User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

{{Nuclide2}}

The traditional advice to avoid doing ugly things like [1] is to RTFM. But, in this concrete case, you easily could notice that several instances of {{Nuclide2}} already have links, and to achieve the same result by imitation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I did achieve the same result by imitation. Wrong result though. What happened is that I was reading Isotope#Nuclear_properties_and_stability, hovered over ²³⁸
₉₂U
, couldn't see a link, wondered why, looked at the link [[Helium-3|{{Nuclide2|He|3}}]], moved on to Beta decay, remembered that method, imitated it and ignored everything else right in front of me. Such is life. Live and learn. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian outpost clause about the "Secret report"

I've added the Israeli interpretation and would be happy if you could take a look on my addition (I tried to make that as much NPOV as possible but it is important to write both interpretations the Israeli and the EU for the actions). I wasn't able to find anything in pnn.ps that could help there and would be very glad full if you could add more reactions on the report.109.226.25.32 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include something from NGO Monitor you should look for secondary source coverage of whatever they said. Without coverage their views have zero weight (see WP:DUE) from Wikipedia's perspective. NGO Monitor aren't regarded as a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia. Their views can be included as long as the information is attributed to them and it has been published by a reliable secondary source. It's usually quite easy to find secondary source coverage of NGO Monitor statements/views in JPost and elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to say, also NGO Monitor doesn't speak on behalf of Israelis, neither does YNet. If you want to add the Israeli perspective I think it would be better to add the official response of the Israeli government as reported by secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section on Ravishankar's page

There are lot of controversies surrounding this spiritual Guru. I believe unless there is a mention of these the article wont become balanced. It would remain a Propoganda article by the Guru's followers if that's not done. I have read the policies you have suggested. Could you please guide on me how can we work on this ? Lahttiv (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)LahttivLahttiv (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of problems at the moment. The BLP policy means that anything added to the article must come from sources that unambiguously qualify as reliable sources. That excludes things like Wordpress blogs, self published sites etc. The OR policy (see the WP:SYN section) means that any kind of conclusion based on an analysis of information must be carried out by and published by sources that unambiguously qualify as reliable sources. We can't use self published sources like http://www.bawandinesh.name or do the analyses ourselves and put it in a Wikipedia article. If you would like to add something about this issue to the article, what you need to do is try to find unambiguously reliable sources, mainstream media sources for example, that have covered this issue. The other thing to consider is the WP:DUE weight issue. If something hasn't been covered by reliable sources, it isn't significant enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't censored, so if this controversy has been discussed by reliable sources, preferably multiple sources to establish due weight, there isn't a policy based reason for it to be excluded. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that I could get my edits reviewed by you or someone before actually saving it ? For example, recently I came across an article on their own website with some very unscientific & irrational claims about the Guru. Now obviously this is not discussed in the mainstream media. Can this be included on the page ?Lahttiv (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)LahttivLahttiv (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the best place to propose content and try to get feedback from other editors. I think quite a lot of people have that page watchlisted. As for unscientific & irrational claims, we can't add anything unless it has been covered by reliable sources. It doesn't have to be the mainstream media. It just needs to have been published by sources that qualify as WP:RS in Wikipedia. So it could for example be a reliable source written by an expert or an organization that specializes in debunking pseudoscientific claims and the kind of nonsense religious organizations often publish etc. There is a noticeboard (WP:RSN)to ask for advice if it isn't clear whether a source qualifies, but the article talk page is the best place to propose additions when it is unclear whether they meet policy requirements. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For example, Johannes Quack's book about the Indian rationalist movement, "Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India", Oxford University Press, pp 170-171, ISBN 978-0199812608, google books link. That source also mentions coverage by the Indian Express. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, although this source, A Study of the Art of Living Foundation, can't be used directly because it is only a master's thesis, it contains a lot of references, some of which may be useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lee Kaplan (journalist)

I now see that you were correct on this one. I would be happy to see the page deleted for non-notability.FinchleyRd (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hrdag logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Hrdag logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Last few days for step two of Jerusalem RfC discussion

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted my addition to the Israeli Nature Reserves article

Hi Sean --

You took out 2 references in the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_parks_and_nature_reserves_of_Israel

The other sources currently in the article that are considered "legitimate" are as representative of a Zionist view as my sources are of an alternative view. Some of them are straight propaganda and news articles and websites. Why is Mondoweiss bad and these sources good?

