User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sean.hoyland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hey Sean, thanks for your question. Of course I won't get offended or anything; we are all here to talk and educate and create something meaningful. Well, at least we try to... Quite the story about Iran there.. I can't believe how an entirely different country it was before the revolution there. I really think that set them back 50 years. But then again, that is my western bias speaking..

Regarding your question, I agree that images should be part of the encyclopedia, and that they should include an aspect of the horror that is no doubt inflicted on both sides of the conflict. My problem with this notion is that there's a fine line between images posted for educational purposes, and those posted in order to affect public opinion. Noting the often-biased editing in this article (as I see it), I'm vigilant as to the use that I suspect is actually made by this visual medium. Being an encyclo, our target audience is the naive reader, who is supposed to gain an objective understanding of this conflict, and then make up his mind according to his personal values. Since images are very powerful elicitors of emotion, and emotion begets opinion in many times, I really think we should be extra careful when posting graphic pictures in such a sensitive article.

One more note: there is also a difference in cultures in this case. The Arab culture is much more inclined to use graphic pictures, and it seems that Hamas is capitalizing on that for its PR, while the western culture (Israel included, of course) will never show this type of imagery. As such, it will be difficult to balance things, and I think that things should be relatively balanced, otherwise we might be inadvertently and implicitly implying culpability of one side.
What do you think? Rabend (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Generally speaking I don't like cats on account of them being psychopathic predators who wreck havoc. Despite that, I adopted a local street cat. It vanished a couple of days after both the cat and I saw a 2m python in the garden which we both lost track of. Yes, it is surprisingly easy to lose track of a large-ish snake so be warned. I assume the snake ate the cat. Such is life."
Funniest thing I have read in a while, and I also suffer from finding almost anything funny, and it has been to my detriment more than a few times. Peace and happiness Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For keeping an eye on the ant hill. Shyamal (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

sean - it was easy to see your meaning - unless you're being intentionally dense. (not you, them) while i appreciate your faith in me, i'll only consider subbing for you if the price is right. say, 2 weeks of laundry and a foot massage?  ;>) Untwirl (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could admire the single minded persistence as an example of how to get ones way, sort of like a child, but not as an 'editor of an encyclopedia'. I see that stuff as the biggest problem, and think that soon enough this page will end up like all the others, if it isnt half way there already, the result of persistent editing by editors of that ilk, the ones who see themselves as the defenders of the national image. I often laugh my ass off when you write something, here I was like what??? Kinda funny I guess (the 'very remarkable indeed' part). Peace, Nableezy (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry for not allowing it to painlessly die away, but that type of shit can not be allowed to stand. antisemitism, where it really does exist in this encyclopedia, should be systematically rooted out just as any other type of racism, but the accusation, even if in the most indirect of ways, without basis serves only one purpose: to chill debate and discussion. those who make such accusations so easily should also be systematically rooted out, that type of behavior has no place in what claims to be a discussion among editors of an encyclopedia. i hope the man recovered from his wounds. peace, Nableezy (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

my little smuggly wuggly pukey puke! Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

