_Monitor&action=history - it is a FACT that this organization became independent years ago, is registered as an independent non-profit, has an official non-profit registration number and is NOTHING of the kind that unknown IP guy wrote. how is this accurate???? help me understand this. thanks. Soosim (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you reverted a lot more than that. Would it be possible for you go through the edit in detail ? I only had a quick look, I'm quite familar with NGO Monitor and it didn't look that bad i.e. not all of the IP's edits needed to be reverted such as the History of NGO Monitor. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)....and maybe try to discuss it with him is something I forget to mention. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid shipment

Hi Sean,

I thought you had logged out already so I didn't try to contact you regarding the International reaction section. I'd like your thoughts on the changes I made and the logic used to edit is that way. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash#International_Reaction_2

Although I removed the specific mentions of government condemnation I added the citizen protests ... since they can simply be reported as having happened and there is less of a concern of editorialization. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm drowning in work and my internet connection keeps cutting out thanks to some countrywide technical problem. :) I'll have a look later. cheers Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be looking forward to less hectic editing in the future :) Although I have a feeling I'll stick with trying to keep the I-P stuff neutral. Its difficult but I feel its important, not only for history, but because when bias starts to creep in it can drastically effect how people view the world and lead to more suffering. So in that regard I guess I'm quite biased against bias :) Zuchinni one (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

You seem to be doing an excellent job "herding the cats" over at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, if you don't me saying so!

I'm going to be less active there for the next few days, but do feel free to ping me if you need "back up" over POV issues, etc.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity the opening a can of tuna trick doesn't work with the endlessly lame I-P conflict POV battles in wikipedia... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maps

No, I'm flattered that anyone would think it was wise. I actually thought I was kind of a jerk in my last post there. But that's probably when I do my best work around here. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Sean! As per my most recent edit HERE I think it may be time for a Third Opinion. I would very much appreciate your thoughts

--Zuchinni one (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Slain?

I had the same thoughts and put them here User_talk:Poshycat#Gaza_aid_shipment

It might also be good to get some consistency in the Lead on "Pro-Palestinian", "Activists", "Passengers", "People" as discussed here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F, but I'm trying to limit my edits to very minor wording clarifications. What do you think cat herder?

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why so many people insist on filling wiki up with drama. It's very silly. Things are changing so fast in the article it's difficult to keep up so I'm mostly staying out of it + I'm supposed to be doing other things... :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thougts / advice?

Hi Sean could you please give me your thoughts on this:

User_talk:Zuchinni_one#Request_for_Comment_on_naming_convention_.22Activist.22_v_.22Passenger_.2F_People.22_and_the_term_.22Pro-Palestinian.22 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Accidentally reverted your unarchive

