Jump to content

User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Undoing the handiwork of jonathangluck

I have nominated the following articles for deletion, all flowing from the pen of the sockpuppet firm of 5WPR:

Elie Hirschfeld Stewart Rahr GoldMoney Kinray Jordan Sekulow

You may may wish to comment. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryan27's talk

Hello Sean! First, let me use this chance to assure you that your place is in the top of the list of the editors I respect most, and I learn a lot from. However I was a bit surprised by the sharpness of your sarcasm here. Patience, my friend, patience :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and sound advice. I should have been less combative and more patient, it's true.
Before I comment on I-P topic related matters, I often ask myself "what would a RAND Corp AI application based on game theory do ?"
I should probably stop doing that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

unsigned comment at RSN

Thanks for catching that. Usually I remember. :/ Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if ...

Hello. I see that you've recently intervened in a dispute between User:Soosim and myself on Peace Now. I wonder if you might be willing to review discussions currently taking place at Antisemitism, Antisemitism in the Arab world, and Israeli Apartheid Week, where similar conditions currently prevail. CJCurrie (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

i wonder too.... :-) happy to bring in another editor, too. ok? (but i wouldn't want you to accuse me of near-canvassing again, so let me know first. thanks!) Soosim (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Soosim. I specifically asked Sean to contribute to these discussions because I consider him to be a neutral/objective contributor to these debates (or as close as is possible). I don't believe that I'm obligated to alert you to these requests and, frankly, I assumed you'd find out anyway. In any case, I trust you'll take Sean's views into consideration when I bring up the Zahran piece on the Antisemitism talk page in the next few days (if it's still there by then), and I also trust you'll ensure the process doesn't become a partisan slanging match. Cheers. CJCurrie (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
ah, cj - if you consider sean neutral, then that is only half the issue. neutrality is best achieved when both sides agree that 'x' is neutral. i am sure i can ask various editors i consider neutral, but alas, you will probably not agree. in any case, i always take what sean says into account - he frequently comments on my comments and frequently we agree and frequently we disagree. about a partisan slanging match - not sure what that is, but you clearly have something in mind. my best advice to you is be careful. Soosim (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably not the right person to ask
  • I don't think Wikipedia should include opinion pieces in these kind of articles prone to polemics especially not in the form of lengthy partisan quotes (per Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone)
  • I'm not really a fan of using think tank organizations like the Hudson Institute as an encyclopedia source when there are plenty of academic sources on antisemitism.
  • I'm not aware of Mudar Zahran being a subject matter expert. He's more of a polemicist (I'm familiar with his articles) and I don't think his recentist soundbites are notable given the historical scope of the articles (although he's always interesting).
As for the NGO Monitor image, I don't think it adds any value to that article but I don't think it does any harm. The criticism section in Israeli Apartheid Week is already ludicrously bloated with opinions. It can't get any worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See discsussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. I'll look in on it tomorrow. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Joe Slovo

It is unacceptable to call terrorist attacks "activities". It was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorist organization (MK). If you find in your books a single mention that it wasn't terrorist attack, don't hesitate to add the information into the article.--187.4.128.12 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You must comply with WP:NPOV. You have no choice. Wikipedia cannot state that it was a terrorist attack as a statement of fact. It is not a fact. It is a description, one of many. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bigger stick

Hello, Sean. I've noted your involvement in several "policing" actions lately. Since you are clearly willing to take an active part in keeping this community from disintegration, and since your knowledge, your skills and your understanding of WP principles are undoubted, I guess we all can benefit from granting you some extra tools. In other words, would you be interested in nomination for adminship? Feel free to answer here or by email or not to answer at all. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was young man called Lau Ben Kon. Born in what was Thai occupied Battambang at the time, educated in Bangkok, where he lived in a temple with the Buddhist monks, Runglert, as he was known at the time, eventually graduated with a law degree. While drawn to the notion of Buddhist monkhood, he started a career as a Thai civil servant and took an active part in community affairs. An opportunity presented itself and he decided to return to Cambodia, where he rose through the ranks of a community being granted more and more tools along the way. He eventually became known as Brother Number 2. It didn't end well. I don't think adminship is for me but thanks for the suggestion, it's appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello comrades! I heard that any commie over here can get bigger stick. Can I get bigger stick too? Please! --77.42.157.74 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You could try pushing harder on the mouse button. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
...not using an open proxy would help too. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion?

