User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

AN/I report

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Arab attacks - some eyes please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We're no longer in "duck and cover" period. There is a real chance if we follow instructions form Irwin Redlener, see surviving a nuclear attack. Beware vandals ;) Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel.
Message added 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I saw the change that you made on the article Barkan Mounts and subsequently a number of other, similar changes. I don't know the policy regarding Israel/WestBank naming convention on WP. As such I've opened a thread on WP:ISRAEL and would welcome your comments regarding the policy. Thanks and happy new year. Joe407 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your advice re contributing to Israeli settlement especially the citations template. I had just done a copy and paste of another citation and changed the details. Happy to include quotations but have a question as to their best placement. Having seen, on the talk page, your advice to another editor re including reputable source material, I had intended to include quotations in a more discursive section on the settlement as colony discussion. Usually one does not include detail such as quotations in the introduction to an article but rather to use the introduction as a predictor of what comes later in the text? Otherwise it all gets a bit top heavy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriel2012 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I really just meant a quotation via the quote= attribute in the citation rather than in the article text itself. The quote doesn't show up in the article body but it is included in the references section. See here for example and then have a look at the way the reference 6 is rendered in the Tikun Olam (blog) article. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, I saw the quote field but did not realise it would not appear in the text. Will look to reformatting using the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriel2012 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template problem on South Sudan

Yes, due to a bug, if there is a reference in the "capital" field in the Country infobox template, the listings for "Capital" and "Largest city" will be separate when the infobox is rendered even if they are the same. Compare the version without the reference to the version with one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks, I didn't know that (obviously). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Second Intifada & photo

Hi. Hope you enjoyed the holiday, if you celebrate, that is. (don't mean to be presumptuous). In any event, is this okay?[1] Does it satisfy the criteria for restoration to the article? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some problems that need fixing first. The 2000 Ramallah lynching article includes the line "The picture of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image of the conflict." I'm sure it's true but it's unsourced. That probably needs a decent source first which I assume isn't difficult to find. There may already be a source that says something like that being cited for something else in the article. A similar line about its iconic nature with the same source could then be used in the Second Intifada article. That would then tie in better with the FUR. I think it's the iconic nature of the image in the context of the Second Intifada that justifies it's presence in that article. You could take the issue to the article's talk page and try to get consensus but the atmosphere in the topic area isn't exactly conducive to collaboration at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, this AP article gets close. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight Sean. I'll open a discussion on the corresponding page soon enough but I'm a bit busy with RL at the moment. I will notify you when I do and welcome your participation and continued insight.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in Framing terrorism: the news media, the government, and the public ISBN 978-0415947190. Chapter 4, Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (pages 59-74), compares and contrasts the reporting and imagery associated with the Dura and lynching incidents, how the various media outlets handled it, how both the Israelis and Palestinians tried to exploit or contain the impact of imagery. It contains quite a lot of detail and analysis. It's quite interesting. It might be useful for the main 2000 Ramallah lynching article and perhaps the Second Intifada article to a lesser extent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Heyo[2]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Fair Use issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions re: Jerusalem

Hi Sean: If, as you indicate, the question of conventions for identifying Jerusalem as being in Israel or not have no consensus and conflicts over this point crop up in a variety of articles, wouldn't it be a good idea to seek some kind of centralised consensus on this question? Do you know if there are any means for doing so within Wikipedia or is each article essentially a universe unto itself? BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be standardized across Wikipedia with a guideline similar to WP:WESTBANK. I doubt whether it's possible to resolve though as it's such a sensitive issue for many editors. Discussions about how to handle the description of Jerusalem in the main article usually get bogged down. The place to raise the issue for a centralized discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit surprised