I thought I had forgotten to archive it, afterwards saw you had reverted it. If you still think that it should be unarchived, revert me and remove content from the archive. Sorry for the edit conflict 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Threatening to remove constructive talk page comments is not conducive to discussing improvements to the article. It also isn't relevant to this article and so should have gone on my talk page. In this case, My "opinion" is an observation and relevant to the development of the section on the Human Rights Council. I'm telling you now - if you delete my comments you will find yourself subject to being blocked for disruption. I suggest you use the articles talk page to focus on the article at hand and refrain from making threats aimed at discouraging participation. Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is conducive to having constructive discussions focused on improvements to the article, that is why we have WP:TALK and that is why I will delete your comments if they do not comply with WP:TALK. You are welcome to take whatever action you think is appropriate. Editor's personal opinions about the real world are not relevant and they have no place on the talk page. In fact they're disruptive. They are, in my experience, the most disruptive aspect of editor behavior in articles within scope of the discretionary sanctions. It's editors not complying with WP:TALK that produces an environment which is not conducive to discussing improvements to the article. It produces a battlefield. Editors must stick to article content discussions based of information from reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Also, editors cannot construct a narrative in the article based on synthesised personal models of the world. For example, your personal views about the significance of bias within the UNHRC has no bearing on article content whatsoever. You are not an RS that directly connects the UNHRC statements to the raid to evidence of bias in the council. Information must come from RS not wiki editor's world views. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, Rklawton cant block you for removing his comments, though he could request another admin do so. If he were to block you he could find himself desysoped. See WP:INVOLVED. nableezy - 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy - I'm well familiar with the rules - and that's why I didn't say I'd block him. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It was a note for Sean, who may have felt that the quote "you will find yourself subject to being blocked" coming from an admin that he is involved in a dispute with was a threat by that admin to use the tools. I have no doubt you are aware of the rules, and my message was not meant to question your understanding of those rules. Just letting Sean know that he need not feel threatened by those words. nableezy - 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland: Admins take a very dim view of editors who attempt to disrupt article work with threats, and a pattern of such disruption reported to AN/I could easily result in a final warning or outright block. I'm well familiar with WP:TALK, its application, and its limits. Comments on talk pages aren't subject to the same rules as on article pages. I don't need a reliable source to express an opinion or suggest an article direction based on my own analysis - whereas these activities would count as OR and SYNTH and would be not at all useful on mainspace, they're key to article development on its discussion page. This is why we give very wide latitude to talk pages. Another editor has also to you this as well, so you've got two opinions. If you have a mentor, I suggest you check with him or her, too. Personally, I suggest you'll be wise to loosen up, learn from this, and stop making threats. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
While presumably intended to be helpful, your comment isn't helpful at all, either for me or the project. Perhaps you didn't notice the other editors in the thread sharing my concerns about misuse of the talk page. What would be more helpful would be for you to not join in with the misuse of the talk page as a forum and not voice your personal opinions and personal analysis of the real world on the talk page, help discourage editors from disrupting RS/policy based article content focused discussions by treating the talk page like a forum/battlefield and help to enforce the 1RR restriction and mandatory compliance with the discretionary sanctions. Those are things I expect you to do as an admin. You are welcome to your opinions about what admins take a dim view of, ludicrous mischaracterizations like 'attempt to disrupt article work with threats', inability to distinguish between constructive and disruptive editor behavior on talk pages (especially when it comes to articles about the Israel-Palestine conflict) and misplaced faith in the opinion of a 'another editor' who you evidently know nothing about. I don't share your views, I don't consider them to have any validity, I'm an experienced editor with an entirely clean editing record and I'm not intimidated by words like admin and AN/I. I shall continue to do what I do in the interests of the project, reminding editors of their obligations to not disrupt discussions with their personal opinions about the real world whenever I have time, reminding them to make policy based arguments, reminding them that compliance with the discretionary sanctions is mandatory and I won't hesitate to remove comments if editors repeatedly fail to follow policy/guidelines and disrupt policy based discussions. I'm fully prepared to take the consequences and argue my case at AN/I or anywhere else. It would be a valuable test case for editor behavior in discussions for articles covered by the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NIF Controversy

HI Sean, you wrote that i should've used 'secondary sources' instead of the primary ones i did use. is this article sufficient? [nif vs ngo monitor] and if so, i will incorporate links to the primary as reference and the secondary as the source. thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well that's a blog so it's not ideal but I noticed that NGO Monitor vs NIF things are covered already a bit in the article but in what looks like a slightly disorganized way as the publication dates look oddly mismatched. Maybe it needs reorganizing. As for the more recent NGO Monitor criticism I was thinking that it was probably covered in a news article by Jpost/Haaretz/Ynet, someone like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way

Could you do me the courtesy of checking that anon I/P edit at the page I created and wrote but cannot edit, Nafez Assaily, Sean? The lead edit certainly looks like mockery or vandalism, and I cannot alter it of course, given my ban. Sorry to ask, but I don't think many editors, if any, would have that on their watch list. Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not a helpful edit. I've reverted and I've added it to my watchlist. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the bother, and thanks.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

