Sean Heron

Hey Sean - I saw you made a change on the Battle of Latakia page, saw that you're new, so I wanted to say - welcome to Wikipedia. I'm Mark, and I'm one of the administrators here. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Newcomer's Help desk or privately on my talk page. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. →Raul654 16:56, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis

Hi Sean, Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yeah, I did a bit of work on the MS page but got a bit fed up with a couple of the other editors - one who didn't believe that references to personal experience pages were relevant and the other who didn't accept the Cochrane meta-studies, which showed that none of the immune drug strategies against the disease were effective against the long-term disease course, were relevant. I'm someone with MS who wants to see more work on the actual cause of the disease so that treatments can be accurately directed against the inexorably creeping long-term disability instead of short-term relapses. This is what people with MS want to see but the "establishment" view is that treatments are there and getting better all the time. That's not what I see. While the dogma that MS is autoimmune persists as the orthodox position, nothing is going to change. Clearly, there is an immune component in MS. The issue is whether it is the cause or whether both the disability and the immune response in MS are caused by a third process - perhaps apotosis or a virus like Epstein-Barr (who knows?). All we know is that treatments that mask out the immune response (and the resulting short-term disability) are getting quite effective but that there is nothing at all for long-term disability.

All in all, and against very effective resistance from other editors, I don't feel inclined to edit this page.

Take care, Paul Laetoli (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stern Review

Thank you very much for you note and for your contributions to balance the article. These were much needed and now, I think, the NPOV criticism can be put to rest. It will be interesting to see whether this report provides an historical turning point, or whether, coming from the same stable, it is just another dodgy dossier. Kind regards Fentonrobb

Endorsement

I had a quick scan of your edits and see you are interested in socially relevant issues. Keep up the good work! Also I support the issues highlighted by Wikitruth. We have to fight to ensure Wikipedia doesn't suffer the fate of other centrally controlled bureaucracies.Chendy 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sean Heron. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sean Heron. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate articles

Welcome to a topic area with periodic noise explosions. We like high signal-to-noise, and we get frequent WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM postings by editors who don't demonstrate an interest in actual DISCUSSION to improve article content. Per the WP:TPG, the sole purpose of article talk pages is to try to improve article content. Users may remove other's comments when those comments are "harmful", though that's a grey area. An alternative to deleting borderline SOAP and FORUM is collapsing. If we have mis-read the situation, and the user whose work was collapsed indeed wants to work on improving content instead of just preaching, then they'll say something, and we can go from there. With your recent un-collapse its my opinion you have welcome SOAP and FORUM tinged with OR to the talk page, which does not help. In this case, the user appears to be forcefully opining at a variety of politically-tinged pages and at a quick read does not appear to be engaging anyone in discussion. Finally where someone does this without providing sources they are implicitly citing themselves as the the authority for verification. That's WP:Original research. QUESTION, do you plan to address any of the points you un-collapsed? If not, do you think the behavior is SOAP and FORUM? Why or why not? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the pointers (though I could have done with a little less acronyms). I'm short of time right now, so I'm not replying in depth to all your questions (yet), sorry. I don't agree with a lot of the points the editor made (think I wrote that in my edit summary? Might've been too long and cut off...). Anyhow, I'll have a look at whether there's any points I think are worth addressing, and sure, if I see it as valid I'll pick them up.

I didn't realise the user wasn't actually engaging with anyone, and I agree that that makes it difficult if you want to figure out / agree on changes :).

Question from my side - is the stance you describe above commonly taken especially on pages related to climate change, and efforts to avert that (and the catastrophes it entails), or also on other political pages ? Thanks! Sean Heron (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be hard to say what "usually" happens anywhere on Wikipedia. If you run into a frustrating situation, post on my talk page and I'll offer any insights I have. You'll find that there are some topics that become magnets for all sorts of WP:Disruptive editing behaviors. The areas that have been most problematic are listed at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions. Climate change is one of them! We have intermittent appearnances by eds who seem to be campaigning on the denial side, and others who seem to be campaigning on the alarmist side. I work very hard to work on climate articles on the Wikipedia side of neutrality, verification, and punchy clear writing (the hardest thing of all). There is so blessed much info in high quality sources that we really don't need to inject any of our own "stuff", so that's what I try to do. We can use all the help we can get from eds who want to make every top sub article "featured" status, but writing from the Wikipedia side rather than either the denial or alarmist ones. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