For the comment about the Zionist Founding Myth, I used a published book, so am really confused about why you would remove that reference. Are you playing favorites here?

Thanks!

FreeSpeechinBrooklyn

Freespeechinbrooklyn (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked at the existing sources in the article until now.

• I certainly wouldn't regard 1001 Facts Everyone Should Know about Israel by Mitchell Bard and Moshe Schwartz as a legitimate source for anything at all.
• The traveltips.usatoday.com from Demand Media looks fairly useless. It appears to come from hooha.co.il. I know nothing about them apart from their site produces "Directory Listing Denied".
• The Ynet article is okay for the information. It's a mainstream source that qualifies as reliable in Wikipedia.
• Morris is regarded as a reliable source in Wikipedia but he doesn't say anything about "the region was sparsely populated", so someone has added that themselves and it should be removed. The content comes from page 4. He says "the country - at the beginning of the nineteenth century...had a population of about 275,000 to 300,000 people...By 1881...Palestine's population was 457,000..." With "the country" being Palestine, not "the region".
• UNESCO is a reliable source of course.

• I'm sure "Unsettling Settler Societies: Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class" qualifies as a reliable source but you appear to be using it to debate/refute a point in the article. Why ? The founding myth, which I am well aware of, has been put there by a Wikipedia editor in the form of "the region was sparsely populated". It's not from Morris so it can be removed and you can ignore it. The part from Morris can probably be removed too as it's synthesis. The whole history section is unsourced in that article. That's a far bigger problem from the building an encyclopedia perspective.
• I removed Mondoweiss because it's a blog. While it's certainly true that "Palestinian land has been cleared of its inhabitants and converted to nature preserves" and some might argue that it's "a way to mask the depopulation strategy of Zionism", Mondoweiss isn't going to be regarded as a reliable source here for this kind of information (see Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources) and opinions need to be attributed to their sources per WP:NPOV. You can always take sources to the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) to ask for feedback/advice but I would have thought that high quality academic sources and mainstream media have discussed the issue and you could use those instead.

These kind of things should be discussed on the article's discussion page though rather than on personal talk pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Western Sahara: Occupied or Disputed?

It's started back up again at Talk:Western Sahara#Occupied or Disputed?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in the previous discussion at Talk:Western Sahara#Lack of neutrality. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not stopping

Hi Sean,

I don't think I'm contaminating anything. There's literally nothing wrong with quoting As'ad's remarks. You can check that the article *repeatedly* cites the views he's expressed on his blog, so what I've done isn't very different.

Several times you've written that what I wrote was "useless" but haven't explained why. Perusing your edit history, I can tell where you lean on the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, that should be irrelevant; As'ad's rather unusual opinions about Israelis and suicide are notable enough to be included in the article about him -- at least as much as anything else in the article is.

Do you think it's "useless" information because you think it's a common opinion that Israelis should kill themselves? OKCupidShrew (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen hundreds of editors like you. Explaining the rules is a waste of time. If you can't or won't understand simple things or simply don't care, that's your choice. Carry on making edits like this, synthesizing content because you think it matters and using worthless unreliable sources like Myths & Facts. It's your life. Wikipedia volunteers waste thousands of hours cleaning up the mess created by editors like you but don't let that distract you from your important mission. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that now you've discovered that other content in the article "violates" wikipedia's policies (according to your derpy understanding of them). Could your pathetic attempt to scrub any damaging quotes of As'ad be MORE apparent? Seek help. OKCupidShrew (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place for you to make rational policy based arguments and try to gain consensus for proposed content. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jericho