Clarity

Jiujitsuguy/Nableezy, I need to know what is happening with respect to discussions with the oversight team and/or admin Chzz. Please email me (separately and anonymously) if you would prefer (and I will reply separately). I assume you know what I'm talking about. I am growing increasingly concerned that there needs to be clarity about what, if anything, needs to be done to ensure that wiki policies are being followed. Without clarity I feel obliged to pursue this matter myself with the oversight team. I am particularly concerned about a web site I won't name created by 3 people I won't name. It isn't something I can just ignore. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent an email to the functionaries list, no response as of yet, I have no other contact with Chzz or anybody else. But I would like to know what website you speak of. nableezy - 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the site by itself doesn't contain any personal information, so on that basis, here it is. I can't post what led me to be concerned about this site. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note: The call of people to start editing in an attempt to prevent what could be considered disruption and fallacies is not inherently wrong but asking it in a way that promotes a covert gaming style is. That link has a call to action which should have been worded much differently and reminded editors about neutrality and talk pages. I assume that write up alone could lead to a severe reprimand.
That pales in comparison to Nableezy outing another editor on another forum off Wikipedia. Some people may not have been clever enough to figure it out and it wasn't Nableezy's place to put the other editor at risk of harassment or even bodily harm. That was a terrible decision and/or lapse of judgment.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
uggh. nableezy - 05:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Check your email--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
@Cptnono, I'm not really interested in the moral rights and wrongs. That sounds bad but I'm a regular sociopathic bastard in that respect. People can do what they like and take the consequences as far as I'm concerned. I know what you are referring to on nableezy's part but for my part this all started back in sept 2009, concerns were already raised ages ago, it wasn't by nableezy and I've made it my business to follow this issue and related ones ever since (on both sides of the conflict). I don't need help to figure anything out and if it's not me it will be someone else who perhaps isn't as disinterested-as-a-result-being-a-sociopathic bastard e.g. EI. For interest, it wasn't actually what you are probably thinking of that made me raise this now. I had already let that go. It was a new sculpture by Anish Kapoor...it's a long story. I'm just looking of clarity and trying to avoid yet more drama here. My only concern is article content, not people. That sounds bad again but unfortunately it's true. I choose not to edit anonymously which constrains what articles I can work on because of the very real potential of serious real world problems for me but it also neatly avoids COI issues. I respect people's right to edit anonymously although I don't think they should have that right personally. I would really rather not get involved in this particular issue and I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what is the best course of action. It's something that I think people should resolve themselves with the oversight team proactively. My problem is the inevitable lack of transparency on these issues leaving me unsure as to whether there really is or isn't a problem wiki-wise that I need to be concerned about. I'm not planning to do anything right now because I don't want to make matters worse, there's no rush and I'm not entirely convinced there is an issue yet or at least an issue that I want follow up personally.
@Jiujitsuguy, got it, thanks. Will get back to you but it won't be for a while as I have non-wiki stuff to be getting on with. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies then dude. Maybe I am just venting too much.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check your email--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So, uhh, you send anything to the functionaries list about this? nableezy - 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still thinking about it. Communications have left me unconvinced that it's necessary. I may contact an admin directly for advice on a no name basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

help

Need your help, mate. Progressive download article is a total garbage, actually the term refers to MPEG-4_Part_12#Streaming. How to burn the garbage and create the correct redirect? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong ? Everything seems to point at ISO base media file format rather than MPEG-4 Part 12.

  • Progressive download (redirect page) (links)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISO base media file format (redirect page) (links)
  • MPEG-4 Part 12 (redirect page) (links)
  • ISO/IEC 15444-12 (redirect page) (links)
  • ISO/IEC 14496-12 (redirect page) (links)
  • Progressive playback (redirect page) (links)

If all roads leading to ISO base media file format is correct then Progressive download -> ISO_base_media_file_format#Streaming would be okay wouldn't it i.e. to avoid a double redirect. I could be talking rubbish of course and not for the first time. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran#RFC

Your comments at Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran#RFC would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

An editor who claims that he merely thinks it's POV without basing it on any facts is not a basis for discussion. I am telling him these are facts, he tells me "no it isn't". Wikipedia is not the argument clinic. If anyone has a reliable source to prove that the section is biased then, by all means, tag it. Otherwise, the tag goes as it is POV by itself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the article talk page rather than here. The issue won't be resolved here by us. I tagged the section. I tagged it for a reason. The reason is on the talk page. I have no interest in what wiki editors, including me, think are facts. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions which are intended to help everyone avoid pointless discussions based on personal views abouit the real world. If you haven't read them please do so. There is a link at the top of the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The section is based on reliable sources. Where are those sources when it comes to tagging the section? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why I tagged the section. NPOV compliance is mandatory.