You were way out of line with this comment. You have absolutely no idea who left you those hateful messages and you painted a rather broad stroke with that brush of yours. Those incendiary messages could have been left by anyone and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that it was left by someone whose views are diametrically opposed to the people you just maligned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am just about the reply to Michael. I'm not out of line. He asked about the abuse. He was told about the abuse. My stroke is very precise not broad. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Read your comment. Never found you to be an extremist like some of the others. I believe that your edits (many of which are diametrically opposed to mine) are sincere and despite our vast differences, both of us have managed to work rather well together (at least I think so and I hope you do as well.) There have however, in the past been cases (some infamous and some less so) where the perpetrators of an attack hurt their own in a misguided attempt to rally for a certain cause or to gain sympathy. I can provide you with examples if you'd like. Similarly, those people who left those despicable messages on your page had to have known that their IPs would be blocked and their edits Revdel'd. So what purpose is accomplished by doing that other than the fact that it makes one side look really bad and silly. Not saying that this is one of those cases but keep an open mind about it, eh?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that whoever they are and whatever motivates them doesn't matter in the end. They really are completely irrelevant in every way. I've not filed a complaint about it or reported it because it doesn't bother me and I haven't discussed the comments left for me or the emails I receive before it was raised on BHBs talk page. The comments are removed almost as soon as they're posted and the emails are sent to an account I only look at about once a month. I don't think they make anyone look bad and silly apart from themselves. It's possible that it's people just trying to stir up trouble but ultimately it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And we agree yet again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an agreeable sort of retraction. Except for the part that they don't make anyone look bad but themselves, because they obviously make the side they appear to be coming from look bad, evident by the way this thread started. Finer brushes are usually more accurate. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the best one so far has been "I'll break your fingers so you will no longer be able to type." I have always tried to think of creative ways to not have to go to work, that just may be the best one yet. -asad (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the workplace will buy you a graphic tablet then. Today one have to break both arms (at least) to stay at home. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the email messages are generally of higher quality although there was a good comment here about digging my grandmother up and doing something I assume was meant to offend me. Research is where they fall down though since I never met one of my grandmothers and I have no memories of the other one. I enjoyed the email "Prepare for an unpleasant visit. Thailand is an easy place to hire a hitman" because of the positive way it presents the outsourcing opportunities here and the availability of skilled workers although in reality hitmen are generally frowned upon in a Buddhist culture and in practice a hitman presents less risk than snakes and traffic. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I kind of dig it. It is a high tourist season so it is easy to blend, though it is clear form the first glance I am Hellsing when you look at my gun. I land at Suvarnabhumi Airport make my way through customs but instead of connecting to Phuket and play dead on some paradise beach I go out to the city, since I can smell: Sean is near. I am a vampire so it is not a surprise I crave to drink Sean's blood. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people need to read more comic books to build resilience. Breaking arms, zombie grandmothers and Buddhist hitmen are like love letters by comparison. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

MN, thank you for the weekly dose of laugh. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 21:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is a chance Grawp is behind all this. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe the vandalism. But is he good enough to pull off an innocent and harmless persona like BHB? (said at risk of violating the weekly laugh dose quota :) --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BHB SPI

In looking over last night's discussion between us again, and in particular your final response to me (which I didn't see at the time), I think I went too far -- so please accept my apology for any incivility in that conversation on my part. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, nobody died. I could have used a more diplomatic intensifier so apologies if my language offended you. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(I was about 30 seconds too late in responding to this last night before the blackout). No need to apologize for the language, it didn't offend me. Truth is, I was enjoying the bickering with BHB a little too much, and didn't want someone to tell me to stop. Purely selfish on my part. Thanks for accepting my apology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I'm on here because I'm having problems editing the Anti-Defamation League article because one editor is, in my opinion, doing POV editing. On the Talk page, you can find what we have discussed thus far and the paragraph I wrote and he has removed for what I believe are political biases. Though I've been registered as a Wikipedia user for a long time, I'm not a frequent editor and am not very familiarized with Wikipedia terminology. Guinsberg (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bernama

Nice detective work :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vang Vieng

Wonder if you could continue to monitor Vang Vieng as the persistent vandal continues to be persistent! Thanks for your help. 61.8.203.4 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

okay Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

I mentioned you here, you might want to add a word. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Troglodytes