Just out of curiosity, you commented here, but didn't seem to indicate whether you had on a opinion on the question offered by the RfC. Did you mean to offer an opinion, or were you apathetic? NickCT (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those situations where I couldn't make my mind up. Probably pathetic rather than apathetic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Saul Raskin

As long as you are doing articles about Jewish Chicago artists, maybe you can find out something about Saul Raskin and do an article on him? He was quite well known in the 40's, I believe a student of the Bezalel school. That's about all I know about him. He was a friend of my parents, and I have a copy of his Hagaddah, an ink drawing and an oil of his. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. He's on my list. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summary

[1] - This edit summary seems a bit uncivil, don't you think? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. There is nothing uncivil about the word fuck. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Words by themselves aren't uncivil, it depends on the usage, context, etc. as we all know. It seems kind of out of place there and like it might raise blood temperatures. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse my intrusion but I have to agree with Will. Many I/P editors are ectotherms. I'd guess more than half. That's really the basis of the I/P conflict on WP. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting and it's true that it's often difficult to find shady places here due to the widespread use of defoliants. I've always looked at the I/P conflict on WP more as a battle of the forces of good vs forces of evil, order vs chaos, knowledge vs ignorance, basically the same themes covered by Little House on the Prairie. Welcome back from your hibernation. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my rescue, but I'm gonna agree with Sean. He used the F word as an exclamation, not as an insult. "Oh, damn" instead of "you're a damn liar."

Either way, I wouldn't care, but then again I'm gonna agree that it's probably best to leave the colorful French out of English Wiki.

Sean, if you'd like to know WTF, read the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians again...

The article I deleted sure was a reliable one. Unfortunately, it was being cited to back up a generalization. One source does not a consensus make.

"The prevailing view is that Palestinian identity orginated in the early decades of the twentieth century."

First off, originated is spelled wrong. You'd know that if you didn't just hit revert.

Second, one scholar can not advance a "prevailing view." A prevailing academic view? The prevailing view of sociologists? Historians? Politicians? The population of Syria?

Most people would say Palestinian identity originated much earlier, or decades later. The above statement is a compromise view, one that few actually hold. It is not prevalent anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in your personal opinions on these issues and neither should you. The information complies with the mandatory policies of the project. Your repeated removal of this kind of policy compliant information does not. It's disruptive. You will get yourself blocked if you carry on. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions for good reason and I have it watchlisted for good reason. My interest is in ensuring policy compliance despite the endlessly lame partisan nonsense that goes on here. I have no personal opinions on the matter at all. A Palestinian national identity could have emerged last Tuesday for all I care and if that is what the sources had said that is what I would have added. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the source. I don't think you did either. It's an unpopular book. Who knows what that book says. But I know it doesn't provide evidence that most people in the world think Palestinians originated in a couple of decades.

Further, I explained why the statements it was backing up were no good for the article. Do you have a counter-point, besides "lets support whatever a source says"?

I'm not being partisan. If you look at my edits, they are always away from loaded statements and weaseling and towards the NPOV. I remove bad sources, especially ones that get twisted.

Putting a page on watchlist and instantly reverting edits by IPs you don't like isn't good editing, its bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I read the source and the material I added accurately reflects the source. I reverted your edit because there is no policy based reason for you to remove the information. Now, I could get annoyed that you think I don't read sources, don't read talk pages and revert for stupid reasons and twist sources, but again, I am not interested in your personal opinions. You are wasting your time telling me them. Like all editors you and I must comply with policy. It is essential that all editors follow policy to the letter on articles covered by the discretionary sanctions. They have been imposed to make sure that happens. If you continue like this you will be blocked, I promise you, it's happened countless times before to editors just like you. Just stick to edits based on policy and edit constructively. If the topic is something that you can't work on without imposing your personal views, just walk away from it. There are millions of articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not following guidelines. Weaselly statements like "The prevailing view..." is not good editting.

Sourcing needs to be reliable. I sourced the info I added about the PLO and their history of political violence. Despite the good source and the fact that the reference made for a more NPOV article, it was removed. Because it violated the opinion of people who want "Palestinian People" to be a propagandha article telling their side of the story.

You are reverting things that you don't like, not that violate policy. I've asked to see what I write that is NPOV. Nobody can show me. Because everything I've ever added has been NPOV.

When I remove things for being a bad source, it is put back and the source isn't defended. Its just that some people like the page saying biased things like, "Avi Shlaim explains that the argument that "you never had sovereignty over this land, and therefore you have no rights," has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinian rights and attachment to the land."

This is bad for several reasons. One, it generalizes all Israelis as shrill and intolerant, two it implies that all Israelis think that all Palestinians "have no rights," third it slides in an idea that Palestinians have "attachment to the land."

I changed that before and justified it. But the anti-Israel crowd thinks it sounds nice, so they keep it. By the way, the link is broken.

"The first demand for national independence was issued by the joint Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921"

That is a deliberate twisting of the already unreliable source. The addition of the word "joint" is a purposeful manipulation of the fact that the Syrian-Palestinian Congress was NOT a meeting of two different parties.

Don't tell me the reverts and editting going on have been for policy. It has been for politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.155 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. You need to stop treating me like a combatant in a battle. It's not about what I like and what I don't like. I really don't care about these issues. Try to imagine that. I simply want the disruption to stop. That is why I added the highly pertinent and well sourced material, to try to make it stop. Read the source that I used. It's fine. You can read it in Google books. Compare what I added to what is in the source. It's fine. I said what it says including "The prevailing view..." (he said "The dominant view.."). I haven't said anything about Avi Shlaim. My only concern, for now, is that the article includes a policy compliant description of the views on the origins of the term Palestinian as a national identity, that's all.
Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't read page 174 with that link. I'm gonna reiterate that you didn't read the source, only supported the opinion it expressed and so backed it up.