3RR and it should be under ArbCom sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Posted to ANI about this. Better leave it alone right now. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd already walked away as my presence was making it worse. The article is covered by 1RR whether the template is there or not and edits that say that Jericho is in Israel are pretty clearly covered by the ARBPIA 1RR rules as are my 3 reverts. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I was very close to blocking you too for edit-warring on Jericho. I decided against it because I have doubts about the enforceability of the general 1RR topic area restriction, and in terms of normal edit-warring, you stopped reverting on your own, so an additional block would not help prevent very much. But please don't do it again. The material the IP editor added was pretty obviously inaccurate, as far as I can tell with my limited knowledge about the topic, but reverting material that is merely inaccurate is not among the exceptions to the edit-warring prohibition (WP:3RRNO).  Sandstein  20:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Reverting material that turns an encyclopedia article into a piece of propaganda, that is a BadThing? Awesome. nableezy - 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is bad to revert ... shall we say, questionably accurate material. However, doing so repeatedly is edit-warring under our current rules, and therefore indeed a BadThing.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1RR explicitly exempts reverts of edits by IPs, so the IP violated the 1RR and Sean did not. If you want to call that edit-warring you can, but I favor protecting the factual integrity of a supposed encyclopedia article. nableezy - 20:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be doing exactly the same thing again, probably this week. It is necessary and within the rules. I complied with 3RR and the ARBPIA 1RR restrictions on reverting IPs "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." Please focus your attention on the ultranationalists who don't care. I know what the rules are. If I break them it means that I do so in full knowledge of the consequences. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, the material may be seen as propaganda (or just good-faith but misguided nationalism), but that doesn't quite make it "obvious vandalism" (emphasis in original) and thus revertable at will. Just bad editing, and conceivably grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP is violating Wikimedia foundation's Terms of Use ("content that is false or inaccurate" see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities). Why ? I don't care. IPs like that should blocked on sight. One day in the hopefully not too distant future Cluebot will "edit war" with them and then block them. It won't get a warning from an admin. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, that isnt misguided nationalism. Israel itself doesnt claim Jericho as being either in Israel or as an Israeli city. That is putting in something that is black and white wrong in to an encyclopedia article. Not oh this is a contested claim, or a POV that needs to be properly presented. A straight-forward lie. I know you all need to stay uninvolved, and the easiest way to do that is to ignore the content of the reverts, but cmon. Really now, the only reaction that the edit history at Jericho should cause is a block of the IP and a pat on Sean's back. nableezy - 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I can even agree that it's borderline vandalism, but not the obvious kind of vandalism that would excuse edit-warring. I mean, there are these extreme viewpoints held by significant numbers of people on both sides that the whole region properly belongs to one side or another. And this editor seems to want to express his variant of that viewpoint. That's inaccurate and tendentious, yes, and requires sanctions if it continues. But it does have some basis in a particular perception of reality that distinguishes "Jericho is an Israeli city" (or, conversely, "Tel Aviv is a Palestinian city") from a purely vandalistic statement that is not grounded in a viewpoint taken seriously by anyone in reality, like "Berlin is a French city" would be.  Sandstein  21:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that both of your statements (Jericho, Tel Aviv) are based in a particular distortion of reality, but fine. Who it properly belongs to is not the same as saying who it currently belongs to, which is what the IPs edits were about. But I get your point. I just think that it places the bureaucracy of this place above its supposed purpose, and I think that is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Your ability to block people is something that, in my view, isnt meant to enforce rules like the 3RR, but to further the purpose of building an encyclopedia. There are times where one side in an "edit-war" is clearly damaging to that goal, and the other is clearly not. This is one of those times. nableezy - 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Seven dirty words

Thanks for the fix. I guess that was buried by cluebot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Helmuth Naumer -- thanks!

Belated thanks for your many additions & improvements to this article. Amazing how many things the Bandelier web page on Naumer [2] got wrong -- including his name! Well, we all know about the variable quality of volunteer help.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mondoweiss. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Z554 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit here reverted your disruption. Don't disrupt a charity. It's wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am advising you not to vandalize edits. Thank you for your cooperation. Z554 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, he also reverted me, making 3rr on a 1rr article. I've reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z554_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_.29 CarolMooreDC🗽 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Keffiyeh barnstar
	'“You can take my falafel and hummus, but don’t fucking touch my keffiyeh” - Shadia Mansour AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
	References

Thanks. I enjoyed that Rolling Stone article, probably for all the wrong reasons. The Wikipedia article says "Mansour's political raps have criticized Israel's occupation of territories", a concern that could be somewhat addressed by you moving your furniture into a corner of your living room, picking up magazines and books you've left on the floor and having a general tidy to free up some space. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Youtube has a video of Shadia performing the song. It is amazing Wikipedia has a free image of the scarf. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly suitable image with neutral caption?