A number of questions I'm pondering: why Texan IP user 108.199.114.22 considers troglodytism to be a disqualification for being human; and why the Troglodyte disambiguation page doesn't mention such famous troglodytes as the ones from Anatolia.     ←   ZScarpia   15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these messages often raise more questions than they answer particularly about the nature of cognitive and ethical impairments. Still, I enjoy them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia, exact geography is essential for good anthropology. In particular, I'd recommend a different geolocation service. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Capadoccia, then? Have to say, those tunneled-out homes look more desirable than the place I stay.     ←   ZScarpia   11:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! ... just realised what you meant. Sorry to be so obtuse. What location do you get? Other services still give me Texas.     ←   ZScarpia   13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Those caves are nice. I think the location confusion comes from AT&T's legal dept being in San Antonio but the server is somewhere in Connecticut. It's probably an anonymizing proxy anyway I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just before you answered, it suddenly occurred to me that they're probably connecting via a mobile phone service, or some such. I've never myself done anything which required me to hide my address and I haven't yet been the object of the attention of nutters who embarrass themselves and others of their group by sending nasty messages, so I've never really had to think before about how anonymous poison-message writers operate on the Web.     ←   ZScarpia   13:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a static IP connected by ADLS line. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 23:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know who I'm going to turn to the next time I need a bit of geolocating doing.     ←   ZScarpia   00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It mus be getting annoying...

But can you please weigh in [on this?] Justifications for deletion seem bogus to me. Guinsberg (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, have a look at the aforementioned link. All of my edits have been edited out under spurious arguments of slander and BLP, even though they all represent common criticism and referenced to RS material. It's also quite clear to me two editors -- Plot Spoiler and Jayjg -- are planning before hand to remove any critical assessment of ADL from the entry. They are removing one each day, and I believe there's a plot to lure me into "edit warring". Guinsberg (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to have much time this week but I'll try to have a look when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AE comment

I understand the compulsion in certain disputes to respond like that to another editor's comment, but it is better for you to self-revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you calm down

for your recent comments in various places aren't helping, and this is very sad. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping!

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I was perfectly calm when I made those comments. Your concern may be better directed at preventing an editor from crossing over to the advocacy dark side. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The only editor I can actually prevent from doing anything is I myself. If something is wrong with my editing, and if you have a couple of minutes, please let me know, on- or off-wiki; your criticism is always taken most seriously. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true. You're a very welcome addition to the topic area and there are no complaints from me. If everyone in the topic area was like you I probably wouldn't make any edits there at all. I also think you are probably one of the editors with the best chance to resolve the Gaza Massacre issue, an issue that I think Agada should stay away from, at least in the sense of editing that term in the article as he will probably get himself into trouble again. How to resolve the issue is another matter. Other than having another RfC I have no idea. Hundreds of manhours have been spent on it and I think people have grown tired of the issue. Many, although probably not enough, long term editors have walked away from that article, which may be a good thing in the long run. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC is a good idea. BTW, NASA calls it LENR ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A handful of editors overturning an RfC that was closed by an uninvolved admin is probably the Wiki equivalent of a coup d'état. I think it would also undermine the RfC dispute resolution mechanism. The issue doesn't seem important or complex enough to go for formal mediation. I'm not sure I see a practical alternative to having another RfC. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Vang Vieng

I've put in a request for semi-protection - [3]220.255.1.89 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AE

I've added you to the AE for unacceptable behaviour of an editor. --Shuki (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks by the way. Was it something I said ? Would it help if I cited a source ? This one perhaps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MEQ

The IPs are at it again, and have been viciously violating the 1RR rule[4]. What's the usual procedure for blocking in a case like this? Sindinero (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to do something about this yesterday. I've notified Tnxman307 again. See User_talk:Tnxman307#Ledenierhomme. Short range blocks are the usual procedure. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I've also made a request for semi-protection of the page itself, we'll see if that helps. Sindinero (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. —This is in light of some of your comments on the AE request concerning Shuki. My impression of you has always been one of a sensible, level-headed editor until now. I sincerely hope you won't prove me wrong, but if you treat AE as a battleground n that way again, you will be sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you have an idea for how much [censored] editing/POV pushing/crap-source inserting a level-headed editor can absorb. -asad (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification although I think a better approach would be working on the basis that an edit to a talk page with the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header should be treated as sufficient notification. For the record though, I don't have a interpersonal dispute with Shuki. I have a dispute with a specific kind of edit they make, a type of edit that constitutes a small subset of the 11k+ edits they have made. As for impressions, one thing I've learnt from editing in the topic area is that if there is a relationship between what editors say and do and people's impressions of what they say and do, it's a relationship I don't understand and have little control over. So, I'll simply not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me. That should address your concerns. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention of banning you from AE, so whether or not you comment on future requests is entirely up to you, but had you expressed your concerns with Shuki's editing in a more constructive manner instead of arguing about it, there would have been no need for this conversation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Yes, I could have handled it better. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you address my concerns in Talk:Israeli settler violence?
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't usually need to leave messages like this because people have articles watchlisted. You can save yourself some typing. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The JDL is not one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence. They are a wholly distinct body who's targets occasionally converge with that of the Settler group. The group was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City in 1968 and bears no connection with the settler body that consists of Jewish civilians living in community built on land that was captured by Israel. Overlapping common causes does not constitute synonymity. Why is my distinction not worth considering? They are manifestly separate organisations.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralized on the article's talk page and try to exclude to any personal opinions. It's better to just stick to discussing what reliable sources have to say on the issue or else the discussion will get off track. Our models of things like the "settler body" and how it intersects with JDL isn't relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts wanted. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. See also: User talk:Greyshark09#Palestinian territories. -- _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Neighborhoods of Jerusalem