It doesn't matter if one guy thinks its the prevailing view. We can find tons of books that make tons of claims. I asked before, it is the prevailing view of whom? Everywhere? That isn't how you make generalizations on Wiki.

You added this nonsense...

"The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars with some arguing that it can be traced to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine while others argue that it didn't emerge until after the Mandate Palestine period. The prevailing view is that Palestinian identity orginated in the early decades of the twentieth century."

So there is basically three views and one is right. That is what you are saying? Just because some legal eagle thinks that the early twientieth century is the median of opinion, doesn't make it prevailent. People rarely express that opinion. They usually think it is much earlier or much later. So that is an uncommon opinion.

I want a good Palestinian people article that is free of bias. I have become involved in the article because I think I can help it, I have made progress, and its fun. I don't think I've generally been uncivil.

Again, every edit I've ever made has been NPOV and encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.155 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm gonna reiterate that you didn't read the source". Sigh...what is wrong with you man ? Of course I can read page 174 (here is a screen dump (yes, it is the case that google books displays different things in different places and times)...of course my edit reflects the source accurately...of course the source is reliable for those statements. If you want to add alternative views from other reliable sources do that. Do not remove this information based on spurious arguments. I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. Please, no more bullshit accusations of dishonsty out of you. My patience is limited. Also, let me give you some practical advice that you many find useful in any future dealings with me. When I say something, I mean it. So, if I say, "I don't care" about an issue, it means I don't care about the issue. So, for example, taking the view that I "only supported the opinion it expressed and so backed it up" is simply mistaken, an overcomplication and a waste of your time because it is directly contradicted by what I said which you can simply accept to be true. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You presented the statement, that most people think Palestinian identity originated in the early twentieth century, as a truism. If you were actually familiar with the guidelines you would know that the opinion of one academic should be presented as what it is, one man's opinion. Not the opinion of the whole world community.

I don't believe you "don't care." Why are you getting involved in the editting? You are willing to let POV statements that you agree with slide as facts. When I try to mainstream the article, you cry murder.

I don't think you actually read that book, and when I said so you went crazy with what you think is proof.

So now you are going to end the conversation without ever showing me what I added that was NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.153 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

About Saul Raskin

Hi Sean - hope I didn't brleave too much of a trail of damage when I appeared from nowhere and jumped into the article to divide it into sections - feeback, good or bad, most welcome! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I basically just dumped everything I have so far from my user space to article space so any help imposing some order is welcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your part in cleaning up after apparent sock