where can i find information on the deleted anti-semetic acts during 2008-2009 israeli-palestinian conflict? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Click on the links in my comment below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why it needs to be restored at least for a while because I haven't got any reason to believe that anyone saved the info in their sandbox and cached versions will be old. I was just as surprised at the delete as you. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I saved it a day or so before the deletion. Why, does anyone want to integrate material from it into the "International reactions" article? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they did the same as me, proposed merging with the info already there before noticing that there was a discussion about splitting the international reactions article because of it's extreme chubbiness. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sean, you commented on the talk page of the admin who closed this discussion as delete. I wanted to let you know that I put the deletion up for review. As far as I know, any editor can comment there, and your input would be welcome. Happy editing. PS: booby. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Came up today at CAMERA ( LoL ) Soldier who fired gunshots in Hebron to be jailed AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in Bat Hefer. My house, school of my son and kindergarten of my daughter are just hundreds meters from first ever erected section of "apartheid wall" inside Israel. There were continues cases of gun fire into Bat Hefer before Operation Defensive Shield in West bank. There was case where girl was hit by bullet in her home, but she survived. I feel that people in Sderot do not deserve to grow their kids under air sirens. I do not want bloodshed. Hamas should not take Palestinian population hostage for their crimes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Love your addition to the picture caption, that had me laughing out loud. Good workJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For dealing with source verification along with Wikifan12345 in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. This is necessary work, and you guys reached across previous and current differences to make the encyclopedia better. You get the right half ;) --Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I opened up a discussion for a suggested change to the guidelines here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was merely casting about for a good transition that would sum up SA's official line on nukes (we don't have them, we don't want them, and neither should anyone else in the region) and smoothly bring us to the topic of the treaties they've signed and coalitions they've joined. I've edited it to make them "fairly vocal," which is more or less implied in joining the NPT and calling for a weapons-free zone. It's not really interpretation or information, just introductory material so we have strong, flowing prose. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you are going to get a bad rep if you keep agreeing with me, id be careful if i were you ;) Nableezy (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i think it is the ganja that quiets my bipolar editing :) or :(, Im not sure how i feel anymore. A friend of mine back in the day said they should put a vacuum sealed bubble around all of the middle east and just pump in the most potent weed smoke they can get. would chill everybody out long enough for there to be 10 minutes of peace. Nableezy (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. But I wasn't especially polite myself. So I have to wonder if that's some kind of ironic comment. But I'll take it either way. Thank again. :D --JGGardiner (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then thanks again. I have been saying for a long time that disruptive behaviour should be funny.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha my page hasnt even been vandalized like that. Stop being an ANTISEMITE ISLAMIC FANATIC TERRORISTS SUPPORTER and maybe that wont happen. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Doonizs, I think he was referring to Wikipedia in general as an anti-Semitic, Islamic, fanatical, terrorist-supporting institution. You can see that he noticed our lack of neutrality right from the first edit.[2] --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I noticed that. He was really keen to try and change the text in the factbox on the Gaza Conflict page. Wodge (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite pleased with this one although I find the overuse of capitals disappointing. Is it really necessary ? Failing to mention Hamas by name in the abuse seems careless. He could perhaps have done a bit more preparation before he saved the edit. Also I wonder if it would have been better to actually say TERRORIST rather than TERRORIST SUPPORTER. Perhaps supporters are worse than terrorists. Maybe he sees a certain romance in the notion of a terrorist and so decided that being a mere supporter was more insulting. Anyway, quite a good effort. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the user may have trouble expressing their thoughts clearly. You should note that the edit summary on the Beatles article says "punctuality".[3] --JGGardiner (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

you're not stalking this poor lone defender of wikipedia from terrorist apologists and agree-ers of hamas operatives are you? think the hero of the story needs to put his cape back on and pay your page a visit as well. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled if somebody awarded me the barnstar of anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting merit. My user page is kind bare right now. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On the way, you too Sean

		Barnstar for anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting merit
		Congratulations, I hereby award you this barnstar for your work in contributing to anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting drivel all throughout Wikipedia. Keep it up!

Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is a proud moment for me. Thank you very much. Yes, we should have more of these kind of awards. I found someone's recent comment to me particularly venomous given that I only asked him to provide evidence to support his systemic bias claim about wiki hiding/promoting Jewish identity info depending on whether the person was bad/good. It seems that not everyone is borderline autistic with zero EQ like me. I always assume everyone is.

"What a OTT pedantic, policy-obsessed comment. I am not going to waste my time on arguing with someone displaying such uncalled for hostility. If you had actually thought about the tone of my comments you would realise that I was saying that there was NOT a serious problem, You need to stop hyperventilating. Your gleeful call for a potentially endless wikilawyering debate is a perfect illustration of why people with a life should not waste their time getting involved in Wikipedia".

