User talk:Sean.hoyland

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 - [1]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)