User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

deleting comments

don't delete other people's comments (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:NOTAFORUM and comment constructively about ways to improve the article. TFOWR 22:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Other people's comments were policy compliant. Your comment was not. Your comment was removed and their comments have been retained. So, this is about you. See WP:TALK and try to make comments that help everyone build a policy compliant encyclopedia rather than start fires. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Smotl. - thank you!

Hi, Sean.h
And there was I, Googling for "Smotley + mycologist", "Smotleworth + mycologist" and so on. Thanks indeed!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Smotleworth ? That's marvelous. Reminds me of something out of Ripping Yarns Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
How uncanny! Our School Bully was a chap by the name of "Smotlethwaite"... --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Lame arguments are the most interesting. I just got my first vulgar insult ("racist cunt") over at the great french fries/chips debate. But the republican debate isn't much of an issue in Canada. I wouldn't even know how most of my friends and family would vote if we had a referendum. The common wisdom is that our national identity is based on distinguishing ourselves from Americans and the monarchy helps us do that. I think that most Canadians also realize that having an Irish or Israeli style president wouldn't be much of an improvement. We've also had difficult experiences with our constitution in the last 30 years. It is very difficult to amend and hard to open up discussions on one part without dealing with the Quebec issue at the same time. But I have run into one or two very passionate Canadian monarchists on Wikipedia. I argued with one at the Name of Canada article a few years ago. He was very convinced that the official name of Canada was the "Dominion of Canada" rather than "dominion" being a mere title. I only got involved because I happened to own a constitutional law text that had been mentioned but nobody else had access to. It seemed like a heated argument at the time but I've since learned that Canadian article debates are much more genteel than I/P ones. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Christ, that quotation marks debate is too boring to follow. A quibble over a minor thing is just pointless. Lame arguments are really only interesting when the users take things too personally and show ridiculous misplaced passion like the chips guy. In fairness to him, he believes that french fries is a term used in the UK but only in American fast food outlets. His rage is really against the notion that chips and fries be categorized together in the same article. The funny thing is that the chips people kept the same infobox image, a dish of German Pommes frites. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Holocaust listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaza Holocaust. Since you had some involvement with the Gaza Holocaust redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

J Street

Maybe you missed this: "The head of the liberal-leaning pro-Israel group J Street says the A-D-L is giving in to fear-mongerers"--Epeefleche (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did and that is precisely why I shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Reverted. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As always, my friend, a pleasure doing business with you. How have you been?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, as usual, I've not been editing any of the articles that are on my to do list. This is one of the curses of Wikipedia but since I was planning to write something about pollinator partitioning in Quisqualis indica it probably won't be missed. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look at that. BTW -- tx for your good work deleting unattributed labels. I think they do little good, and some harm, and we're always better sticking to the RSs on that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


The article might be too long. Could be a great FA nomination if you ask me. Maybe you can look into it if you have some spare time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Too busy working on the Israeli targeted killings article, a very effective policy that protects Israel and its citizens by removing people who are carrying out attacks or who are intending to commit attacks against Israel. It's quite a popular policy with many editors here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror has better chances for DYK, some articles do continue to insist on infantile behavior. Per pesky editors opinions, they work in Weizmann Institute of Science on technology to allow "foiling" with small fully automated birds of prey, (a.k.a. UCAV) which attack according to Fourier transform algorithm for unhappy brain thoughts pattern identification. So Utopia is near by, we're all going to be happy as hell, really soon. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirected page

How does one re-redirect a page to its original name, when an editor has redirected it without any consensus? Thank you.RS101 (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't. That is the road to edit wars and Israel-Palestine proxy wars on Wikipedia. It's better to start a discussion in the appropriate place. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Even when the redirection was done improperly w/o any consensus? I wou;l also hope that you reprimand nableezy for his (habit?) push -on various pages- for editwar.RS101 (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Sean and Nableezy are buddies. You are barking up the wrong tree. Try the talk page of the article in question.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You're assuming that I bothered to look at the details. I saw you template a regular, nableezy, for some reason that I didn't look into. I also looked for the redirect that you might be talking about and found Racism in Palestine (Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population) based on this message you left on wikifan and shuki's pages and saw that it had been redirected by Chesdovi. I wasn't sure that was what you meant so I left generic advice. People can't edit war by themselves and admins are quite rightly dealing with it increasingly aggressively in the I-P conflict area. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Shriya Saran