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now your going to make me look for that comment, thanks for taking hours out of my life. That was actually pretty fast. Sean, you are an easy person to follow, I think I could go through your contribs for a 'The case against Sean.hoyland' in like 10 minutes. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it's here Talk:Madoff_investment_scandal. People can be quite touchy. I had to re-read what I wrote about 10 times and try to imagine what it would be like to experience emotions about these kind of things. I just kept seeing puppies. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But he is right on one thing, once I get a life I wont waste any more time here. Nableezy (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland: I mentioned your name in particular in a tirade regarding the Gaza War article ("sean is funny"). Your edits on the talk page have been humorous at times and that might be a weird thing for some editors due to the somber subject matter. If I recall correctly, my first response to you on the talk page was heated when not realizing your discussion style. You also were able to switch gears and reminded us of Pol Pot while making a serious point. Although you can and have edited in a serious tone, I wanted to throw you a:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your ability to use humor even while discussing a serious topic. There are certain things that we will never laugh about but some of your contributions have made the the discussion page a more interesting and less stressful place. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

isn't it the standard here in wiki on what english to use, to use american style english?

and not the malign-ridden london based english?

thanks dude Cryptonio (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

no such standard exists, though it is practice to use American English on topics related to America and British English in topics related to Britain. Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why Israel-Palestine articles should use American English. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there British English in the article now ? Having a lot more swear words might work if that's what it requires to make it more authentically British. But yes, it should be in American English and on that basis I propose a global replacement of the term 'civilian' with 'persnickety civilian'. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand, which isnt all that surprising as I am pretty dumb (or high). Why should the article have American English, is this topic somehow more related to America than to the UK? Or does JGG just want to disassociate his beloved Queen from such topics? Nableezy (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

..yeah, Victoria BC...seriously, it's embarassing. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Israel is the 51st state like duh. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's not funny if you have to explain it. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ahh, thanks a lot dudes. but until i came across recently with this other article on I-P, i had yet to see any london based english usage here in wiki. and is there an official wiki policy on this that i may read up on? or is this just oral torah for ya? cool i'm going streaking now. Cryptonio (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cor blimey, guvnor, jellied eels, etc. Wodge (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo! how do we put one of those archive bots in a talk page? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all explained here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mann, what is up with my talk page! i've received some messages etc, but they are not being shown. I post a message myself, and it won't show etc.  ?? what is up with that! thanks Cryptonio (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

okay, everyone has to stop getting blocked and banned as there seems to be a blockandban-fest this week. i assume the admin enabled the block email feature for a while but i just wrote some test text on your page. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

all organizations have labeled robert spencer as provocative and is being funded by organizations that actively promote islamophobia, much like nazi propoganda in the 1930s. spencer has no formal education on islam and this site is no better than the site called jew watch. i understand that you might have very critical view on moslems, but you should be aware that this person and his site has no credentials what so ever, other than to quench the whims of his few followers, much like the members of the site stormfront and jewwatch. take care. Canadian (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of what Jihad watch are and what they do which is why it's on my watchlist. I'm not trying to defend Jihad watch. The key point is that WP's neutrality policy is "absolute and non-negotiable".

• "all organizations" is not true. There's a spectrum of views on whether Jihad watch is a hate site or not. Wikipedia shouldn't call it a hate site in the same way that Wikipedia shouldn't call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation because it's just a label that reflects a particular point of view. Can you find reliable sources that quote sources that describe the site as a hate site, islamophobic etc, particular governments, NGOs, notable commentators etc ? If so then they should definitely be in the article attributed to the sources. That is different from simply labelling the site as a hate site. Those views should also be balanced by views that Jihad watch isn't a hate site but you can leave that to other editors if you don't feel inclined to write for the enemy. :)
• "spencer has no formal education on islam"...yes, but without a reliable source stating that and connecting that to Jihad watch in some way it shouldn't go in the article. It should be easy for you to find a source to support that.
• "this site is no better than.." see WP:MORALIZE. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