Please explain why it is acceptable for you to have two images of “Israeli aggression” (patrolling Israeli soldiers, Israeli rubbish dumping) and none of “Arab aggression” in the section “‎Palestinian and Israeli parallel rule”. Also why is the caption “net installed in the Old City to prevent garbage dropped by Israeli settlers falling into a Palestinian area” neutral, while the one I added to balance it: “Concrete blocks, steel gates and camoflage netting to prevent mortar and firearm attacks by Arabs on Israeli ssttlers” is not? You seem to think it is neutral to show an image showing Settlers targeting Arabs, but you think it is not suitable to show an image which shows that the Arabs target the Settlers. Is this correct? Please explain your viewpoint. Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to understand what you are saying because appears to be based on invalid assumptions. Soldiers patrolling isn't aggression. It's soldiers obeying the orders they have been given by their commanding officer. It's a security measure put in place by the IDF to protect settlers (like the netting you say is a security measure). My edit was not related to any other images in that article and other images we're not a factor in my decision to revert your edit. So your assumption that "You seem to think it is neutral to show an image showing Settlers targeting Arabs" is baseless. You have no information about what I think about that image. If someone does something to that image I might notice the edit and I might have an opinion about it. Or I might not. Similarly, if someone adds a new image I may or may not notice it and have an opinion about whether it complies with policy etc. The image I restored is perfectly neutral, as is the caption, a caption that is self-explanatory and doesn't contain anything contentious, positive or negative. The image you used is also perfectly neutral but your caption was neither self-explanatory, verifiable and appears to be non-neutral. It was something you created yourself based on information that I don't have access to and therefore can't verify. When I read a Wikipedia, I don't want to see what editors think things are, or what they represent, especially in the ARBPIA topic area. Please don't try to imagine what I think about things. You will get it wrong. Just use the information that I write in comments and edit summaries. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If as you say, your edit was not related to any other images in that article and other images we're not a factor in my decision to revert your edit, then you should be more careful when editing, bearing in mind that we should strive to provide balance in an ARBPIA topic area. We have an image which portrays settlers in a bad light (chucking rubbish onto Arabs) and another which merely shows soldiers on patrol. The latter image does not portray Arabs in a bad light. That is why I provided balance by showing how just as the Arabs need netting in place to protect them, the settlers need netting in place to protect them. Quite acceptable. I hope my assumptions have now been explained. If you need the image to be verified, you can use the Citation needed tag which was used for the netting image when it was added. Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is me who needs to be more careful rather than you, I can assure you that you are mistaken. When I see actual evidence that you are making content decisions that are consistent with the policies and objectives of Wikipedia you will have my support. What I have seen so far from this episode is that you making subjective decisions and generating content without complying with mandatory policy. There are probably reasons for that that apply to you and not me. For example, I don't care in the slightest if settlers or Arabs, by which I assume you mean Palestinians, are portrayed in a good or bad light. The selection of images in the article should reflect the balance that is found in reliable sources, not editor's notions of balance. If sources that deal with Hebron mostly contain images that portray Palestinians in a bad light or mostly settlers in a bad light, then that is just tough shit. That is the balance that our article should use because that is what neutral means in Wikipedia, not false balances totally detached from RS, created in the minds of Wikipedia editors. So, your approach to this issue is not "quite acceptable". If it is you who adds a caption, it is you who will provide the reliable source to support the caption per WP:BURDEN. If the other caption is not supported by a reliable source I suggest you remove it, rewrite it or find a source that supports it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot beleive that most RS on Hebron or indeed any similar subject matter would portray only one side or view of a conflict. And your view that they could do amazes me. You seem to be detached from reality. Just accept your mistake. I will readd the image with a citing caption. Thank you for bringing this need to my attention. Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Taluks of Karnataka

It appears that the forty-three new taluks in Karnataka have been proposed, not created, despite headline. See Talk:Taluks of Karnataka#43 new talukas. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