I'm guessing this name change was a little mistake? Someone else had changed it to that, previously, so I'm guessing you accidentally brought it back in from an old version. I've removed the altered name [1], as I can't see any reason for it; it that is wrong, do let me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a little mistake. That was a transparently idiotic and careless piece of editing by me where I tried to fix something several times and still managed to fail. Thanks for mopping up after me. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, no bother at all, I'm sure I've done much worse within the past few days (I seem to remember warning someone for removing some horrible language); good job it's a wiki. I think you'd have to do much 'better' to end up in the stocks! Thanks for being so nice about it,  Chzz  ►  08:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I see scintillating scotoma when I have an acephalgic migraine. The patterns seem very clear but they aren't really there.

Hope that's metaphorical, and not personal. If the latter, the symptom never shows in your lucid and ludic editing. Just on the technical side of these fascinating neurological phenomena, on clear pattern detection that however fishes up something that isn't there, look at apophenia, unless you already are familiar with it. I thought of it while reading Slavoj Žižek's The parallax view, this morning. Cheers, or a bock, or whatever is required to keep sane in this lunatic asylum of headhunters. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not metaphorical. I started having acephalgic migraines about 10 years ago. They're usually months apart. I would recommend them. They're astonishing and pain free. Unfortunately they have never progressed to something useful like a full epileptic seizure that would allow me to report for duty as a shaman with the Hmong. I've not heard of apophenia so thanks for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

banned Koran

Hi, I saw your revert on Wilders and if you are interested in discussing this issue I have opened a discussion on the talkpage, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was nice of you because I probably would have missed the discussion as I really only have the page watchlisted as it's a bit of a BLP violation/POV pushing magnet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War lede

Sean your input would be welcome at the discussion concerning the lede of the Gaza War article where people like yourself and Cptnono have helped to bring stability. I believe we are very close to a stable lede and from there we can build a stable article which may one day be GA or even more.... Bjmullan (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The artist

What do you think, another one or not? Compare the edits here with a known NoCal sock's edits here. nableezy - 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, it's not clear. Sock or not they are here to advocate and are apparently not shy about saying things that are patently untrue so my AGF expired a while ago. It's got to be a pretty safe bet that there is a NoCal sock amongst others around though. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there are 2 right now, but I am getting more and more sure about this one. nableezy - 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:J Street Funding

Thanks muchly. I have learned quite a bit about how to frame the Wikipedia process, and how to think about it, just from a few short calming posts of yours. You have a lovely touch. M.boli (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The pedant in me is tempted to provide extensive evidence that demonstrates how your opinion has been caused by sampling errors but I'll try to accept it with grace, whatever that is, I assume it involves not arguing. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Shriya Saran

how to do that please help, i'm confused bro...please (Pravinraj (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

See the EXIF article for some background info. Do you still have the original photo exactly as it came off the camera ? If so, assuming you are using Windows, just right click the image, go to Properties and then Details and you will see all sorts of information including information about the camera used to take the photo. That is the data people want to see to convince them that you took the photo. All of that information is missing from the jpgs that you have uploaded. I don't know what application you use to crop/change photos but normally when you save an updated jpg there is an option/advanced option to save the EXIF data with the image. It will probably be in the same place where you specify things like smoothing, DCT method, subsampling, whether to save a thumbnail etc. You just need to make sure that you chose the option to retain the EXIF data and re-upload the photo with the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

yes i have the details , so you want me to reupload the image with the details. so can i have the template please.

Yes but you don't need a template. As long as the EXIF data is present you can just use the 'Upload a new version of this file' and Wikipedia will find the EXIF data in the image itself and display it on the inage page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that you uploaded a new version but the EXIF data is still missing. When the EXIF data is present you will see a metadata section at the bottom of the page like in -> File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg. How about if you just upload the orginal file without any alteration to a new file name so that it has the EXIF data and then reference that file as your source in File:Shriya Saran.jpg ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Giora Eiland

..ah, I'm not alone either. Good. Thanks for the source.  ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found it funny that all mighty MFA source is using Wikipedia as source for Eiland's image. Don't they know that Wiki is not a reliable source. Go figure it ;). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That is interesting. hmmm, I wonder if I upload a Wosene Worke Kosrof painting they might use that one somewhere... That would be nice. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Jasper Johns, colored alphabet, $3.5 million in 1989 at Christie's in New York. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Plagiarism is sometimes an art, sometimes and sometimes just a tribute plagiarism... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Intifada and Gaza War

Hello. Concerning your revert of Mikrobølgeovn here, please refer to the following:

These sources were found with little difficulty and there are many more. In light of the foregoing, please re-consider your revert of Mikrobolgeovn.