Hi, Sean. Just wanted to say that I noticed that you were one of several people who picked up after our drive-by sock friend I'll call "Esc-apist", yesterday. I think everyone who edits in the I/P area should have a checkuser run against them automatically every week or so. Anyway, it was heartening to see people take up that responsibility: Socks can't be permitted to gain from their behavior, to have their edits "stick", imo, regardless of their POV. What would really impress me, though, would be to see either "side" reverting obvious sock edits that were made in support of their own preferred POV. I'd do that, if I saw it, I hope, as I'm sure you would, too. Anyway, thanks again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see various measures to prevent sockpuppetry and other disruption in the topic area including regular checkuser runs, a minimum number of edits threshold before people can edit in the topic area, a requirement to formally agree to abide by the rules (or the introduction of any other measures shown by Dan Ariely's excellent and highly entertaining studies on dishonesty etc to help reduce problematic behavior), probable socks being reverted and blocked on sight (i.e. guilty until proven innocent), topic banning editors whose content edits demonstrably and consistently fail to comply with NPOV, topic banning editors who can be shown to repeatedly employ biased sampling/falsification/misrepresentation of information from sources, and any other measures that might work...basically whatever it takes. None of that will happen of course. There is an unhealthy and corrosive acceptance of sockpuppetry. I've lost count of the number of times people have flat out lied to me when asked whether they are a sockpuppet. I blame the parents. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes; I also contribute sporadically to a help forum for the Ubuntu linux operating system, where everyone is asked, at their option, to formally agree to an behavioral pledge, and where expectations from the get-go were very different than they are here. The experience of contributing there, in terms of the interactions one has with others, is so much more pleasant than here. The argument that we have to tolerate social deviants (socks, liars, POV zealots, aggressive behavior, etc.) here because we need their contributions for so large and complex a project is nonsense: I've never used an operating system that's more stable, more of a pleasure to use, as broad in its features, as secure from viruses and such, or that receives needed updates so regularly and easily.
I'm saying that I read your Dan Ariely paper on Dishonesty in Everyday Life, in other words, and I agree with your characterization of it. Thanks for making me aware of him; I'll probably read more. In our present context, I don't blame the literal parents of our problematic editors as much as I do the figurative parent(s) of Wikipedia. Jimmy could certainly have established a healthier culture here, initially, and still could bring it to good health if he knew how (or cared enough to learn how) and wanted to. It's long been my conclusion that he's probably deficient in the "wanting to" department.
Do you have any thoughts on the identity of our friend, btw? It was someone who had Nableezy's (or possibly Roscelese's) talk page watchlisted, and I'm inclined to suspect a recently topic-banned editor who was prolific in the area before her ban and who has numerous ethical breaches and (as I read in her former allies' talk pages, anyway) socking adventures to her (dis)credit. Think an SPI is appropriate? E-mail consultation on this issue is welcome; I check it daily. I'd be glad to present the details to you, since I believe you're somewhat more familiar with the dramatis personae in the I/P area than I am. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of Dan Ariely either until User:AgadaUrbanit told me about him. I'm not sure who the sockpuppet is. In cases like this I'm sometimes tempted to file an Arbitration Enforcement report test case that would say something like...
This is a test case. Sockpuppetry and topic-ban/block evasion in the I-P topic area are examples of failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process. They are therefore presumably within scope of the discretionary sanctions. Sockpuppetry is a persistently destabilizing influence on the I-P topic area and yet the topic area is largely unprotected from its negative effects. An obvious sock is obvious but the parent "sockmaster" account often isn't known which precludes filing an SPI report. So, we have what looks like an obvious sock editing in the I-P topic area and apparently no mechanism to deal with them, hence this AE report. I've filed this case because I want to see whether any admins will act to protect the topic area from a probable sockpuppet or not. If not I would like to know what should happen in a case like this. I'm not concerned with the nature of the edits, only with the highly probable case that in making the edits, any edits, the editor is violating the WP:SOCK policy.
...with diffs to demonstrate prior knowledge of wiki editing etc. Maybe one day I'll try that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a brilliant and wholly appropriate idea. People have evidently begun creating accounts in a serial fashion, using them only for a day or two, without much or any talk-page use to avoid comparisons of writing style and such to other, presumably puppetmaster accounts. Wikipedia really has no defense against this, except for the tedious process of manually reverting probable socks on sight, which burns opponents re 1rr restrictions and runs the risk, also, of one being accused of biting newcomers. I'd be wholly in favor of giving this a go in this case, and would happily support the attempt at the appropriate wp:ae page. What do you say?  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Just trying to provide links to images and reference some stuff. Will stop until I see the admin resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiatica (talk • contribs) 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That site has some really excellent paintings e.g. (this Nolan) that I've not seen before hence my dilemma... :) I'm never quite sure what to do in these circumstances. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder.

Thanks for the reminder. I'll remember to contribute to the talk pages from now on. Best regards, Matthias Lightbane (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Big Sheet

...how does it taste? Edible seaweed...Mmmmm.

I didn't have time to ponder that earlier when you made the comment at ANI. I hope they flavored with something...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's "NEW" Hot&Spicy flavour (and it's been NEW for several years apparently). It's pretty tasty although puzzlingly the person on the box looks like they don't like it much. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
HA! Looks like Eric Cartman and he probably would make a face. Have you had the classic flavor? Whatever that means...I doubt that I could find it in the States but my curiosity is peaked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point. No, I haven't but I'm sure it's as classic as it says. The product could probably benefit from a buy one get one free combo pack with Collon Bisquit Rolls, something else I haven't tried yet. I think you could probably find Big Sheet in the States. I used to live in Portland, OR and the Asian grocery stores there had all sorts of tasty goodies. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look and see if I can get it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi. When you have second, can you comment on this issue? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Richard_A._Falk#Lead_section I'm trying to determine if there is consensus for that lead or not. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Why don't u guys just lock this page, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_%28spiritual_leader%29 It is prone to frequent vandalism and let only neutral editors edit it. 117.198.128.41 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough to qualify for protection at the moment. Have a look at WP:SILVERLOCK for example for the semi-protection criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disruptive editing by rapidly changing IP and IP disruptive editing on Israel/Palestine articles

You said "If only he could be persuaded to donate so much time to something more productive... "

What do suggest is more productive than highlighting the bias showed by Wikipedia editors and admins on pages dealing with the situation in the Middle East? 81.156.193.214 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit history and reverts confirm the fact that you are one of the cabal of Wikipedia editors who put a left wing / pro palestinian slant on articles.