CFD notice

Hi Sean.hoyland - I've proposed that the UNESCO Madanjeet Singh Prize laureates category is better handled as a list within the UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize article, per WP:OCAT#Award. Please feel free to join the discussion at CFD -- the notice is below. (PS - I greatly enjoyed some of the talk page comments you extracted from article talk pages ... "one true God" and various legal threats were my favorites.) --Lquilter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC draft citations

I only just noticed your work on the RfC draft. Thank you for converting all of those links to proper citations! I can see that it took you a good long while to do. This is just to let you know that your hard work is greatly appreciated. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Jensen

Hi Sean - Re his full name in the lead, in the art world he is best known simply as Alfred Jensen (ie Worldcat.org finds about 160 books on him, and they never mention Julio). The full name is used in the WP title to differentiate it from two other people. Seeing that this first sentence is used as a summary by google and others, I believe that it should not include the superfluous middle name, but that Julio should be used in the first sentence of the Biography section. Open to your opinion - I don't know if you thought it was left out by accident. Regards,--Nixie9✉ 22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the reason what I did probably seems confusing is because I haven't finished. I'm not sure what to do about the article title and the disambiguation so I left it to think about it. The article title definitely shouldn't include the middle name but the lead should give his full name Alfred Julio Jensen per WP:FULLNAME. But I'm not sure what to do about the article title, whether to

- move it to the existing redirect Alfred Jensen (artist) and add a

For other people with the same name, see Alfred Jensen.

at the top of the article

- or move it to Alfred Jensen, move the Alfred Jensen disambiguation page to Alfred Jensen (disambiguation) and add a

For other people with the same name, see Alfred Jensen (disambiguation).

at the top of the Alfred Jensen article.

Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The second option is now complete thanks to some help from admin User:EdJohnston to make way for the move. And as a bonus I see User:AgadaUrbanit has helpfully loaded and added Twelve Events in a Dual Universe to the article. So the article is now at Alfred Jensen, Alfred Julio Jensen is in the lead per WP:FULLNAME, the disambiguation page is now at Alfred Jensen (disambiguation) and all 3 Alfred Jensen articles have links to the disambiguation page. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good to me!--Nixie9✉ 22:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nov 2012 Ceasefire Deletion

Excuse my ignorance, but I hadn't seen a near-split vote work out that way before. 8 delete/7 keep or move and merge. That margin doesn't constitute a consensus to delete does it? (Rhetorical question). If there's no problem ,except my mathematics and knowledge of the way this joint works, no need to reply. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand these things either. Looking at WP:CLOSEAFD I would have expected the outcome to be "no consensus". Sean.hoyland - talk 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you have to keep in mind that AfD is not a vote and the numbers aren't the deciding factor in all closes. The tipping point in my decision was actually your suggestion to rework the page which seemed like a wonderful compromise and as I said in my close I would be happy to userfy it to you to allow you to do that. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, please could you userfy it. No rush. It looks like there is some interest in finding a better of dealing with this kind of material at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done All set. It is now at User:Sean.hoyland/List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?

I saw your comments here and would like to inform you that there is a new move request for the article. Would you care to comment here? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist

Add whatever you feel like should be public, please. nableezy - 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you deliberately exclude the editor interaction data ? If not I'll add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The person who I think is RP has now removed the blog post where they talk about the creation of the Beheading in the name of Islam article. This linkage is also important, but I don't want to fall afoul of outing rules. What should be done here? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the blog post will be necessary. Connecting the account to the Historicist sock farm should be enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No I did not. Well, wait. Is laziness deliberate? nableezy - 17:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a gift/acquired skill. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hell yeah, Im gifted. nableezy - 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Hi. I just wanted to tell you that PCBS source doesn't say "State of Palestine" regarding populations of West Bank and Gaza, but it says "Palestinian Territory" very clear.--Michael Zeev (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't insist with my edition. It wasn't my intention to offend you.--Michael Zeev (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Haaretz article on NGO Monitor editing Wikipedia. Send me email if you can't see it. Zero^talk 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the Haaretz article. It would be nice to think that it might dissuade others from exploiting Wikipedia but I'm sure it won't given that there's an apparently never-ending supply of nationalist advocates/sockpuppets who appear to genuinely believe that advocacy is acceptable and consistent with Wikipedia's rules. I find the amount advocacy, dishonesty, bigotry and sheer ignorance in the topic area astonishing. Someone should do a PhD on it. It probably merits a The Mask of Sanity-like study. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim

Hello, how do you know that IP 157.92.4.71 is AndresHerutJaim ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/157.92.4.71 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

He has misused Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires resources[3] to sock on previous occasions (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive#26_April_2011 for example) and the numerous article overlaps with other AndresHerutJaim socks/Argentina based IPs at various articles including the 2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict article, which has been edited by AndresHerutJaim and his socks User:Samo.head and User:Sheilub. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

email

check please, nableezy - 06:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

replied Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You got a better handle on the AHJ socks than I do, want to look at Elirhann Oraz89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? nableezy - 16:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe another IranitGreenberg sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, its AHJ. nableezy - 13:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, that guy has a problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Talk:Derek_Acorah.
Message added 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Talk:Derek_Acorah.
Message added MrBill3 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again thank you for your thoughtful input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that...

The truth is the truth, good sources are good sources, and none of this is dependent upon Wikipedia's editing protocols. Jimmy is lucky not everyone thinks so. 186.212.115.218 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

who was it

That had that edit about a Palestinian girl having a hijab meaning she's considered ready to be married. Because I'm thinking Chicago Style is that person, need to go back and look at a few things though. nableezy - 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Might also be Society of Rules (talk · contribs). nableezy - 20:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nm, Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk · contribs). Dig a bit if you got time, my internet gonna be sporadic for a while. nableezy - 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

He's not really making enough edits for me to care and his errors are addressed. I've been assuming that it's a Lutrinae sock (which includes Luke 19 Verse 27) from as soon as they started editing with this account. There aren't any effective measures to deal with people like this given the apparent unusual nature of Lutrinae's personality, in my view. There's no point discussing anything with them and there's no point blocking them. They'll just return and repeat the same patterns that inevitably lead to their account being blocked eventually. Evidently they aren't able to stop. I decided a while back that it was better to just know where they are, keep an eye on their actions and address disruptive edits without personal interaction rather than waste a lot of time on them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Legality text"

Why exactly is this needed? It's very tiresome to read it on every article and just looks to be a rather petty point scoring exercise. Everyone knows Israeli settlements are illegal, and the settlement article is linked in the first page. Number 57

The legal status of settlements is just about the most notable thing about them. It is routinely included in reports about settlements by RS. I don't understand why it would be tiresome. I feel nothing at all when I read it. I also don't understand how something routinely reported by RS could be described as petty, nor do I understand who is meant to be scoring points. We are meant to be writing an informative encyclopedia, not indulging people's sensitivities or fighting an information war. The statement is currently present in all settlement articles. It has been discussed at length (see Wikipedia:Legality_of_Israeli_settlements). If you think it should be removed from the article you will need to try to get consensus for its removal on the article's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's petty because it's clearly being used to make a point, even though that point doesn't need to be made. The place is listed as an Israeli settlement in the first sentence - that should be enough. When I write that somewhere is a village, I don't need to explain what a village is. You claim we're not fighting an information war, but clearly a lot of people in this area of Wikipedia are (and they are winning because they are willing to be tenditious and piss off all the rational editors until they either snap or go away). This is exactly why I hate editing articles relating to Israel. There's no point in discussing this because it will descend into the usual farce - the discussion you point to above was apparently superceded by this discussion - I could have predicted which way each editor would have !voted even before they commented. A proper debate is simply impossible. Number 57 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein specifically said that the discussion you linked to does not call for a removal of any text. It returns the issue to a case-by-case basis, and the prior consensus stands until a new one to remove it is established. Youve made that dig several times in the past, the people fighting an information war and winning because they are willing to be tenditious and piss off all the rational editors until they either snap or go away, and youve made it clear that you mean me, and youve never backed it up. So either back up the claim or stop saying it. You say everybody knows they are illegal, that is plainly untrue as there are any number of people who have argued for years that they arent illegal, that they are villages in disputed territory, or that they are in Judea and Samaria, an integral part of Israel. You may know they are illegal, I may know that they are, but clearly not everybody does. Most news articles that even mention a settlement will specify that it is illegal. That is true at any number of news organizations. But you want a frickin encyclopedia article about a settlement not to say what is usually the only noteworthy thing about it? And Im the tendentious one? Get off it. nableezy - 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes Nableezy, you are one of the problem editors. You know it, I know it, and probably everyone else in this area knows it. I know you have to claim you're not, but let's not kid ourselves. The proof is on your user page - how many topic bans have you had? Number 57 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More than a few, but mostly because I refused to allow bullshit edits to stand. And my edits have stood up. And the other difference is that every topic ban given to me as a person has been given to this account, unlike others such as Dajudem, then Tundrabuggy, then Stellarkid, then ..., or any number of other "editors" who return again and again with a new user name. My first topic ban was due to my reinserting a reliably sourced name into Gaza War, over the objection of a now blocked sock of an editor that had been banned twice, others have been over calling settlements settlements (and oh by the way it wasnt always true that they were called settlements until this problem editor came along). So, again, I call bullshit, and I defy you or anybody else to point to edits made that demonstrate my supposed problematic nature. Ive never thought lowly of you as an editor, though this repeated insistence on claiming such and such malicious behavior without evidence is starting to change my mind. I dont have to claim shit, Ive never been bashful. So the next time you want to say I am one of the problems, put up or shut up. nableezy - 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Red Stone Arsenal