Also, in connection with this revert, I put a lot of effort into that section. It would have been nice if you would have discussed it on the Talk page before erasing it. It was one of the least controversial sections of the entire article, was short, concise and packed with very informative data. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Isseroff is an expert in animal behavior who happens to generate a lot of self published material on various sites about all sorts of subjects. There's no reason to regard it as reliable as far as I'm concerned. If there are better sources that could be found with little difficulty then Mikrobolgeovn should have used those in the first place and his material wouldn't have been removed. If you want to replace it with properly sourced material go for it. As for the Sudan strike material, that was really just a small part of the ongoing effort to reduce the size of the Gaza War article i.e. moving material to the main articles where possible. Since the details were covered in the main article I didn't think it was a big deal to remove that material. Put it back if you like but I don't think it's necessary given that the link is there. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm a Hoyland, too!

Hey. I'm a Hoyland, too! It's definitely not a common name, and I certainly don't meet other ones all that often. I see that you're living in Thailand. If it's not too nosy, where are you originally from?

Sam Squandermania (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sam, yes it's not that common a name. I'm from the south of England originally but my dad's side of the family were from Sheffield. I think Hoyland is much more common there. I assume it's from the Norse "Høyland" or something similar i.e. Viking settlers. I've not looked into its history although for my part I do have a tendency to invade other people's countries uninvited and very much enjoy carrying a spear in my garden as often as I can. How about you ? British or American ? 07:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shriya Saran

Hi !

I saw that you were somewhat involved regarding potential copyright issues with Shriya Saran's pictures in WM/WP. Do you know what's the status with current picture? If that finally is a legitimate one without copyright concerns it should be moved to Commons.

regards --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything on the site that the imnage came from to say that it is CC-BY-3.0 so I think this story is set to run and run unfortunately. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Am trying to engage in discussion and debate. He wont reply and I believe is a sockpuppet. Can you assist. Doesnt reply to notes wont respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First the edit warring has to stop. WP:3RR is a bright line rule meaning, you break it, you can be blocked. Both of you have already broken it. Start a discussion on the article talk page in a new section with the content you want added explaining why and including the sources you want to use. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) has engaged in vandalism and libel on the RP page, posting what appear to be very prejudiced items (all instances were removed by myself along with several other users and she/he was warned). I apologize for the brief edit war, but I do believe my changes were protected under Wiki's guidelines regarding the removal of libel and contentious material. I appreciate your concern and assistance here, Sean. Thanks. - Photocredit (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Photocredit is a sockpuppet has never used Wiki before and simply doesnt observe fact. Is a $33Million dollar building not relevant for a religious figure ? Countless articles cite a supposed death curse. why wouldnt that be on the page ? He doesnt reply to requests for comment or on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

...and here is the 3RR report. If you have evidence that Photocredit is a sockpuppet file a report at WP:SPI. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, and your no admin. You joke of a person. I would also like to add that I did not remove anything, merely reverted your blanking, and with a reliable source, its not showing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

This made me smile. Thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the better question

is can third parties report violations? Can the parties agree to not report violations and if so what happens? Would that nullify the ban? I doubt such a thing would happen in such cases, but I wouldnt mind knowing, if only to make serious people think about such silly things. nableezy - 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be ruled out by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans at least in the sense that it's absent. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Could you send me the link? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not. If at some point there were an active Arbitration Enforcement request or something like that and the material became pertinent to the case it would be different but right now I don't think the material is necessary for anything on-wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It might be something for an enforcement, that's why I would like to see it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