look sean, if you hate moslems, then it is your oponion. wikipedia is a hate-free zone and you know it. i was looking though your edits and have found a trend that is very nazi-esque towards moslems. you are free to express your opinions, but not on wikipedia. since when is a person whose books are no better than mein kamp called news and commentary? if you are so convinced that jihad watch is about peaceful (which istnt) then why is jew watch, a same type of site geared towards jew named hate-site? it is no better than jihad wath. Canadian (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, stop hating Muslims. Canadian, pull your head out of your ass and realize what Sean is saying here. If you want to call it a hate-site, show that it is called a hate site by most, better all, reliable sources that talk about it. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What, all Muslims ? But some of my Muslim friends and collegues are pretty annoying and a Muslim border guard was rude about my car once. Canadian, trust me please, what I'm saying to you is for your own good. Just have a read through the policies and guidelines. It's important to spend some time understanding them. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ...also, just so you know, I wasn't the IP that reverted you and left a edit summary that flys in the face of wp:civil. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian, I had a look at the Jew Watch page regarding your question "why is jew watch, a same type of site geared towards jew named hate-site?". Have a look at how much effort those editors made to justify the "The site is widely categorized as an antisemitic hate site" statement and the site type category in terms of the number of references they provide to support the statement. Jew Watch is explicitly described as racist by the United Nations in their report. It's these kind of significant sources you need if you want your Jihad Watch hate site designation to comply with policy and gain consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hague Regulations revolve around two central axes: one, the ensuring of the legitimate security interests of the occupier in the territory under belligerent occupation; the other, the ensuring of the needs of the civilian population in the territory under belligerent occupation. The tube "Mind the gap" haDin haMatzui, Ratzui :) Keep well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"revolve around two central axes" Lawyers... I suppose this is what the law looks like to them. ...apparently they actually get paid money...imagine that.

. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland, I made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli propaganda that we non-admin close the AfD by blanking and redirecting the article by hand, since there is obviously consensus that it should be blanked at the very least, and then we can take the new redirect to RfD—that way everyone will at least be talking about the same thing. Does this plan sound ok to you? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, how you've been lately? I'll wait probably for next January to visit friendly Thailand. I'd like to ride elephants in the north and lie down idle on beach in the south. Hope I have enough time ;) Anyway I think you should go easy on Rak BeYsrael festival. Some fellow editors believe that terrorist organizations are a hoax, which exist only in Israel dimension of hyperreality. Stay cool and knowledgeable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy and looking forward to the rainy season here to cool the place down. Thailand's a good place to visit although statistically I think you're much more likely to get shot here than in Israel. It's like 20,000 people/year or something. In reality it has zero impact on everyday life for most people. Thailand has it's own multitude of political problems especially in the far south (don't go there) e.g. the leading Muslim womens rights campaigner was assassinated last month. I haven't seen Rak BeYsrael but the amount of talk on the talk page at the moment means that I don't have time to keep up with developments so I won't be giving Sceptic such a hard time. :) Terrorists apparently are a hoax. Firstly no one can agree what a terrorist is and secondly they don't exist according to IHL. They're just badly behaving armed civilians. It's a funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, after gaining some perspective the world is old and funny. Ha-ha. I followed your false balance comments. I'm frankly not sure that your last revert is not one of those. Keep well, don't let the tropical rain wet your brain. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, please let me know what you think about this. You opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, there are some ongoing discussions and I need you to provide your opinion. Would you please? Thanx in advance.

1. I need someone besides Cryptonio to respond to my last post in 'Israeli soldiers'.

2. The same in the 'Dummy missiles' - I know you were reluctant, so please respond to the last post from Cptnono.

3. 'Hamas political violence' section. One sentence as promised. Is it OK? Cause someone deleted it on the grounds of 'violation of NPOV policy'.

4. It would be nice to have some reaction to 'Hamas military activity, engagement with Israeli forces - 2nd try'

5. 'back to disputed figures' - I am expecting a sincere answer to simple question.

6. 'Offense to reader's intelligence' - waiting for your response.

7. 'The Iron Dome' - all of a sudden your response triggered a desire to reread the NPOV policy. There is an interesting finding there, would you go through a small brainstorming with me? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude I've enjoyed watching you do work in that porn page of ours. It has excited me quite some. :) Well i'm dealing with some BS in RL that I need Wiki as an escape, and dealing with I/Ps does not provide that satisfaction. So, the honest thing to do is to quit of course. lol Anyways, i'm not leaving Wiki, just that hazardous crime scene called I/P conflict. Peace, be safe yaya bleh. See you around man. Cryptonio (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol Cryptonio (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations. Your comments and contributions are welcome. BTW, I think you're dangling a participle in the second paragraph on your user page. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

fyi, according to Israeli copyright law, publications become public domain fifty years after their publication. Therefore, this is pd, and you should probably mark it as such and move it to the commons. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good news! Thanks for telling me. Will do. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rattling the Cage: The smearing of human rights organizations. enjoy. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While snooping about reading talk pages, I cam across this and just have to tell you it was brilliantly funny. Thanks for injecting my day with a little levity. Tiamut^talk 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sceptic Ashdod has a pretty excellent sense of humor too. Thanks for entertaining us lurkers and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Have increased the length of the ant article by 8 words with the new study ! Shyamal (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