Re, Runtshit and rolandR - No wonder people have a go when you take a look at the filth that is on his userpage http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:RolandR, none of which is challenged for not meeting the userpages guidelines http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:USERPAGES 81.156.193.214 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 81.156.193.214 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 81.156.193.214 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you see things that way but consider this:
The question is, "Are you allowed to edit Wikipedia ? If not, do something else." If you can't understand that simple decision procedure there is probably nothing useful I can say to you, but I'll try. If you continue to fire rockets at Wikipedia you shouldn't be at all surprised when Wikipedia shoots back. Perhaps that is something you can understand. What you are doing is harming Wikipedia. It really is. Editor's who use deception can't be here. Acting as if the rules don't apply to you is wrong. It's impossible to build a stable, constructive, collaborative environment where people with diverse opinions can work together and implement the content policies of the project in peace when there is so much disruption by people who can't follow simple rules. Sockpuppetry is not allowed at all. There is no justification or excuse for it. Use the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Discuss things openly and honestly with an admin to find a better way.
Consider for a moment that you may not be able to reliably identify things or reliably measure bias objectively or that patterns you see may not be there or that the way you model things may be simplistic and counterproductive. My edit history and reverts do not confirm that I am "one of the cabal of Wikipedia editors who put a left wing / pro palestinian slant on articles". That is simply nonsense. My edits have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal opinions about the I-P conflict. If you want a reliable first order approximation of my views on any issue in the I-P topic it is that I don't have a view that matters in the slightest even to me. I will revert edits in the I-P topic area by sockpuppets and IPs using anonymizing proxy servers on sight, even if I agree with them and even if I think they are good edits. For all I know, you may be a zealot blinded by some idiotic, racist, primitive nationalist model of identity, history, microgeography or whatever. The point is, I don't know or care. Sockpuppetry isn't allowed, deception isn't allowed. It's as simple as that. It has to stop. I'm not a propagandist, I know what a fact is, I know what evidence is, I know what an evidence based statement is, I know how to follow documented decision procedures, I know the difference between editors who are allowed to edit here and editors who aren't (and I have no interest in the slightest in whether they are zionists or anti-zionists or carpet cleaners). Understand that I am not a combatant in your pointless nationalist battleground nonsense.
Now, it's true for example that the rather complex issues around Israeli citizenship/residency rules/annexation in East Jerusalem could be covered better in a number of places but I promise you that it is not going to be you who addresses it. Leave it to people who are allowed to edit here. It probably won't be me but someone will. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

God Hates Us All —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.102.189 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Hi Sean, you're invited to comment on this AE: [2].—Biosketch (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really try hard not to comment at AE reports nowadays unless I see something that looks particularly inaccurate/unjust/dishonest etc but try to have a look later on today. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ramot

This means that I should not continue editing the articles where I had already performed a revert; is there some centralized noticeboard for articles related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict? (11235813ab (talk · contribs), whom I had previously reverted for unexplained removal of referenced material, has now edited Ramot by adding a sentence not really supported by references, and even recursively using Wikipedia as a source.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. 11235813ab is going to get blocked if they carry on. There are plenty of people watching that page so I would hope someone will fix it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubashkin

Why do you keep deleting the section on the congressional response when it 100% happened.

See here to read for yourself the 45 congressmen's letters: http://justiceforsholom.org/the-response/congressional-response

See here to hear the hearing:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JusticeDepartmentOve

For Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz skip to 24:10

and then for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee skip to 1:40:02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack7188 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pally Pictures

I'm user 132. That account was banned for a period of time. That period of time is over. I'll use this named account and try my best to be a good member of the community. It is a scientific word for otter. Isn't that cute?

The three pictures on Palestinian people were removed by me, 132, after I posted a talk page comment about them. No one objected to my reasoning that the pictures are poorly captioned, misleading, and appeal to emotional politics on a page already plagued by controversy. There is also enough pics already.

Ohiostandard recently put the pics back in without explanation.

So, what I did was undo Ohiostandard's undoing of a good faith edit that was not contested on the talk page.

Why did you undo?Lutrinae (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal in the I-P topic area results in me automatically reverting generally speaking, especially in areas prone to cultural genocide and efforts to produce an article without a people. :) Just put a note of the article talk page with your new user id and someone will pick up the discussion. I'll try to join if I have time at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start a talk tread. But please note that I explained my edit with the words "Removed three pictures of an extraneous nature." That explains why I removed the pics, they were extraneous.

Extraneousness means excessiveness. Lutrinae (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that and I thought it was you, hence my deja vu comment, but it was a bit vague and I couldn't be sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You thought the explanation was vague, so you ignored good faith and deleted it anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.156 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. When all of the sockpuppets have gone and the agenda driven editors lay down their arms I'll switch to the nice guy/assume good faith mode. It's nothing personal. I vaguely remember agreeing with some of your suggested image removals. I'll try to have another look. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont accuse me of sockpuppetry. I have made no attempt to deceive.

The user who constantly posted Nazi crap on the Pally people article wasn't me, but banned at the same time. I think that was the only "evidence" used against me.

Anyway, bygones and we'll see how we can make some encyclopedic, NPOV I-P articles. Or does that area not interest you? Lutrinae (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything, I was commenting on the topic area in general and its unfortunate effects on my approach, but if you see any editors that you suspect are sockpuppets please let me know. Am I interested in making I-P articles NPOV ? Not much, there are more interesting things to work on here, but I try to keep an eye on things. I'm not going to revert your edit. I'll try to get over there at some point. Other editors will probably comment before me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't think your IP was "banned for a period of time" was it ? I think the article was semiprotected for a while because of edit warring or something, I forget. (see WP:SILVERLOCK) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were write about the silverlock, but I hope you understand that I was often threatened with bans by people unwilling to be civil and talk. If you don't have the time for I-P conflict, then leave it alone. I don't think you are helping by removing material you don't like and replacing it with bias material you DO like. Lutrinae (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it to the article. The fair use rationale is legitimate and uncontroversial in my view so I do not support the IP's removal of the image from the infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of reflist template on talk pages

Hi Sean. I noticed that when you posted to a talk page to create this section that since the text you copypasted from the corresponding article included ref tags, you also added {{reflist}} to your post, to make the embedded refs appear on the talk page. Someone, I didn't see who, removed that reflist templagte subsequently, I also noticed, presumably because it was "capturing" and displaying all the references on the talk page, including those present in other, unrelated sections.