You have. Learn to write from Yoda I did. nableezy - 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that, ironically because process language properly I can't. Whadyamean ? Are you suggesting that the articles I write are a pile of crap ? That may be the case but I take the long term view that eventually most readers will be from the China and they will be in awe of my prose. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, email, I see. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. nableezy - 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rules are rules, but you honestly earned...
Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
To the funniest meat puppet ever --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another one. nableezy - 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Had a look and filed report. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Google book is not wp:rs

Dear Sean,
excuse me but this link give 47,000 books that use the words. Tell me which one to use instead of reverting as if it doesn't exist.
Noisetier (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You just need to pick a reliable source from a decent publisher from that search that says something like "Israeli settlements, also known as Jewish settlements", anything like that, anything that allows readers to verify from the source that the terms are interchangeable. See WP:V. You should probably add something to the article body too because things shouldn't just be in the lead without being mentioned in the article body per WP:LEAD. You don't need to leave messages on any talk pages that say things like "instead of reverting as if it doesn't exist" by the way. It's just about policy. It's not about me or you. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Policy. -> WP:1RR. Noisetier (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow what you mean. Are you concerned that if you return the material with a citation you will be violating the 1RR on the article ? You haven't made any reverts, your count is zero and you are allowed one. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No worry : I mean that if you revert me, I make you block (and more if I can).
Jewish settlement : proof you good faith and remove the redirect.
Noisetier (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been editing in the I-P conflict topic area for years. I know what I'm doing. You don't need to warn me about 1RR or assume that I'm acting in bad faith. You just need to cite one of the sources per WP:V policy rather than a google search. I know there are many sources to choose from and I already know there is a redirect Jewish settlement->Israeli settlement. There just needs to be a source in the Israeli settlement article to verify that the term Jewish settlement is also used. If you want to add the material you just need to cite a source and a google search isn't a source in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, please read about the discretionary sanctions here. It's very important that information in articles covered by the sanctions, like the Israeli settlement article, comply with policy and people cite sources properly for things they add. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


You have a history at Amnesty International. So far no editors have managed to include the most recent report, but I believe it might fall under the conditions of my topic restrictions so naturally I cannot touch the actual article. In any case, I believe it is important enough so consider this a simple news update and source 2.

Maybe you can work it into the article when you have the time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Todros Geller

Unfortunately there are no biographies of Todros Geller written by scholars yet. I wish there were. That article is proving very difficult to write so any help would be appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess Irving Cutler book, already used as a source in the article might provide secondary reflection. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
first one sources what interests you. If you remove around the palette, you will find even more info that man. Noisetier (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (spit!)

Thanks for that removal. I presume you have their article on your watch list Bible Believers. Checking external links it's on a lot of talk pages but now only in Archibald Maule Ramsay where I'm happy to leave it. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, their article needs a bit of attention at some point as several of the links seemed to be dead when I checked them. I wasn't planning to remove the links from the talk pages although I would like to. I'll see if I can track down a alternative source for the Archibald Maule Ramsay text as both links cited give me a strong urge to bang my head on the desk repeatedly. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your mind ?

Could you please give your mind about this issue and, if possible and if you consider this appropriate, comment/validate/revert this edit. (See the article history to have a full picture). Thanks. (nb: same demand was made to Supreme Deliciousness). Noisetier (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted and started a discussion on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Sean, Below I will provide my explanations why IMO, as well as in opinion of a few other users the article does not fall uner WP:Synth, and I will appreciate it very much, why in your opinion it does. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation why this article does not violate wp:Synth

wp:Synth states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research"

There's nothing like this in the article. The conclusion was reached not by me and/or any other editors, who edited the articles, but by the sources themselves.