Is either NoCal or Ledenierhomme. Any thoughts? nableezy - 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've assumed it's one of NoCal's current socks because of the double standards, pettiness and pursuit of old enemies. I know the answer to his question about Steinback. If someone I didn't think was a sock had asked, I would have responded, but I'm done with participating in discussions that include socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Hi Sean, I was trying to type "occupied", damn it. But I had a very small person's fingers in my ear. Thanks for catching my slip. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have three kittens crawling all over my desk and generally being disruptive much of time at the moment, so it was pure luck that I didn't trash everything there. It's really just a matter of time before I delete the main page or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Leujohn's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sock?

Considering your comment here, I suggest you to compare User:The Ningeihher with User:AndresHerutJaim. Greetings. --HistorNE (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I already know about that one, see User_talk:Elockid#checkuserblock-account. Elockid seems to be away I think and I can't be bothered to waste more time filing an SPI report at the moment. It's good to see that you looking out for him. It's a bit alarming that one of the most active editors in the Arab/Iranian-Israel conflict topic area is a racist ultranationalist Israel supporter. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I suggest you don't edit war with them. Rules don't matter to AndresHerutJaim. If they are reported for edit warring and blocked it doesn't make any difference to them. They will just create another sock. Their edits can be reverted after they have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Some advice on the 3RR/1RR rule

I wonder if you can help me out with interpreting the rules against 3- or 1-reverts.

1. Does it matter whether a contribution is an addition of new material or a deletion of somebody else’s previous addition? For example, if I simply add a sentence (without deleting anything), somebody else then deletes it and I once again add the same sentence (within the time limit), have I then violated the 1RR or 3RR rule?

2. If I have reverted a previous editor’s change, and my change is re-reverted, am I then:

a) forbidden to change this passage again within the time limit, or

b) forbidden to make any change what-so-ever to the article in question within the time limit?

In this case have I, or Irondome, or both, violated the 1RR rule? [4]

Regards, Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always best to check with an admin if you are unsure. EdJohnston is active at the edit warring noticeboard and familiar with the topic area. He's a good guy to check things, certainly more reliable than me.