There's a way around this, as I saw from the documentation at Template:Reflist#Multiple_uses, which says,

If {{Reflist}} is used multiple times without a parameter, each instance will include all of the previously defined references. To force the parser to close previous references, each use of {{Reflist}} must be forced as a new instance by the use of any parameter. Even an undefined parameter such as {{Reflist|close=1}} will force the references to close.

I usually use the construct {{reflist|local=yes}} myself, "local" being a made up parameter name, but {{Reflist|sockpuppets=stinky}} might be an alternative you'd reasonably prefer. I might start using it myself, actually.

This only works, though, this "localization" of references, if everyone on a talk page uses it; I've asked Tiamut to have a look at this thread, too, since the references jumble that I've now corrected on Talk:Palestinian people was also contributed to by her posting text that contained ref tags. In her case, at least in a couple of sections, anyway, she didn't include a reflist template at all. But her refs were showing up in other sections that did.

Also, I wanted to mention that I've left several comments for you in this thread, and to ask whether you think requesting full protection and then editprotected might be an appropriate response to this whole mess? I'm not happy about the exclusion of any criticism from that article, its removal to different articles, when, as you rightly observed, the Hamas article is so awash with criticism, including having a section specifically devoted to it. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Won't open a new section for it, but scroll down in diff for a look at another POV removal of evidently well-sourced material, an entire section. This is our friend, Lutrinae, of course, in a previous IP incarnation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that someone who removed the second reflist was me precisely for the reasons you describe. I had no idea about that solution so many thanks for that.
Yes, 132./Lutrinae is a seriously problematic editor, exactly the kind of editor the sanctions are designed to keep under control I think. The blatantly and demonstrably false accusations he keeps making about me and the source are hilarious. I don't know what he's playing at. He can say whatever he likes to me, I don't care, but he can't act like that in the topic area. He's a textbook example of the other non-socky major problem in the topic area, tendentious and disruptive behavior in terms of both content edits and talk page usage with a bit of WP:COMPETENCE thrown in. I warned him what would happen. The only reason I haven't filed an AE report yet is limited time as they take a while to prepare. It would be a shame to have to fully protect the article just because of one editor.
As for the IDF article, I'm at a loss there. It's very difficult to get people to try to be more objective and rational about these kind of issues. Owain is or at least was probably pushing a bit too hard. It seems like the kind of situation where the best thing to do might be for everyone to stop editing the article and try to build the content on the talk page. It won't be easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I should add for good measure that what is particularly ironic about the Lutrinae disruption is that the issue of the origins of the Palestinain identity has been a problem in that article for ages. It's something I know nothing about and don't care about in the slightest. However, I made a special effort to try to resolve it once and for all by finding high quality sources and adding the content in the hope that it would end the problems. Exactly the opposite happened. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. Your last one made me chuckle, knowingly. How very cute of you to think that high quality sources would be of any interest. ;-) Re Owain, yes; I e-mailed him about pushing versus more productive possibilities. I'm going to think about it a bit, too, the IDF article; I'll probably ping you, if that's alright, if I move ahead with that in any way. Also, I'll need to learn how to file an AE request myself at some point; I write very slowly, though, and it would take me probably a full eight hours the first time I tried. I just can't allocate that kind of time right now, but I promise I'll learn the process sometime soon. You're welcome re the reflist thing; I just discovered that a couple months ago, myself, and thought it was pretty cool. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hope you have your frige with exotic tropical juices at your disposal to deal with summer heat. Feel free to comment here if you feel like it. Your experienced opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

After Poyani registered, he was asked about previous accounts because his behaved like an experienced user. If Poyani and and Owain are the same person, he's doing a remarkably good job of acting like a new user with the Owain account.     ←   ZScarpia   02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to have a look at the editing patterns today. I'm not familiar with Poyani. It would be good it we could get to the point where nobody minds having an SPI report filed about their account...for the sake of the project and all that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Superficially at least it seems unlikely that Owain, who strikes me a someone who shows many aspects of being British (probably from Wales), is the same as Poyan who appears to be Iranian. Poyan could have had a previous/alternative accounts/IPs, not sure yet, and an SPI report could be justified, not sure yet, but I don't think Owain would be the account I would put in the report. As for the weather here, it's been raining lot which is bloody excellent...even though it slightly flooded the house...twice. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a look?