PS for clarity, thanks for the talkback at my usertalk which I deleted as matter of routine housekeeping. You're welcome to post new thoughts/questions there anytime. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the "active sanctions" situation - that was something I really wasn't aware of. As is perhaps obvious, I've not been active here much recently, so I've yet to dedicate the time for an overall overhaul of an article (ie towards FA or such :P). I am happy to admit that from what I've seen, I had the impression that some (aspects of) climate change articles are somewhat toned down here and there - I find the "punchy clear writing" to be often lacking somewhat where it regards the severity of change (and catastrophic consequences) that is already here, and that we are headed for...

I guess reading your take, I'm a little unsure whether you would place me in the "alarmist" camp - eg I'd think it important to state at the appropriate spots that there's preliminary research pointing out that in 22 years (at business as usual), in "northern Europe" (where I come from - Germany - was placed in that region for this study if I remember rightly), will be having a summer like the one just passed (or worse/more extreme!) every other year (on average). Or that the current yearly death toll due to climate change is estimated to be around 100,000 (or upwards), though admittedly, that is primarily through indirect effects such as higher infection rates (and the deaths that follow from that) for tropical diseases in countries with very limited medical services/ low income. Please let me know what your take is! (I'm going to have to let you wait for the links for the articles I'm referring to - I've killed all my tabs, and my history is only semi useful, so I'm going to have to search first..) Sean Heron (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for offering to help if I run into difficulties "elsewhere" :P.

Need some more formatting. Add two colons to each of the three prior paragraphs and see the before after effect. That's how we WP:THREAD our discussions. Also, sign each comment with 4 tilde marks (~) even PS paragraphs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

More substantively, to survive here, you need to stop thinking alarmist/denialist camp, and instead think WP:Verifiability, not truth. See also WP:RECENTISM, [{WP:NOTJOURNAL]], WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. It's really pretty easy if you find quality secondary sources and let them do the talking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me... I know formatting and colons - since this is my talkpage and its just you and me, I prefer to stay at the same level of indentation, rather than keep moving to the right (and at least for me, it's just as discernable who's writing what). Ditto with signing P.S. (Sorry if that makes it less legible to you...).
Also, I'm not thinking alarmist/denialist camps - I was wondering if you'd place me in one. I would have liked you to give me an answer to that question (though I'll admit, lacking the links makes it difficult to see whether it's verifiable information I'm pointing out :P). Not sure why you're pointing out Fringe, Undue and Recentism - I know my way round here, and if I do any editing, of course it will be supported by reliable sources (how else ?!). Sorry if the missing links to articles triggered you in any manner (which I can perhaps understand, given that this is probably a common issue). I'll look for the articles I was referring to now :). Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not looking to pick a fight, just passing along things I had to learn when I started looking at climate pages. If the tips aren't wanted, just say so. If you know how to WP:THREAD, great. IMO if you try to edit climate pages and get into discussions you'll frustrate all the regulars if you don't indent in the conventional way. You have been warned (with a friendly helpful intention)! As for "putting you in a camp", sure I'll answer the question. I'm not concerned with what you privately think. I'm only concerned with how you edit. Since you haven't really edited climate articles I lack data to have an answer. And when you do start to edit, I'll start evaluating them according to WP:AGF, trying to avoid WP:BATTLE attitude, WP:DONTBITE (which I list since your new to the climate topic)... those are ones I list for me, not you. The point is, no one cares about "camp", at least no one is supposed to. We can all have our private ideas to ourselves and try to do our work by the five Ps. Sorry, but that's the best answer I can give you.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC) PS Oh yeah, the other things I listed earlier like Fringe? I only meant those are guidelines that make a regular appearance in discussions at climate pages. I only meant that if you intend to jump into that topic those would be good ones to have recently studied, because they're sure to come up if you stick around. That's all. Trying to help you prep as a way of welcome. Have at it! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