• On #1, yes, it matters. Adding new material isn't treated as a revert according to WP:EW ("An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert"), and in my experience. The example you give would be treated as 1 revert as far as I'm aware, so no violation. If you made another revert to the article within 24 hours after intervening edits by others, that would be a 1RR violation.
• On #2, it's a) but not just a). You're not allowed to make another revert "whether involving the same or different material", but the rules are there to stop edit warring rather than editing. If you made a revert and subsequently changed something unrelated in the article that wasn't involved in the edit war I don't think it would be treated as a revert. Or at least that's my experience of how things work in practice. The bottomline line I think is that admins know edit warring when they see it especially if editors aren't following WP:BRD. Your edit @2013-08-30T15:21:09‎ is technically a revert of 78.149.117.25's edit @2013-03-28T23:12:45,‎ but there's 5 months between those edits. Whether an admin treats that as a revert seems to depend on the admin and the context in my experience, the context being "is the editor edit warring". Either way, neither you or Irondome made > 1 revert on 2013-08-30 so no violation. You reverted Islamic Resistance back into the article @2013-09-03T16:11:55‎. It would have been better to open a talk page section per WP:BRD. Irondome reverted it back out on the same day @2013-09-03T16:56:10‎. There are no intervening edits by others before his edit @2013-09-03T16:59:49‎ so those 2 edits count as 1 from a 1RR perspective. One revert each, so no technical violation by either of you at that stage, but it's beginning to look like edit warring. Admins can sanction edit warring in WP:ARBPIA even if it isn't a technical violation. They can treat it as WP:GAMING. Not responding to Irondome's "Take it to talk" edit summary request would make it look even more like edit warring. You reverted the tanks/APCs part @2013-09-03T18:37:05 (and opened a discussion). I think that revert, your 2nd in 24hr, is a 1RR violation. Although Irondome joined the discussion, they went ahead and changed the tanks/APCs part again @2013-09-03T18:46:12 without a consensus having been reached. I think that was their 2nd revert in 24hr and a 1RR violation. So, it does look like you both broke 1RR and it looks a lot like the start of a slow-ish motion, low level edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question

You asked why various individuals and organisations had been included in the template Template:British Terrorism. The answer is that most of those organisations have acted as the nexi of the individuals subsequently involved in British Islamic terrorism. The most obvious examples are the Finsbury Park mosque and the Brixton Mosque. Similarly, Yusuf al-Qaradawi - and I choose my words carefully here - has been associated with a militant view of Islam, and his views have been widely propagated in London (not least by Ken Livingstone).

I make two observations: the advantage of a template over a formal article is that it can include connections that may be of lesser importance but which give a comprehensive overview of an entire subject. Thus, for example, the 'hotbeds of militancy' (for want of a better term), various hangers-on, propagandists and apologists, can all be included. As you can see from the history of the page, I came to it and added to it; I would agree with (what I take to be) your view that the title ('Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United Kingdom') does not fully accord with the links that you have deleted. I would suggest that the solution to that would be to alter the title rather than delete an entire category of associated links.

Secondly, on the grounds that you are taking an interest in this template and subject, you may wish to merge Category:Islamist terrorism in the United Kingdom (and/ or re-title the page).

On the basis that you are or may be an Admin, could you also have a look at Al-Shabaab? There is some owner there, who immediately reverts any alterations. I also have some wider doubts about the 'Foreigners' section, but do not have either the time or inclination to check the references. That, alas, is what tiresome editing does. 86.183.78.202 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll have a proper read through it when I have time. I'm not an admin but I'll try to have a look at Al-Shabaab when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to revert, but what about the 'See also' section? I suggest that we agree to put it back but change the title of the template to something more general (your choice). I have included everything from Category:Islamist terrorism in the United Kingdom, by the way, which is presumably now otiose. You may wish to move that Category or delete it.

If you have sorted out Al-Shabaab, you might also like to have a look at the Association of Muslim Lawyers. Like HHUGS - worthy of an article in its own right - it has all the appearance of a front organisation. 86.183.78.202 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sock edit

I saw your revert of a sock edit here. Could you give a diff showing the original edit? I am asking because I didn't find it in recent the recent history of the article, and the edit seems correct (imho). Debresser (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The sock was Telefonica del Peru IP 200.121.177.251, and their edit was here, an edit they have made before (as Rogttender for example). I removed the entire sentence because it's unsourced and it's repeatedly attracting a blocked editor. I'm trying various things to see whether they reduce block evasion and this was one of them. If the content is correct, someone will eventually add content resembling it to the article with a reliable source completely independently. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Krazy Kat

Hi, I performed the revert to the aforementioned page, as requested at the help desk, as part of a larger removal of similar links across many articles. This, to me, appears to be a blanket addition without prior conversation on the topic in relevant places. I understand that it may have been a relevant link in the context of the individual article; I removed it on the basis that it was added as an external link rather than a citation, and followed a pattern across many articles. Sorry for any inconvenience caused!  drewmunn  talk  18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll add a note at the help desk thread. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)