8 words. wow, impressive. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a massage for you on J street discussion board. You wellcome to be in tuch. Much appriciate your feedback. ll the best --Rm125 (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have to check out the expiration date of those anti-sarcasm pills you're taking.
• FYI, Jews do not belong to H. sapiens species. ...Israelis are the descendents of pigs and monkeys, and Allah will soon dish out "the harshest punishments" to the followers of the "corrupt and racist Torah..." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure new pills would completely cure it. It also comes from an annoying habit of starting by defining premises (no matter how seemingly obvious they are) after forced indoctrination into the pedantic ways of science. I've already seen that "descendents of pigs and monkeys" stuff. I've never been able to understand racism at all. It's puzzling. I just don't get it and when you ask people to try to explain why they think a particular way about a particular set of people based on a stereotype, colour, religion, some other random factor, shoe size etc, it never makes any sense. Even stranger is that racists very often make exceptions when they talk about people they actually know by saying things like "yeah but he's different. he's okay" etc without ever realising that perhaps their whole model is wrong. It's bizarre. I've always thought forcing all racists to travel around the world with no money for a few years when they're young would help cure them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I strongly suggest you stay away from wnd unless you want to start having nightmares that B. Hussein Obama is really Khaled Meshal in disguise. nableezy - 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the 'Obama doesn't specifically deny being Khaled Meshal in disguise' article in Jpost. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be the reason he wont meet with Hamas, would be difficult shaking hands with himself. nableezy - 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sean I would like to ask for your feedback on dispute I have with the same Malik Shabazz ( from J street) regarding David Landou from Haaretz. Do you have a minute? Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I disagree with you about this edit. From your comment on the talk page you abviously think that the paragraph should not be added. Other editors wanting this paragraph and pushing for it does not mean that it has to be inserted if it violates WP policies. Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it violates WP policies. As I said, in my view it's a reliable source for Goldberg's opinions which are attributed and presented as an identifiable point of view as per WP:SUBSTANTIATE rather than a fact. Since it isn't presented as fact the fact twisting argument isn't applicable. I don't think experienced editors would have any trouble wikilawyering this material into the article if they want to make the effort. If there is consensus to remove it that suits me fine but until there is consensus either way I want to make sure that the distortion/misrepresentation is minimised hence my work on that section. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

..if it's removed again I won't revert the removal. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive contributions :) Imad marie (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sean, I didn't start a new section because my comments are on the same topic. While we once disagreed about using a particular source, it's clear to me that our primary goal is the same: keeping the sources, POV, and overall tone up to reasonable standards in a controversial article. Regarding the section with Goldberg, I'll add a comment to the talkpage soon; I hadn't yet because I see valid reasons on both sides and I'm personally ambivalent about it. The article itself seems to present two different challenges, first improving the overall quality and tone, then maintaining it. I look forward to working with you on it, Doc Tropics 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In my world it's not a disagreement until someone is hurling abuse at me about being a terrorist/nazi/stalinist/jew-and-muslim hating/atheist/pick-an-abrahamic-religion-apologist. I'm struggling to catch up with User:Malik_Shabazz/Fan_mail. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's some fan mail alright. I just get vandals making comments about my mother...Doc Tropics 05:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean - I'm not sure why you don't accept that 88 is commonly used by Neo-Nazi's as an id tag. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