Here are only few examples of the sources used and conclusions they reached

  1. the reviews on book written by the Director of the Center for Israeli Studies at University College London. The book's name is Why Blame Israel?
  2. Book by Norman Podhoretz has exact same wording "blame-Israel-first mentality that by now has become as widespread among Israeli intellectuals as anti-Americanism was in the United States in the days of Vietnam"
  3. a book by Pierluigi Battista questions "a mad blame" of Israel by United Nations, European Union, who blame Israel while completely ignoring what is happening in China and Darfur.
  4. Please see the titles of the external links --Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the way I look at it is that it's a bit like painting. There are millions of possible paintings but we're only allowed to put a frame around notable paintings that actually exist according to reliable sources and write about those ones. We aren't allowed to pick things from a pallete of RS and paint our own paintings or make a collage out of things, put a frame around it and then write about it. I think that is what is happening in this case. There is a painting but it's your painting, it's your vision, you thought of it and you painted it.
Looking at the article and sources I don't think convincing evidence has been presented that there is such a thing as 'Blame Israel (meme)'/'Blame Israel first' and other variations/synonyms of the thing as far as reliable sources go in a well defined, readily identifiable way that reliable sources talk about other subjects like, for example, Honey bees, a formally defined set of certain species, Nuon Chea, a living person, Simberi Island, a place, Evolution, an extremely well documented process etc etc. That's why I think the article itself, the frame of the article is original research, a synthesis of various sources. A kind of collage. An article about a book called Why Blame Israel? (assuming it passed all the notability requirements etc) wouldn't be OR or SYNTH because its a well defined thing and sources would discuss that well defined thing. There wouldn't be any ambiguity about whether a source was talking about Why Blame Israel? or something else. With the 'Blame Israel (meme)' article, the subject and its boundaries, its frame, aren't well defined by definitions that come from reliable sources that describe the subject itself. It's a kind of vaguely defined notion about a tendency of some people to do something. Since it's not a well defined topic, deciding whether a piece of information is relevant or not, whether different sources are talking about the same thing is problematic and involves original research. Editors are forced to make personal judgments about whether a source is relevant based on their own opinion and everyone will use different criteria.
Imagine an article called 'Love Israel'. If it described a well defined thing like an advertising campaign, a film, a novel etc called 'Love Israel' it would be easy to find sources that were about the subject and write an article about it without any OR or SYNTH. But if it were about all of the many ways people 'Love Israel' constructed from various statements people have made about how and why they love Israel, books about how great Israel is, opinion polls etc etc, although it would be easy to find sources, it would require OR and SYNTH to put them all together to write the article and it wouldn't be a well defined encyclopedic topic.
I realise everything I've written probably won't convince you that it's synth. That's okay, we can agree to disagree. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Sean, Thank you for this. It is very nice of you indeed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link [2]. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Surreal Barnstar.png

The Surreal Barnstar
We have had some arguments in the past, and maybe will have some in a feature, but today, Sean, you deserve more that just simple "thank you". I am awarding you with this barnstar for the work you have done on the article that I am sure is not in area of your interests, on the article that might get deleted. I am really touched! Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That was nice of you. It was mainly just me trying to avoid washing up the dishes. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:

See his talk page. He just doesn't get it. He still refuses to discuss on the discussion page before editing. Any suggestions? Boolyme Chat!! 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a new user. It takes time. I think he's acting in good faith most of the time but he isn't very familar with the guidelines and, more importantly, the WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV policies yet especially when it comes to identity issues. All articles that fall within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area broadly construed are covered by discretionary sanctions and WP:1RR (and IP's can be reverted on sight if the edit is contentious under the 1RR restrictions imposed). He can make bold edits but they will just get reverted at some point by someone if they don't comply with policy so I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are many people watching the articles in this topic area. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong and his edits definitely aren't vandalism. He's like a lot of new editors who add things because they seem obvious to them and are surprised to hear that they need sources. I think gentle persuasion might be more likely to work than templates. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I see an admin familiar with the topic area and restrictions has intervened. A block might give him time to read some policies... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


I won't bother with Sol or Unomi. Are you rejecting my proposed change outright? Or are you open to some form of compromise. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed change in its present form is unsourced and it's inconsistent with many sources. If a proposed change is a better reflection of the totality of sources I'll support it. I think it's quite similiar to the 'Jerusalem is the capital but..' situation. It's not easy to summarize these things in a soundbite, stick to policy and keep everyone happy. What I can say is that I don't mind what it says as long as it strictly complies with policy, it's endorsed as a consensus ruling by an uninvolved admin and editors can be confident that they can add it to an article and cite the centralized discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Obama administration referred to the settlements as “illegitimate” but not “illegal.” There’s a world of difference between the two. Moreover, the United States is currently vigorously fighting efforts by the PA and their allies to bring the matter before the SC[3] thus further highlighting rejection of the Carter administration’s position. Also, please read this[4] which, more than anything else, demonstrates the sharp divide on the issue. Since I've always held you in high regard, can you propose a compromise between the existing version and the one I proposed?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather let things take their course in the discussion and see what develops for now. Reliable sources that try to describe this issue in a few sentences (which is all we are trying to do), don't normally single out the US (or the EU or China etc) for special treatment as far as I can tell unless the piece is specifically about that party's position. I'm acutely aware of the ever present risk of wiki-synthesized summary statements that drift away from the summary statements that appear in reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