Hey, Sean. Did you notice that Beit Safafa is in 'Southern'? And it is in fact east of Sharafat. What about Abu Tor? 2/3 of it is east of the green line. Ramot, Neve Ya'akov, Pisgat Zeev, etc. are all east of the line, but they are 'Northern'. What about Gilo, East Talpiot, Givat HaMatos and Har Homa in 'Southern'? Do we put those in 'East Jerusalem'? Now we've turned a what should be a simple template into a pov war. I've looked at many neighborhood templates from around the world and they are either simply alphabetical or divided by compass points.

OK, granted, J'lem is a very special case. But, still, we're talking about a template.

I hope the English template doesn't come to resemble the Hebrew version. Did you see that monstrosity? It tries too hard to be an entire wikipedia article on the history and politics of the city. It is totally unreadable. Which brings me to the seperate section for Haredi neighborhoods. But never mind. Let's leave that can of worms for another discussion! cordially,--@Efrat (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

efrat - there is sometimes a difference in jerusalem between "east" and other compass directions. if one is referring to actual compass directions, then, yes, gilo and talpiot are in the southern part of jerusalem (see a map). when "east" is used to convey a political term, as in "east jerusalem", they are referring to anything over the 1967 armistice line (the green line). they are two very different things - one is pure geography, and one is geography mixed with realpolitics... such is the reality in jerusalem. Soosim (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion Template talk:Neighborhoods of Jerusalem in the "Sources" section.

I'm very short of time at the moment but I'll try to come back to this when I have some. I think the current template is a good example of original research resulting in a wiki-reality version of the city. Information about spatial relationships are best conveyed by maps. A genuinely simple template could look something like Template:Boroughs and districts of London with just a simple alphasorted list of places (and Template:New York metropolitan area uses another approach) but if we are to have a template I think it's important for it to make it clear where things are in relation to the green line. It's pretty extraordinary that readers can't tell from the template (or categories apparently) whether somewhere in Jerusalem is inside or outside the State of Israel as defined by the green line. Yes, the Haredi neighborhoods part is a bit odd. The places could be grouped by income, shoe size, average height of residents etc. It would be a lot of fun trying to do something similar for other cities. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is going to set off fireworks! Take a look: User:Atefrat/sandbox3 --@Efrat (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Canaan Dog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levantine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yandé Codou Sène

Hi Sean.hoyland,

Thanks for your notification regarding File:Yande_Codou_Sene_-_The_Great_Serer_Diva.jpg. A copy of that photo was given to me in good faith, but if it violates any policy I rather remove it. I am aware that there are similar and many other photos about Yandé Codou Sène which is not surprising, she was a singer after all, hence my rational in the file's history. But if it contravenes Wiki policy I will remove it. At present I am having problems with images anyway. I uploaded two images File:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof as Scout Master.jpg and File:Bread and Butter Demonstration 1959 -Banjul, The Gambia.jpg and although they are being used in Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof's article (in English Wiki), when I tried to use them in the corresponding French article they did not work in spite of the rationale. May be it is the license used and I have no idea how to change this without prejudicing the images' copyright (i.e. to be used in inappropriate articles etc.).