i knew it nableezy - 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...still, it's good to know that our instincts were right. I just worry that NoCal's actions could give Rasputin a bad reputation. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are a such a predictable hypocrite. You consistently smear others, engage in POV wars, and systematically deny people of operating in good faith. In short, everybody has an agenda if they don't accept your line. This is tiresome. I'm going to take a nap.ShamWow (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont let douchebags annoy you Sean. Now that is obviously not a personal attack, it is about douchebags in general. If I were to say dont let the douchebag who wrote the above annoy you that would be a persona attack. Sort of like the personal attack of calling somebody a hypocrite. Dont matter, douchebags be douchebags. Fuck em and let em. nableezy - 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, still he was right about the tiresome part. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're closely monitoring the article, but I'm frankly disappointed that it could have reached such a crappy state under your watch. Right now the article deals almost exclusively with legal aspects; other aspects such as who lives there, what their lives are like, etc. are very sparse, and the material they do have is comically polemical. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just made that edit to annoy you. :) Yeah. blame me for it's crappy state, nice! It's true that wiki editors do have an unhealthy obsession with all things legal for reasons I've never fully understood given the mostly pointless nature of those debates. Although I'm a fan of the comically polemical, more the comically rather than the polemical you're right that it would be beter if the article focused on the real world with people and stuff almost like an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If my Wikipedia bender isn't curbed soon, I may be doing a lot of work on the article in the near future. I'd appreciate if you could keep track of what I'm doing, rein me in if I start doing stupid stuff and watch the crazies. A booby joke here and there wouldn't hurt either. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can somehow stop being distracted by photos of Megan Fox I'll try to have a look at the article now and again. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reporting you to WP:AN/EW for edit warring on Marc Garlasco. You have at least 10 reverts in the past 24 hours on that article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have fun. Have you read WP:BLP by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean, the report is nonsense but you should say per BLP in your edit summaries when reverting BLP vios so that it is clear you are claiming an exception to the 3RR. nableezy - 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I try to give more pointers to policies in the summaries and drop a message if necessary but yes I take your point about BLP. The admins can look at the history and talk page and make their own minds up about it. I have no interest in NMMNG's distractions. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my four offended you. In my defence, I was going to pick a very lucky number like 88. But then I remembered that's what got Marc Garlasco in all that trouble. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Oddly the CP celebrations were on CCTV4 yesterday. The dancing/singing by the top party guys was most excellent. I had to go to Malaysia a couple of weeks ago (which mostly involved deeply offending a large but cute family of Dusky Leaf Monkeys in a forest by simply being there) but one hotel didn't even have a 4th or a 13th floor and it was Ramadan to complicate matters further. It was like the ultimate cultural/ecological offence avoidance challenge. I may have broken my personal record for most cultural/ecological faux pas without even trying. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't want to fight you on this and play the back and forth reversion game. I'm willing to talk and work out compromise language that we all can live with, as I did with Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, I appreciate it. I'm sure we can figure it out but let's do it on the Gaza War article talk page so that others can participate. I see that you created a section. I'll join in when I get a chance. I'm a bit busy with other things today. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable.

Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree. I think you and RomaC are good editors and genuinely want to see a good objective piece. I do to and if we work together rather than revert each other, we can reach consensus. I'll post this on the discussion page as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

article talk page please. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You maby notised (or not)that I complained on jiujutsuguy on Wikiquette [[4]]. Nothing good come out of it but I think there is a serious problem with tis guy. And he seems to be allowed to behave like shit and just ignore whatever he like. I like to bring him up to the banhammers but with the try at Wikiquette in mind, that gave me warnings etc, I going to need help. And Im not the only one getting tired on him if I may do a qualified guess. So, any suggestions? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions ? Accept that we are all annoying idiots, stick to wiki policies/guidelines (especially WP:DGAF) and things will work themselves out. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yes. But Juijutsu obviously DGAF about policys and your notes on Gaza War talk or anywhere else. And that cause problems. Btw, have you seen this?[5] Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that and yes it's frustrating but editors who ignore the discretionary sanctions, try to bring the Israel-Palestine conflict here to Wikipedia, misrepresent things etc will eventually get into trouble. Admins are sick of this shit. Like I say, just stick to wiki policies/guidelines and try to stay reasonable and rational even when faced with all the madness. Intervention by admins is usually a good thing in my experience. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I expected better of you. This was very tundraesque. nableezy - 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it's weak. 1) I am Tundrabuggy born again after extrensive medical care and 2) It's been raining here continously for about 3 days. The electrical system of about half on my house has been trashed by the water => no electricity downstairs i.e. fridge, cooker, water pump etc so I'm somewhat distracted and limited timewise. I intend to comment there properly at some point if I can manage to not sustain too many more electric shocks. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Your efforts at improving articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made Wikipedia much better off, especially with your work 'behind the scenes'. The Squicks (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's entirely undeserved but appreciated none the less. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I saw your revert of my edit. I wasn't sure that I put the link in the best place, but having it only in the portal is really not enough: when a reader comes to the Israel page looking for info on their health care system, they will not be able to find the link if it's only in the portal. I searched the page and came up with nothing. Either it should be incorporated one of the text sections or done as a "see also" - now it is invisible which is not ok. I'm open to suggestions on how it should be handled, but I'm not satisfied with the way it presently is. Tvoz/talk 05:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well it needed to go in the template anyway so no harm done but I suggest you just go ahead and do whatever you think is appropriate to make it easier for people to find the info. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - my note above sounded more belligerent than I intended - sorry! Actually I completely missed the Israel topics bar last night, which is part of the problem - I did add it to the portal, but I think it would be good for these topics to be a bit more visible. I don't regularly edit the page, although it's been on my watch list for a long time, so I don;'t know if this is a matter of contention or not. I'll take a closer look when I have a moment. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup that was me. Forgot to log in. Been away for a while. What can I say I was a bad boy so they put me in the corner. The experience scarred me for life. Hope u didn't miss me too much :) Regarding the edit, I have four sources to back up the claim of IDF military victory. 1)Aviation Week 2)The Jerusalem Post 3)The washington Institute for Near East Policy 4)The New York Times.