title terminology

How about

"West Bank (Judaea and Samaria), Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Sinai, and the Golan Heights often referred to as Palestine or the Occupied Territories" as the title --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's catchy but putting the word East in front of Jerusalem could be seen as POV pushing the fringe views of the international community also there is a very real risk that these kind of radical changes will trigger edit warring over the capitalization of the 'T' in Occupied Territories. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Mr. hoyland

I find myself in the midst of a deep wiki-spiritual/moral dilemma and would greatly value your input before I take it to Arbcom/AE. If you would be so kind as drop me a line or contact me telepathically, I would appreciate it. Sol (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As one of the most fair-minded editors I've run into, if you are a sociopathic bastard then I'm not sure what that makes the rest of us. Actually, I am sure, and it rings true :P This is one of the few things that needs off-wiki engagement, just send me an email. Fear not, paranoid-minded watchers, this is not a canvassing attempt or plot, all shall be shortly revealed! Sol (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone has sent you a very special message! BEQUEST FUNDS ON YOUR NAME and $150 Rolex Replica Watches. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I am very disappointed, sean! The email said if I gave you my credit card and bank account numbers then I'd get a free Ipod and a pony instantly but they aren't here! The nerve of some people! Sol (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


If the statement in the caption is sourced with RS, what's the problem?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the use of Wikipedia for the purposes of propaganda, and I use the word in the neutral, academic sense. I don't think you guys even realise you are doing it. The caption is an example of the card stacking/selective omission technique. While the statement is true it only tells one side of the story. I think it's better to stick to neutral facts in these articles, just say what the picture shows and leave the story telling/selective narrative sampling out of it. It's like someone changing the caption of the picture in the Gaza_War#Rocket_attacks_into_Israel of the Israeli kindergarten hit by a rocket to include "About 280 schools and kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were destroyed or damaged by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. See Goldstone report, page 271." That is also true but it would completely change the nature of the picture's caption and the effect of the picture. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see your point. In the spirit of collaborative editing I will remove the portion of the caption that you object to.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein is recognized by most mainstream historians and researchers as an extremist partisan with fringe views that are rejected by most impartial observers. His inclusion as a source in this article tarnishes any shred of credibility this article may have.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a different issue. RSN is there to deal with those issues. I don't have an opinion about it. My only concern was that information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source. I don't know why you would do that but I don't think you would accept it if someone else did it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You're correct. I should not have done that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


moved to article talk page Talk:Organ_theft_in_Kosovo#Video

talk page stalkers barnstar

Prince Rupert - 1st English Civil War.jpg Anti card stacking/selective omission technique Award
Richard Nixon: What is your assessment of the 1789 French Revolution?
Zhou Enlai: It is too early to say...
Sincerely, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ha, ha, thanks and thanks to Jiujitsuguy for his responses. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed both of you guys deserve warm words. It is nice to see how calm discussion process could lead to reasonable content changes. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your question

I have reasons to believe that using humans shields is damaging to reputation (please see WP:OBVIOUS), and if you don't agree, a search in Google[5] clearly shows that people think VERY negatively of the terrible use of human shield.

And [6], a source that was already there, clearly describes the counterattack being outside.