Regards Tamsier (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think we can probably still use that image of Yandé Codou Sène but just not from commons. It might be from Angèle Diabang Brener's film (at least according to this). What I'll do is reload it or something very similar to English Wiki and add a fair use rationale. It will also need to be loaded separately to French Wiki to be used there. It's not possible to use an image across different language Wikis unless it's in commons. You'll need to load those File:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof as Scout Master.jpg and File:Bread and Butter Demonstration 1959 -Banjul, The Gambia.jpg images to French Wikipedia too. That's the advantage of putting images in commons because they can be linked directly in any of the Wikis. Unfortunately we don't have that option in Yandé Codou Sène's case. If I reload the portrait to English Wiki with a fair use rationale can you load to French Wiki with a translated fair use rationale ? I have no doubt that your French is better than mine. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland,

Thanks for that. I can translate it, but when it comes to images, issues like uploading, fair use etc. I find rather complicated beit Enlish or French Wiki. Sometimes its hit and miss. Sometimes I struggle for hours. Too many policies and steps on Wiki (not just English but French too). Sometimes one has to navigate Wiki for ages just to find the desired policy. I have already posed a question at French Wiki regarding Cham Joof's images. Once they show me the way, I will get the hang of it and then be in a better position to upload Yandé's image per your instruction. Thanks for reuploading the image to English Wiki.

Kind regards Tamsier (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that navigating Wikipedia/Commons policy and guideline pages is usually only tolerable while listening to music. For example, when I was trying to figure out the fair use rationale I listened to Lewlewal de Podor from northern Senegal. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 15:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Lol.

Tamsier (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland,

Regarding the Cham Joof's images, I have just been advised by a French Wikipedian that it is impossible to upload them onto French Wiki because they are not free. Their usage in English Wiki falls under the American jurisprudence called fair use which does not apply in French Wiki, and as such they cannot be used. In similarity, Yandé Codou's image cannot be used their either.

Regards

Tamsier (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know that so thanks for telling me. I found these pages, meta:Fair_use#Wikipedia and meta:Images on Wikipedia, that confirm it. That's a pity. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A friendly advice?

Hello

I’m a fairly new editor and probably have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. I turn to you mainly for a word of advice. I have gotten into a rather unpleasant conflict with user:Shrike which I am uncertain how to handle in the most appropriate way. If you believe that I have been out of line please tell me so. Let me emphasize that if I have violated Wikipedia guidelines I have done so out of incomplete understanding of these and want to mend my ways. I have tried to play by the rules but recently I was officially warned by User:HJ Mitchell:

User_talk:Jokkmokks-Goran/Archives/2012/February#Notification_of_discretionary_sanctions

I did not understand what violation I was guilty of and asked for a clarification but I received no reply.

My disagreement with user:Shrike has passed through several stages but now it mainly concerns what constitutes a reliable source. I claim that in an article about a battle between Hezbollah and the IDF neither of them can be described as “reliable, third-party, published sources” WP:RS.

For details see:

Talk:Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#Reliable_sources

Talk:Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#What_have_I_done.3F

A second point with user:Shrike concerns what constitutes WP:OR:

Talk:Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab#Casualties_section

Am I wrong?