The Israeli aim was to reduce rocket fire against periphery towns. In the year prior to Cast Lead, Hamas fired over 3,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israel. Post Cast Lead saw just under 300, a reduction of 1000%. By any objective standard, that's an unqualified success. Hamas took a thrashing during the campaign and they don't want a repeat. Additionally, several senior Hamas cammanders and experienced bomb makers were killed. Hamas military infrastructure took a beating (over 95% of targeted infrastructure was destroyed or sustained heavy damage) and the combatant kill ratio (even when judging by Palestinian numbers) was heavily in Israel's favor. If you use Israeli figures, it's about 80 to 1. Please provide me with some RSs that contradict my claim. I will cut and paste the substantive portion of this comment on the discussion page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicking technical comment: 3,000 to 300 is a reduction of 90%, not 1,000%. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Statistics is fun? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why has my talk page become the place to hang out, correct people's number blindness and make false claims about statistics being fun ? Sean.hoyland - talk 00:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean, please self revert based on Report slams B'Tselem Cast Lead figures as you had requested.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it. Google didn't. Mind you I only searched on the title and I don't think JPost put the title in their article....brilliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem Sean. I hope that this goodwill continues. Following your suggestion, I did not contest the removal of "tactical victory" from the infobox. I was thinking of putting it in the lead but foresaw a new set of headaches. I therefore (following your suggestion) opened a separate section on the issue entitled "Post war military assessment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sean. I have no dispute with your recent series of edits. I also revised my recently added section to conform with objections raised by RomaC and Black Kite. The article looks decent and I don't think there's much more to add as all topics are covered at length and in detail. Hope you concur.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sean, didn't mean to stamp my size 11's over your fixing up the "trap-jaw" units. I was actually in the middle of sorting out Atkinson 291's edit, went to grab some lunch and didn't notice you'd snuck in. I read thru the entire paper and then edited to better reflect what it actually says. The second added offline ref (prob grabbed from Trap-jaw ant) is superfluous. Happy editing! Secret Squïrrel, approx 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I revert when someone merges together articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the Jubata Ez-Zeit article, got redirected to Neve Ativ, clicked of the 'redirected from Jubata Ez-Zeit' link at the top of the page, went into the history page and reverted back to the version prior to the redirect. I used the navigation popups gadget to revert to your version but if you don't use those you can just click on revision you want to restore and save it as the current version. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that User:Barcelona.women, User:Ibrahim Abu Iqsa and User:Mikado Varshafsky are sockpuppets of the Runtshit vandal. This is based on the style of the edits, and particularly the edit summaries; the sort of sources used; the continual reversion, without discussion; and the focus on critics of Israel. It may not be possible yet to prove this, but it's worth bearing it in mind. RolandR 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that they are definitely sockpuppets. Possibly all of the following accounts are sockpuppets and maybe more. I've already warned him about this on the talk page but he carries on nonetheless. His editing approach is becoming tiresome. I've tried to get him to play ball and so has Dailycare. He's running out of chances so if he continues this way I'll just file a report at WP:ANI.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barcelona.women
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ibrahim_Abu_Iqsa
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jeanratelle
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mahmoud_wintil%27adi
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bynoptlegal
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikado_Varshafsky