Thank you for your time, (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you don't have a policy based reason to add the reputation statement based on a reliable source. That's fine, I shall revert it again then. Please find a source if you want that statement in the article. The WP:V policy is mandatory. Also, if you have an account please edit logged in. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you believe using human shields is not a bad thing, I guess I must have over estimated my beliefs. I guess you're right, but don't blame me, I lived my whole life in a society where everyone believes with certainty human shields is a immoral tactic, and I never meet one person who would not seriously condemn the use of human shields until I see you in different culture. Sorry about citing WP:OBVIOUS, I didn't understand that the use of human shields was not obviously scandalous as I had thought. (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It contains information published by reliable sources. It has a set of rules that editors must comply with. You didn't comply with them so your edit was reverted. It's as simple as that. I could try to explain to you how monumentally fucking idiotic and offensive it is for you to assume that my edits contain information about my beliefs but it's not important. What is important is that you follow Wikipedia's policies in future. It's not difficult. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


It probably wouldn't do any good if you saw his edit comments he's accusing me of trolling without any evidence as a means to brush aside the perfectly sourced edits I introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#U.S._Army_Combined_Arms_Center_Combat_Studies_Institute_report if you would like to. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brahma Kumari pages

Brother, please help me move references from Brahma Kumaris page to Radha page not remove edits. Thank you.

We give accurate knowledge of who Krishna and Radhe is every cycle.

Please read this book.

If you want to take Knowledge, say where you live and I give you nearest branch of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University to take basic knowledge.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Januarythe18th (talkcontribs) 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC) 

obsessive need to pipe

Some people think that soccer doesn't need a pipe because it is already has a redirect! Stay well, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The things people say in discussions is one of my favourite things about Wikipedia. I don't know if you saw any of this guy's contributions but his slightly baffling hatred of 'Reporters without borders' and his vitriolic attacks against editors are really amazing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the self revert by the way. Since you are interested in radar based digitial terrain mapping you might enjoy this deformation map for the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ. When I was a student staring at satellite and aerial photos, crossing my eyes to overlay the images to make them 3D, this kind of InSAR remote sensing technology was the stuff of Star Trek. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I always loved Star Trek, though moved to Dune as got older, maybe that's why I accept Steve Job's marketing about magic nature of their technology. After all IPad 2 is so Beam me up, Scotty. I always appreciate your insight, also when we don't agree. Maybe you can share your thoughts here, if you feel like it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png

The Barnstar of Diligence
For all the good work you keep doing! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks Carol. Finally, someone recognized that I created a Category:Presidents of the American Mathematical Society category, added people to it using AutoWikiBrowser for the first time and managed to not break anything. Or maybe it was something else. Either way, thanks. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for tip on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser - I may want to go a-categorizing myself one day. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

criticism vs reaction

hi sean.hoyland - so help me understand why most of the pages have a 'criticism' section and not a 'reaction' or 'reception' section? should i go through and start changing them? thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections dedicated to criticism are generally discouraged. These may help, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRIT. The CRIT essay is quite a nice guide. Well, it's up to you what you decide to do but these sections have to comply with NPOV just like everything else so they need to include both criticism/responses/praise where available for balance inline with WP:DUE i.e. they just need to reflect/summarize the coverage by reliable sources without neglecting or over emphasizing certain aspects or creating a false balance. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Guardian political position

Yes. Although that 2004 article decribed the paper as "centre-left", this isn't exactly acurate. Centre-left is a more definitave political categorisation than say, "left-of-centre" or "left-wing" as it refers specifically to soft left political ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy. The Guardian however, tends to feature opinion and analysis from a broad range on the left of the political spectrum. From the centre-left with people like Timothy Garton Ash and Polly Toynbee, to the hard left with people like George Monbiot, Naomi Klein and John Pilger. Thus, I felt Left-wing was a more acurate description of the paper's stance as it reflects this broad range of opinion, where as centre-left is somewhat narrow. Cheers.

Teknolyze (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able and willing to make a policy based case for that change using reliable sources so that it complies with WP:V if I move this to the article's talk page ? It's probably been discussed before and at the moment "left wing" doesn't comply with WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How about just changing "political position" to "wrong"? nableezy - 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There's probably something on China Internet Information Center's site that could be used to support that or maybe just cite CAMERA. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To Sean.hoyland - Yes, although not at the current momment as that will probably take some time which I don't have a lot of right now. In the meantime I'll leave the political position at centre-left untill I can provide those sources.

To Nableesky - Go spam someplace else.

Teknolyze (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference grouping

Thanks for subsuming the five references in the Itamar killings lead under one endnote superscript. It's strange that WP:REFNAME doesn't mention it's possible to do that.—Biosketch (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, undocumented feature. It seemed a shame to throw the refs away. You can add images/summary statements/descriptions too e.g. [1]

  1. ^ Bad Title Example.png - A summary statement.............