Hi, Sean. I've posted here to RolandR's talk page about our joint adventure at AE recently. We need to find a venue where requests for wp:scrutiny disclosures to (some appropriately selected group of?) admins are welcome, rather than being treated, most improperly, in my opinion, as some kind of harassment. SPI isn't such a venue, and perhaps AE isn't, either, or maybe that was just AGK's view. Anyway, I'd welcome your thoughts on the matter, at RolandR's page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do a bit later. I can understand AGK's desire to keep the AE page clean (although I don't necessarily agree with it in that case) but since AGK processed my recent AE report so very efficiently he has most helpful admin of week status for me. This probably degrades my objectivity. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can too. I certainly shouldn't have responded to my follower; that was dumb. But if we're not to be allowed to ask at AE for wp:scrutiny disclosure of prior accounts to some trusted group, when a new account is in use by so obviously experienced an editor, I don't know where we can ask. Re "helpful admin status", though, I'm afraid this has rather sunk his prospects for my vote. Anyway, good on you for that report; thanks for filing it, and look forward to hearing your thoughts on scrutiny disclosures being required in such cases.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Btselem

did you read my source from the JPOST which legitimised my edit saying that they considered it an extreme left wing organisation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I also searched for "left" and "ext". Please could you paste the sentence in the source that says "extreme left wing" here on my page so I can verify it ? Here's the source you cited to save you time looking [3]. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does an article need to say such a thing for it to be understood that way? In no way does an article regarding any organisations which it considers extreme, for example the Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaeda..., need to state it. Same thing here, we see from the overwhelming evidence that the JPOST considers it to be an extreme left wing organisation.Bouklyloo (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for horning in on your chat with Sean. Yes, in order to quote a source as saying something, the source has to actually say it, not merely suggest it. And even if the cited article had said B'Tselem was "extreme left wing" it would not be allowable, because it is an opinion column. I can cite plenty of opinion columns that call the Post "extreme left wing". But I don't because it is against the rules, and also because it is stupid.
Finally, all this labeling of this or that group as "left-wing" or "extreme left wing" is just pablum. Avigdor Lieberman has called for a parliamentary investigation into the organization, charging that it weakens Tsahal and supports terrorism. And you want to call it "left-wing"??? Weak, very weak. I have juiced up the quotes in the lead. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not me that calls in left wing, I call it anti-Israel... I don't get it why you refuse to put it up when thats what a lot of people would say. Many people consider Btselem to be an extreme left wing organisation and so does this article. If you don't want to say that jpost considers it extreme because its an opinion poll then let the author of the article be it. She is quiet high and many people would agree with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean and Ravpapa are right, you can't invent your own labels on the basis of what you think someone means, only on the basis of what they actually say. In any case, even if the article did use the description "extreme left" you could only report it as the opinion of Caroline Glick, not as the opinion of JP. And that would look rather funny, since everyone knows that Ghengis Khan looks extreme left from where Caroline Glick sits. Zerotalk 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inventing, its self evident! Caroline Glick is not some random opinion poll writer. She reflects the view of the JPOST or else she wouldn't be so high in the organisation itself and had the article been so controversial, it would have had a response which it didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you familiarise yourself with key policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, guidelines such as WP:WTA and ensure that you comply with WP:NPOV at all times before you edit in a contentious topic area about a real-world conflict. You should also read about the discretionary sanctions that apply to the B'Tselem article and many others. Compliance with policy and the discretionary sanctions is absolutely mandatory and non-negotiable. Please don't add any more content to articles covered by the sanctions because you regard it as "self evident". Sean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how in anyway what you have just said made the argument move forward. I don't see how any of what I have posted goes against these rules and I think that it's pretty arogant of you to try to stop the debate by doing so. Now please explain why you will not have JP listing B'tselem as extreme left when Caroline Glick is very high within? It is absolutely evident that from such an article we see that JP takes B'tselem as extreme left.Bouklyloo (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a debate or a negotiation. Read the policies, guidelines, and the sanctions. Start with the very first sentence of WP:V. They explain everything you need to know. You then simply need to comply with them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you I had but you still haven't answered my question so please do so... Any reader who reads the article would see the views it is trying to express are clear and reflex what I am trying to put on.Bouklyloo (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand how the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" means that you can't use that source to describe B'Tselem as "extreme left wing", a description that does not appear in the source, I can't help you. Wikipedia content must be based on what sources actually say. The statement "Any reader who reads the article would see..." etc is a bare assertion fallacy. There is a Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Perhaps they can help you gain a better understanding of policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the article need to say in big bold letter "B'tselem is extreme left" for it to be understood? Just the opening sentences makes it clear what stance it is taking on the matter. "The time has come to determine just how “Israeli” these organisations that form such a big part of the int'l political war against Israel are." If you would have read the article you would also have come across this sentence: "Moreover, B’Tselem and its fellow-NIF grantees provided 92 percent of the anti-Israel allegations originating from Israeli sources." If you would imply some basic english writing skills you would realise that she is clearly stating, in an undertone, that B'tselem is extreme. Is it not extreme to provide 92% of all anti-Israel