Regards,

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's note is just a formal notification of the sanctions to ensure that you have been made aware of them by an admin. It doesn't mean you were guilty of a violation although I can see that the removal of attribution to HRW and stating opinions as facts in Wikipedia's voice in the infobox would be seen as problematic and trigger notification. Human Rights Watch qualifies as an RS with attribution in Wikipedia (just like the IDF). HRW has been discussed many times at the RS noticeboard. Shrike is correct that we should attribute statements from a source like HRW (or the IDF) to them rather than state things as facts using Wikipedia's neutral unattributed voice. I haven't looked at the OR claim in detail, I'll try to when I have some time. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. But if the IDF is considered a RS on equal footing with HRW what does "third-party" mean in the formulation "reliable, third-party, published sources"? I did quote both IDF and HRW in the text with sources but I did not quote IDF in the infobox. The IDF's version of events was not supported by any other source (apart from those who quoted IDF directly). All other sources I have seen mentions 11-19 civilian fatalities (including numerous Israeli and Western media reports) while IDF claimed that none were hurt. Even the IDF later admitted that the 5 abducted Lebanese were not in fact Hezbollah fighters but civilians and released them. As far as I can see the IDF claims were contradicted by more reliable sources.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PS If you still disagree with me I will accept your judgement. As I said I am quite new here. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are on an equal footing as sources but that doesn't really matter in practice. HRW are certainly closer to being third party in the sense of being independent compared to the sources directly related to the belligerents in the conflict such as the IDF. HRW are agenda driven though because of their focus on human rights, hence the attribution. I think third party is being used in the sense of independant (although not necessariliy neutral) secondary sources such as media reports. Even if the IDF are the only source quoting a specific figure I think it merits inclusion (along with other more widely published figures from independant sources) simply because they are a belligerent, just like Hezbollah's figures. I think the IDF's legal department uses rather novel definition of non-combatant/civilian so it's not unusual to see these mismatches. I think the key is to just make sure that readers are presented with the various figures. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But how do we handle Palestinian claims to have killed a number of "Zionist soldiers" in bomb attacks when Israel has published the names, ages and sexes of the victims, strongly suggesting that the Palestinian claims were wrong? If we on top of that had a B'tselem report as well as media reporting confirming the official Israeli version. Do we keep a neutral line and present "all the facts" as equally credible? I'm sure that would irritate a lot of people (myself included). Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would include the Palestinian claims attributed to them along with all of the others so that the contradictions are clear. I don't think inclusion of claims with attribution implies that something is necessarily credible or that all claims are equally credible. Ideally readers should be presented with information that "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (to quote WP:DUE) in such a way that they can decide for themselves what to believe based on their views of the credibility of the sources. The IDF spokesperson's role for example is essentally that of a propagandist (not that that necessarily means information is false) but we can't reject their narrative on that basis even if it's contradicted by every other source because, as a belligerent, it's a significant viewpoint. I think it's the same in the Palestinian claims example you gave. It's not our place to decide what's true but we can describe the contradictions, majority vs minority viewpoints etc, when reliable sources have done that kind of analysis. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you new user but please see WP:CAN and see WP:DR.Thank you.If you like involvement of other editors you may use the WP:DRR.--Shrike (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Those links are useful but anyone is welcome to ask anyone a content related question and the editor can respond if they wish to do so. Your message seems to imply that they have done something wrong. That isn't the case since they clearly aren't canvassing. I think new users should be encouraged to contact whoever the want, whenever they want, to ask any content related questions they want to ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the edit on NGO Monitor. I stand corrected. Perplexed566 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for the friendly reminder Sean, on the Palestinian talk page, I appreciate it as well as your edits on the page to help retain accuracy and truth. :) Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Demotix

Demotix has a wiki article that appears to indicate it would be reliable, altho I understand your concern.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look through the site. What made me question its reliability is that, although it has an editor, anyone can submit content. It's essentially user generated although the user could be a journalist of course. Seems like a gray area especially for quotes in a BLP. It's probably worth taking to RSN in general as its bound to crop up elsewhere at some point. Perhaps someone already did that. I didn't check. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

True enough, but I dont think theres much reason to doubt the veracity of the quote.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Though I don't agree with you nor with your political stance I salute you for trying to be NPOV and act according to Wikipedia policies. Shrike (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see me make an edit you don't think complies with policy, let me know. Everyone messes up sometimes. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of 1RR

I'm not trying to argue, but just seeking some clarification. From your explanation it would seem that (assuming reasonable grounds) it is acceptable to revert the last five edits of an article in the I/P area so long as no-one else makes an intervening edit between each revert. Is this the case, or have I misunderstood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be treated as 1 revert. Strange but true. If another editor happened by pure chance to save an edit to a completely unrelated part of the article after the first 2 of those 5 edits, the 5 edits would become 2 reverts made up of 2 and 3 consecutive reverts. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the information, I will bare that in mind. Dlv999 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Zoological Conspiracy theory

Can you clarify under which regulation, you made this edit. Thanks.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the site doesn't match any of the WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE inclusion criteria, but it does match #10 of the WP:ELNO exclusion criteria, "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists" (relevant part highlighted). Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