I've tagged the Allegations of bias in human rights organizations section with a POV-section. The section does not appear to comply with WP:NPOV. Responses to the allegations of bias are required to improve compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That was followed by Dailycare's comment.

In fact, it's not clear to me what this section is doing in this article to begin with? --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

These issues have not been resolved. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment falls under the same category: empty complaint with no source, hence editorial POV. Find adequate responses instead of labeling unrelated tags. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human rights in Israel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, please collaborate on the article talk page and work with other editors or walk away from the article. Thank for the template but I can assure you that I'm very familiar with wiki policies and what is expected of editors working on articles covered by the discretionary sanctions. You might want to read WP:DTTR for future reference. You can't unilaterally declare that there isn't a NPOV compliance problem when an issue has been raised in good faith and other editors hold the same view. That isn't reasonable behavior. The policy compliant approach is to leave the tag in place, make your case on the talk page and help to resolve the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"...or walk away from the article" – how civil and generous of you. As for the template... sorry, kind of a reflex in these situations (and you were indeed in borderline violation of 3RR). Well, it seems like we are having a deaf people's dialogue here, since I have repeatedly explained that claims of NPOV violations must be on a solid basis, proven by presenting specific points and how they were violated. You want to counter the claims presented in the section? Find legitimate reliable sources and include them. Otherwise, remove that bleeding-heart anti-Zionist implying tag. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"...or walk away from the article" is from the discretionary sanctions, here. Settle down now, I'm not a combatant so you don't need to treat me like one. No, I do not want to counter the claims made in the section right now. I would like people to have a reasoned, rational discussion about what to do to improve policy compliance on the talk page first. At the moment the section presents one side on an issue that has more than one side. That is an NPOV violation. Something needs to be done. These things are obvious, no ? I should say that I almost never tag articles with NPOV non-compliance tags so I'm not doing it just to annoy you or for fun. In the meantime the tag is meant to be there to point people to the talk page discussion. For example, do we need to balance the claims or do we need to move the information from that section into the appropriate articles that deal with perceived bias against Israel and point people at those or summarise those ? Or perhaps we need to remove the information about human rights in places that are not in Israel (i.e. not on the Israeli side of the green line) out of an article about human rights in Israel and put them in a more appropriate place? Or perhaps we need to rename the article so that the title of the article matchs the scope of the article ? There are lots of options and no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There are no two sides to this specific issue, as it deals solely with allegations of bias against Israel when it comes to reporting human rights issues. What is the other side? Bias against Palestinians? Hamas? Proof of lack of bias? No one has found anything so far; in fact, no one has done anything so far aside from trying to cram words into the discussion so that the section would be removed. I was actually the only one who found a source to save one claim that was repeatedly removed (which took me the exact time of typing the keywords into Google), what could this possibly say about the nature of editors involved? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the other side ? Well, the other side would be the organizations accused of bias and their supporters responding to the accusations of bias. Organizations are accused of bias all the time about all sorts of things. All of these accusations and responses should be covered elsewhere in wikipedia so repeating them seems like a waste of time at least to me. Things about Amnesty should be in articles about Amnesty for example (and already are to some extent). Regarding "what could this possibly say about the nature of editors involved ?" I don't know, that they're using the wrong hair care products, that they slept through their 'using Wikipedia as a battleground' training sessions ? I struggle to see why I'm meant to give a fuck about musings on the nature of editors. I suggest you stick to discussing the content on the article's talk page not here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_2&oldid=1143294673"