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

right on

awesome comment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have made comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I've made comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and would like for you to review them at your leisure. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly poor judgment

At the Discussion page for Rujm el-Hiri last night I paraphrased you out of context.[7] I think now it might have been poor judgment on my part to do that, certainly without obtaining your approval beforehand or at least alerting you to the incident. If asked to, I'll strikeout the text and tell User:AgadaUrbanit to do the same, with an accompanying explanation to the other parties involved.—Biosketch (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. On rare occasions what I say makes some sense. It's a bit like this women with Tourette's. In amongst all the swear words she sometimes says "biscuit". Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Cake or biscuit?. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Cake is a "food" in the UK and therefore zero-rated for value added tax ? I did not know that. I'm curious whether fig rolls are taxed... Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The rolls are not covered with chocolate, so not sure the distinction is still valid, but the test would be if it goes soft when stall. And there is also Sun poll if things start to get really ugly. AgadaUrbanit (talk)
Okay, I'm relieved it wasn't a problem. Actually, I'm not sure I'd have been as forgiving were the roles reversed....—Biosketch (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian pictures

I explained myself on the talk page.

Pictures with captions that can't be verified are no good. If I put up a picture of Einstein eating ice cream and put on a caption of "Einstein was lactose intolerant" that picture would need to be removed.

If the Einstein article already had buku pictures, that is even more reason to take it down.

Lets not forget that many Palestinians have slow internet connections.

Don't start a mindless revert campaign. I'm taking off those pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

By reverting your edit I demonstrated that I disagree with it. By repeating your edit you would be edit warring. Removing 2 featured pictures that come from the Library of Congress' American Colony (Jerusalem)/Matson Collection isn't constructive editing. I've amended the captions to match the sources. I think the article also benefits from a photograph from the Balata Camp in the Refugees section given that internal displacement is a central aspect of life of a great many Palestinians. If you can find a better image to illustrate internal displacement from the free photos people have donated or somewhere on the web you should suggest one. Maybe you would prefer this image by Marius Arnesen. The picture of the coffee house is perhaps a different matter. It says it's by Pierotti and that it was taken in Jerusalem. It does look like his work but I don't know the source of that particular photo. It may be from "Customs And Traditions Of Palestine" or another of his publications based on his work in and around Jerusalem. If you have concerns about it you should do some research and follow it up on commons to help the project.
I saw your comment on the talk page. Judging from your actions, your childish sarcastic comment "I'm gonna leave Arafat with the girl, thats adorable" and your bizarre "Don't start a mindless revert campaign. I'm taking off those pictures." threat, I don't have a reason to believe that you are acting in good faith and trying to improve the content of the article or are motivated by a desire to assist Palestinians who have slow internet connections. It's also very odd that you think I would care about such things. I think what is far more likely is that you regard Wikipedia as a battlefield and have difficulty making rational constructive content related decisions on matters related to Palestinians. It's a common problem in Wikipedia and it's why I have the article watchlisted. It's also possible that you are user who has already been blocked for their inability to comply with the rules of the project. If that is the case you should stop editing. The only people who should be editing articles covered by the discretionary sanctions are those who "aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict". If that doesn't include you I would advise you to edit in other topic areas where it may be easier for you to be constructive and objective. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great reply! I'm trying to be constructive and lead the reader to a "broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties." The Pally people article is a minefield of politicially charged statements. The pictures are mostly emotional appeals, like the one you linked to in your comment.

We don't need to show a picture of a family in Ramallah. This article is only peripherally related to Ottomans. It is politicized because it supports the assertion that "Palestinian" was an endonym at that time. The article doesn't support that. The coffee house picture is equally leading.

The bedoin woman is no longer labelled "Palestinian." So what is she doing there?

I was just trying to be funny about the Arafat pic, which I think is appropriate on a talk page. Don't you see a problem with representing a known terrorist as a kind, grandfatherly figure? So many of the pictures (and part of my point is that the article has far more pics than is normal on wiki) are appealing to the reader's heart.

I'm trying to make a neutral article. Palestine and its inhabitants is something I am knowledgable about. I don't push my bias onto the article.

I'm gonna keep removing the pictures unless the talk page makes it clear that people think these images make our article more encyclopedic. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)