List of National Heritage Sites of Israel

How do you propose to deal to site that the Government put it in the list but its in the west bank should it be in the appropriate category?(As it says "of" not "in")?--Shrike (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate category is Category:Israel National Heritage Site isn't it ? That seems fine to me as it's a neutral statement of fact that these sites are designated as National Heritage Sites by Israel. Herodium and the Cave of the Patriarchs are in that category and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The articles are pretty clear that the sites are in the West Bank and the articles are in various West Bank categories. The category is only there to help people find the sites. Gamla and Umm el Kanatir are in the Golan but again it's a fact that they are designated as a National Heritage Sites by Israel. I suppose someone could argue that it might be useful to have subcats for "Israel National Heritage Site in the West Bank", "Israel National Heritage Site in the Golan Heights", and maybe another one for sites in Jerusalem, but I'm not sure it's worth it. There aren't very many articles in the category, at least at the moment. Has someone complained about it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sneaking an ARBPIA with an ulterior motive

Not cool. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, cool and apparently necessary. The article is already covered by ARBPIA whether the template is there or not. I strongly suggest that you don't make any more unsourced editorializing edits like this. You will go straight back to AE if you continue and I have no doubt that you would be topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no indication of that, but now that there is – I won't make any more edits/continue discussions in respect of my ongoing ban. But hey... your abuse of that (by calling citing what's in the source "editorializing" and pinning the ARBPIA notice to force me out because of my situation) is appalling, yet apparently legal. Good luck, I'm going back to editing the other 99% of WP. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that your topic ban was still ongoing. If that is the case you certainly shouldn't be editing that article as it is very obviously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, covered by the sanctions and out of scope for you. The ARBPIA notice doesn't change that. It simply informs editors of the restrictions, most importantly in practice, the 1RR restriction. You can get your ban extended by doing things like that so you should try to be more careful about which articles you edit. Admins at AE are not likely to buy an "I didn't realize" argument. It is not "abuse" or "appalling". It's lucky it was me that saw it and not someone else because I'm not going to report it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's enough to take a peak at my fairly long contribution history since the topic ban to see that I was not trying to circumvent it. I was under the impression that it was valid only for articles specifically marked as I-P related. Anyway, thank you for not reporting this and I will be more careful in the future. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sub-categories

Hi Sean,

I noticed you quite correctly indicated that articles in sub-categories shouldn't be placed in higher-level categories.[5] I was curious, then, as to why you only reverted some of the edits of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/186.214.248.110; his/her edits all placed higher level categories on articles that were already place in sub-categories (e.g. Category:Terrorism was added to articles already in Category:Zionist terrorism). Was this merely an oversight that you were intending to fix? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's simply because, after the USS Liberty incident edit caught my attention, I didn't have time to go through the rest of the edits properly at the time Jayjg, so I just went for the obvious BLPCAT violations. When people make edits like this I usually don't assume that the categories that are already there are appropriate either. It takes time to read the articles (and possibly the talk pages) in detail to figure things out and I just didn't have it then. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anti-Arabism Your thoughts please. Does this article fall under the remit of ARBPIA?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would imagine that the Anti-Arabism#Israel section does. For the other parts of the article I guess it would depend on the specific nature of the content and its context. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Israeli settler violence

You recently attributed statements in the lead to a "senior Israeli commander in the West Bank" as indeed the source itself does. Can you confirm that you consider these statements sufficiently contentious to require attribution as I thought the sentiment expressed was widely held. Thanks.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal assessment of the contentiousness of the information. I can't do that reliably. All I know is that the information is the opinion of the IDF using the language of the IDF. That's all a reader can verify from the source cited. I attributed it, just like I would for a statement by the UN or HRW etc about settler violence, to distinguish the IDF's voice from Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice. The statement contains a couple of subjective terms that I don't think should be presented as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, "law abiding" and "extremist". Also, there is the matter of the IDF being the organization responsible for the administration of the West Bank, a territory held, according to Israel's HCJ and the international community, under belligerent occupation, so I think it is reasonable to attribute statements by the IDF about the state of affairs in that territory to the IDF rather than use Wikipedia's narrative voice in general. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you changed the source to the BBC. I think you should probably change "law abiding" to "non-violent" to match the source. They are entirely different and since the article is about violence the latter is better anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done so. I still think the lead is overly specific and could be better expressed in mutually agreeable generalised terms.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ofra