OK :). I guess I took you a bit wrong there, then (it felt like being talked down too a bit, yes). Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply! And nice to point out how you mean to approach anything I (if I ever get round to anything much...) do :P. I guess you're perhaps somewhat hitting the mark in that the degree that I think awareness of the issue needs to be raised might be to an extent in conflict with the manner in which Wikipedia articles are ("meant" as you say) to be worked out. But I do by all means intend to construct articles in such a manner that they are verifiable, take a "neutral point of view", and are readable and put the topic across clearly to boot :D. Not a mean task I guess :P. Lets see how I / we do ! Sean Heron (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. I've not yet found any research papers supporting the "every other year in 22 years". I'd picked up that statement (with regard to Europe) here: Guardian article - actually it refers to the 2040s, rather than to in 22 years (that was an unintentional mistake by me when I "translated" it in my head). The article mostly builds on this paper. I've also stumbled over a (oldish) CDC brochure on the Increase of extreme heat events (they talk mostly about longer scale though, ie towards the end of the century). Still need to look for the death numbers. Sean Heron (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for searching sources. Sounds like this work is the sort of thing best discussed at the article talk page so others can also participate. Whichever page(s) brought us together are still on my watchlist so I'll see your work there whenever you add something to article or its associated talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Then see you some time soonish there I guess :D. Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sean Heron. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

project push

Hi Sean, I'm not sold on the project yet. AFter 8 years here I've taken my first gander at the task force and project help pages. It seems doing a project is work, and project environment has already done it and does it. So the existing task force under their banner seems like a good way to get started and then... if it proves to small for our needs.... we will have a really good evidence based reason to create a new layer of beaucracy with a project. In addition, at the talk page for the task force I saw some comments that make me wonder if there is a bit of misapprehension about what project could do for us. I've decided to add a user box to my talk page, and encourage you to read the documentation for Template:User all wikiprojects. Bottom line is that if there are social-interaction-conflict issues at the articles "in the wild" they aren't going away just because we get all these same people talking at a project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert - Climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Per:

• "The other complaint, that my comment at the MRV “misinterpreted” the nominator’s response, is pretty spurious. He said, I now agree that simply reopening the RM will likely not lead anywhere. (diff) By agreeing that relisting or overturning is not the answer, he had conceded that there was no outcome for MRV to reach other than endorsing. The remainder of his comment was dedicated to “other things that could be done” in a future RM, which is entirely outside the purpose of MRV. It’s like talking about page cleanup in an AFD: It belongs on the talk page. And in fact, he promised just that in his edit summary! There was nothing left to review about the RM under discussion."

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sleath56 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive, I don't mean to be redundant to the ping but those sometimes fail for unknown reasons. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:COVID-19 Travel Bubble

A tag has been placed on Category:COVID-19 Travel Bubble requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Iconic posts

This post and this one. I read them the same day you posted it. I stared at it with agreement and anxiety. I hesitated to add support but opted for silence, not adding to the public worry. Several major cities had it, the growth numbers which I was fetching every night at 3am on China's MoH's website were clear. This 5th feb. 2020 was the day when we could say "Brace ! Brace ! Pandemic is nearly certain." It been a tough years for us all. Been a weirdest one for us, Wikipedians who watched the wave from Jannuary 2020, grow and come. One year has passed, I'm still mind blown but the chain of events we witnessed. Yug (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Hey, I'm not here regular.

Been a pretty wild time for me as well. Nice of you to reach out! Definitely was weird seeing that - how might you say ? - the Titanic was going to sink while everyone else was still treating it as a news story somewhere far away.

Keep looking after yourself, regards

Sean Heron (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beyond All Reason (videogame)

The article Beyond All Reason (videogame) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not demonstrate that the article passes WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak task force invitation

Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak, so I wanted to invite you to the new monkeypox outbreak task force, which I started from the WikiProject of current events. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 monkeypox outbreak

On 23 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 monkeypox outbreak, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)