Sean.hoyland - talk 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed Dailycare filed this yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barcelona.women. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the others too, but was less sure about them. Note that I reported the username "Mikado Varshafsky" yesterday, as a blatant attempt to impersonate Michel Warschawski, commonly known as Mikado. This user has now been indefinitely blocked. The pattern of these is very similar to vandals eventually confirmed as socks of Runtshit; note the behaviour of Zuminous and his socks, created for edit-warring on Barry Chamish, and of Shmuelseiman and his sockpuppets, created for edit-warring on Neve Gordon. The same pattern is evident in blocked puppeteer Borisyy, also edit-warring on Neve Gordon, and in the probably primary account, Truthprofessor, whose puppets edit-war on Steven Plaut. Similar accounts have targeted other critics of Israel, and this nudnik shares all the same characteristics. RolandR 09:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for seeing the humour! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. i replied to you at the Talk:Gaza War page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

first, archive this page. Second, to answer your question, 3, or 1 really long report. nableezy - 18:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should. I was originally planning to vote "Delete - shun." and cite the rarely used wp:palestinian.wife+male.pattern.baldness policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What I say? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Hicks The III‎‎. nableezy - 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish they'd start blocking IPs. I had some success with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeanratelle/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Would have to do range blocks and place like the users are located that would affect way too many people. No chance of that. nableezy - 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

mass bombing of densely populated urban cluster of IPs with unfortunate but inevitable mass civilian casualities, what's the problem ? evidently many editors here support that approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

but, thankfully, we don't. nableezy - 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha.... Hahahaha.... Hahahaha... 70.213.118.31 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

didnt know you were a lennon fan. nableezy - 10:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

i hate that song although i did have a pair of lennon glasses as a student but they fell down a mine shaft. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs mediation. It needs the interested parties to agree a method to make decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have recently edited the UN Watch article. There is currently a discussion about what is appropriate to include in the Opposition to Robinson Medal of Freedom section. Could you provide a third opinion on Wikipedia policy or direct to somewhere where we could get comments? Thanks,--149.166.35.137 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A third opinion is "a means to request an uninvolved opinion". I'm not uninvolved but I'll have a look a bit later and comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--149.166.35.137 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Among some Protestants, especially conservative ones, there is an argument about which English translation of the Bible is authoritative. The Authorized King James Version (KJV) is the translation commissioned by said English king early in the 17th century. Some denominations consider this translation the only valid one, going so far as to say that some other translations are evil. This is a very minority view, but the proponents can get adamant. It would be nice to be able to read the thing in the original Hebrew! (and Greek).--Jarhed (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and further confirmation that the extent of my knowledge about the known universe is approximately zero. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says "if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed" - I can't find any reference to any of the three sites you deleted from bjm.org (I haven't search the domain but they certainly aren't prominently linked from any of the major pages). bjm.com and bjm.org do seem to duplicate, but ibethel isn't linked prominently (although perhaps could instead be cited in the article). At this point though, I think the myspace and beenup2 links can be added back in under WP:ELOFFICIAL's policy. Natebailey (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Both the Myspace and BeenUp2 sites don't meet WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE but they do match points 10 and 11 of WP:ELNO. They're social networking sites (although BeenUp2 calls itself 'a photo-centric social utility'...). Also see "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." in WP:ELOFFICIAL.

I'm not in favour of having an external link to the Bethel Church ibethel.org site because I don't think there is a policy based reason to have that link in a biography. Quite the opposite. The website says it's mission is "the personal, regional, and global expansion of God's kingdom through His manifest presence." whereas WP:SOAP says Wikipedia is not for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". It's also only indirectly related to the article's subject so it matchs point 13 of WP:ELNO. Having said that, a deep link to the part of the site about Bill Johnson would be okay I guess but that has the same content as his official site's 'About' page so there's no point.

Perhaps Bethel Church is notable enough for it's own page per WP:ORG, I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)