allegations? It is not me that believes this, it is the basic english writing methods that she is using to get her point across who imply it.Bouklyloo (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does need to actually say "extreme left wing" as you have been told several times now. You simply need to accept that as a basic rule that is documented by the WP:V policy. As I said, this isn't a negotiation or a discussion about whether the source may or may not have meant X when they didn't say X. Regarding "It is not me that believes this", yes it is, it's you, it's your personal interpretation of a source and I suggest you try to imagine what would happen to article content if everyone did that. It's important that you understand this basic point or else you will find it very difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia because your contributions will be reverted as WP:V policy violations. I should also add that a WP:V policy violation is not a trivial and unimportant thing in Wikipedia. Editors are routinely blocked or topic banned for these kind of policy violations if they make them repeatedly, particularly in topic areas covered by sanctions. Just stick to what sources actually say and be sure to carefully read the policies and guidelines if you plan to contribute to contentious topic areas. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that according to you it does need to actually say it and that I am somehow interpreting then it will not be put on and I will stop here. However I still do not understand how this goes against the policy. She is trying to get this point across and it would be ridicule to think that she isn't implying what I've been trying to say. This is not an interpretation or a discussion it is a fact.Bouklyloo (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A response from the B'tselem Executive Director to Glick's charges can be found here. Fasten seat belts before reading. Zerotalk 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ouch. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
She also criticises without evidence and anyway the army never takes B'tselem numbers and a lot of there research has been proved wrong and is always rejected. It is clear that do everything to demonise the IDF and Israeli government to make them pull out of the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
So are going to self revert or am I taking this to AE? There is a neutrality dispute and I have started a discussion with specific reasoning. Give you 24 hours.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest AE but before that we should at least edit war over it a bit and use some swear words in the edit summaries so that it can be posted at AN3 and WQA and maybe post something at NPOV/N and ANI before AE. If I'm not busy at 07:11 (UTC) tomorrow there is a very real possibility that I might self-revert although I quite often revert the wrong edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As fun as searing at you sounds (it is what I tend to do), I should be staying away from the battlefield mentality. I will be seeking a revert restriction in the topic area for you. You assumed it was drive by tagging since the edit took place before I had hit "save page" on the talk page by three minutes. But then you commented in the talk page discussion so you now know why the tag as placed there. So why did you not self revert then? There is neutrality dispute and an open discussion. So do you want to exhibit battlefield mentality or will you restore the tag? TWe don't need to play games.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay it's like that. In that case I will change gears. Go ahead and seek a revert restriction in the topic area for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No need to change gears just yet. If you do not self revert there is a great case for gaming the system and baiting which would be even better for my side of the war. I can wait for you to realize it isn't a big deal and restore the tag within 24hrs as originally suggested. The hesitance to do it before is a little disconcerting (one of the points in my draft for AE) but sometimes people's feathers get ruffled over stupid stuff. So I will probably check in on it in 22hrs and be too drunk to write up an AE until the next day which will put it at about 8:00pm Thursday (Pacific). But holding off on restoring the tag only makes my case stronger which (all joking aside) is something I like. So do we have an understanding?Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no feathers to ruffle. If you think an AE report is justified, just file it, I don't need to be involved in discussions about its merits, I just need to abide by its outcome. I will not be restoring the tag. I removed it before your talk page comment and even after your comment I don't think it is neccesarily justified. I would like to hear other views. That is why I said "The reasons can be listed and discussed below to see whether a tag is necessary". Bear in mind that I'm under no obligation to agree with you that there is a demonstrably policy/RS based POV dispute that merits the tagging. You can restore it yourself if you genuinely think it is justified by policy or perhaps you are concerned about a 1RR violation, I don't know. My view based on my knowledge of your editing and your and Nableezy's recent edits is that you tagged it because of your batfuck insane obsession with watching Nableezy's edits and trying to poke him with a stick whenever you can. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That is true. Though there now appears to be another editor, active on this page, who has contracted Nableezitis, the technical term for "batshit insane obsession with watching Nableezy's edits" regularly going through Nableezy's edits for sport just to see where you might tempt him into doing something to get him sanctioned. Its so good to be cared about in such a way. nableezy - 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ive modified the above, as a certain beacon of neutrality and excellent judgment has taken exception. Though perhaps we should consider discussing the actual issue further. To the editors, and you know who you are, that regularly go through my contributions, I have some questions. What point of the day do you decide to check up on me? How do you decide whether or not to get involved in something that you had not been aware of before simply because I am. Do you ensure that you know what you are talking about before you do so? Or is it enough that Nableezy is there, so you must serve to counter the Dark Side? nableezy - 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


No need to modify what you say Nableezy. You have gone against standards so long it is expected/ Either the admins will block you or they won't. But for Sean (you are just as biased as he is even though you fly under the radar) I went to the game and am way to hammed to figure out AE right now. I assume it is no worries since I resotred the tag. However, you can revert (or even better: Nableezy can) and then we can go to AE. Sound like a plan? You boys done playing games? Who wants to go down with Nableezy? Please please please revert my tag.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_4&oldid=1138920781"