Please see my answer on the article talk page.--Shrike (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

in the edit you remove [6] you have cited that I should use wikipedia page as a refernce but there around more then 200 refernces on thouse pages should I account them all ? if I will take only a few it will not show the bigger picture (as each source talks about one or two incidents while there are hounders of incedents).. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.53.77 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The key point is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source so editors can't cite a Wikipedia page as if it is something like the BBC, JPost etc etc. See WP:CIRCULAR. You need to actually cite high quality reliable sources. Obviously you can often find suitable ones in the relevant Wikipedia article. I've copy edited the section you are editing to clean it up a bit but just go ahead and add what you want as long as it complies with WP:NPOV and the sources qualify as WP:RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you changed it to "Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence against civilian people" (my bold). That obviously isn't the case. The violence has been directed against both civilian and military targets. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

about the defention I must dissagree as per statisical count only the amount of non military targets is around 89% (but my script can be incorrect so I don't put that on an articale) - I took list of clashes and rocket attacks and counted each incident (but I only took information from wikipedia and qassam.ps so the number may differ), also I dissagere with the public claim "Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law." as that just sound wrong sources: qassam.ps , http://www.btselem.org/israeli_civilians

p.s. could you add the note about the million to a million and half under siege (with the sources) as I don't know how to make it look less a bias opnion (but that is very important fact that was missing in the page). (that had been prazed by the close relation organization hizzbala http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153808 , http://www.beernews.co.il/site/detail/detail/detailDetail.asp?detail_id=3184229&seaWordPage=) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.53.77 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do if you would like to make changes to an article, but you think the changes might be controversial, or other editors might disagree with them, is to start a discussion on the article's talk page. You can propose specific changes to wording and provide the reliable source or sources that readers can use to verify that the proposed change is consistent with the source.

Regarding the statistical distribution of target types, civilian vs military, I don't know, but all information must come from reliable sources so you can't work it out for yourself. See WP:OR.

Regarding the information that comes from B'Tselem, B'Tselem does qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia. It is the case that some Palestinian militant groups have at times claimed that it is legitimate to attack settlers in the oPt. That is what they have said and it is okay for us to report that using B'Tselem as the source making sure that the claim is attributed to the source of the claim. As B'Tselem (and other human rights groups have have said), that claim is inconsistent with international law in their view so we report what they say in response too.

For the numbers of people affected by the rocket attacks, you might be interested in this Human Rights Watch source. It says that during Operation Cast Lead "up to 800,000 people [were] within range of attack". Arutz Sheva isn't a very good source to use in this topic area in my view, and many other editors view, because they are essentially the voice of the settler movement, highly biased and potentially unreliable. I'm sure you can find better sources like Jpost, New York Times, BBC, sources like that. Or you can probably find something at Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. Either way, I think the best thing for you to do is to leave a note on the article's talk page suggesting a change and other editors will hopefully pick it up. If you plan to continue editing in the topic area it's good to get into the habit of using article talk pages to propose and discuss changes. Sean.hoyland - talk

16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't refernig to Gaza war but to March_2012_Gaza–Israel_clashes, I've checked unhrw but there is no doc yet for that period of time, I will try to find better sources.

Israeli settlement

You know that the 'original' version had that line in and the discussion is about taking it off or leaving it in. Instead of being the coolheaded one and trying to simply get a better fact inserted, you've just become an active party to the rolling edit war by removing it while the discussion is on and taking a side. --Shuki (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right but I don't think it matters very much. I think it's better for information that is probably wrong to stay out until and unless there is consensus to include it. It's nothing more than a personal preference on my part but the reason I got involved isn't because I care about the content particularly, it's because All Rows 4 made an edit and a comment about an editor pretending and telling a lie. They were reverted and then an IP came out of nowhere to support them. If All Rows 4 wasn't there, neither would I be. My edit was really an attempt to nullify their presence because I don't believe they are allowed to be there. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Can you continue to add to your list of amusing comments on your user page?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been neglecting the 'Favourite talk page etc comments' recently. I think I've let many comedy gems slip by so thanks for the reminder. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Despite our political differences, I have begrudging respect for your editing and compliance and enforcement of Wiki policy. That being said, can you assist in the 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings and ensure that the matter is reported in an accurate manner. I hope you will be able to curb the excesses of all parties involved.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't have any interest in that story/article, I haven't been following it in the news, and my time is quite limited at the moment. As a general piece of advice though, if an article is about an issue you care a lot about, edit something else. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)