User talk:BostonMA: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:04, 14 November 2006

I, Natalinasmpf hereby award you the **Exceptional Newcomer** award for being amazingly insightful, disinterested in heated arguments and amazing impartiality in a traditional minefield of POV while showing exceptional implementation of Wikipedia policy. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed deletion

Please understand, I mean this in the most respectful way, and don't mean to pick a fight. But how can you remove a picture of Mohammed from his article because "it might be considered offensive", but then have this userbox on your main page:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

-Patstuart 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank your for your comment. I do not believe in removing subject matter merely because it is offensive to some. However, I fail to see how an image of Mohammed, regarding which image we know almost nothing, contributes to the article. In fact, it may very well be misleading, in that if this is one of the few images that can be produced by Muslims, including it in the article may give an erroneous impression regarding how common such images are. Be that as it may, I don't believe in being offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. What is the purpose of the image? It is hard for me not to wonder whether the purpose is really to serve Wikipedia. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing back. It does clear things up, though I do disagree. I find it awfully convenient that Mohammed has no pictures of him to enhance the article, whereas other religious/historical figures of unknown characature do have them. An image, even if it's historically not accurate, is often a way to visualize a historical or religious figure. Take my count on the following articles; we know what none of these people look like:

Jesus - 11
Plato - 3
Apostle Paul - 6
Moses - 5, but 2 with his face
Abraham - 1
Confucius - 3

I hope, then, you can understand my frustration, as I feel Wikipedia is being censured. Does have a picture on penis really help either (who doesn't know what they look like?). But if it were removed, it would immediately be called censorship. Please understand I am not attacking you, I am just a little frustrated, as I think there's a double standard. -Patstuart 00:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad pics

Sure, always open for discussion. Best, The Hungry Hun 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you're right: I agreed to discuss the topic, yet didn't deliver any input so far, not even as an answer to the questions you raised - sorry for that, I simply lacked the time so far and could only take quick glances at the article & re-insert the pic when deleted.

Tomorrow, I'll have much more spare time and cover my points extensively; I believe that you can see from the article's talk page that I'm not afraid of lengthy discussions (a good part of it is already archived, though).

However, I beg to differ on the modus operandi: There was a somewhat stable article version with pictures. Plus, not a single objection has been raised in the last weeks beyond a general rejection of images in general. Hence I'll regard further deletions still as vandalism and will revert them. Please understand this approach of mine.

I propose having the discussion entirely on my talk page for the sake of a coherent thread. If you agree, I kindly suggest that put the page on your watchlist.

Best, The Hungry Hun 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with the Hun. I'll see how the discussion develops but like he says, there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies, why the image should be removed, other than a general iconoclasm based on a particular interpretation of a religion not shared by the majority of WP users. I believe removal would be outrageous- the image is souced and is a historical relic (made by, it should be noted, Muslims). Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam objects to images of all of its prophets, are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your latest message, I am not sure our views are at all reconcilable. In my opinion the image is neither offensive nor obscene; it was created by people who revered and honored Muhammad. The only reason it is "offensive" is because there are some people who object to all images of Muhammad, and by extension images of religious figures in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no contradiction between including the image and the policy you cite. My interpretation is that image must be both subjectively and objectively offensive and this falls far short of that standard. You also seem to maintain that while these images should not be included in the Muhammad article, they might be appropriate for a separate article on images of Muhammad. I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units in Kaveri River article

Hi Boston, Thanks for the note. Good that you brought it up. Shall we continue the discussion in article's talk page itself? Let me move the current discussion to the article's talk page. Thank you. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I's so sawwy massa! I's neva' goin' ta vanduhlize agin suh!

Re: Thanks for work on India articles

Thank you so much for your message. I don't mind at all if you correct my mistakes, as I am constatnly confused by many things in the India articles, only one of which is the multiple spellings of place names. (I understand why this situation exists but not how to deal with it.) In fact, if I could ask you questions now and then, I would be appreciative. I have several confused spelling situations going on right now. Maybe I could ask you what to do about them without getting into trouble -- which happened the last time I suggested a merge in a confused spelling situation.

Is there a standard way of naming places? I just noticed that Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary has been redirected to Muthanga. Maybe that is a nearby place. I wanted to write more about the sanctuary but I wish it were called by its real name, not Muthanga.

Other issues, like what to capitalize is unclear because links won't work unless the capitalization is consistent -- District vs district, Temple vs temple, River vs river etc. Often a district's headquarters is the same name as the district. Sometimes I can't tell whether the reference is to the city or the district.

Anyway, thanks again and any suggestions and explanations from you would be hugely appreciated. Mattisse (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the searching tips! I didn't know about most of them. Another question: Is Wayanad District a rather neglected area, information-wise? I have been searching for info on hydroelectric projects and rivers there and can't find out hardly anything -- even though rivers and everything else in Kerala is generally well covered. I can't even figure out what river the Banasura Sagar Dam is on. Maybe the Kabrini. Mattisse (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That greatly helps about the river. I understand your feelings about places becoming popularized. (It has happened to me in three different wonderful places on this earth, places I cannot even go back and visit as it is too painful now.) I'm hoping my small little articles will not have such impact. Mattisse (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be O.K. for me to put the elephant picture on the Kalpetta article, since you took the picture on the way to Kalpetta? Mattisse (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad pic

Hi BostonMA, hv gone through the arguments and discussions on the talk page of BrianGotts. My first feeling after reading it was that "I wouldn't have any objection to the image being placed on Depictions of Muhammad, just as I have no objection to Piss Christ or Ecce Homo being placed in the relevant articles, and not that of Jesus." I later read the discussion on Hun's talkpage and found that your position is also the same. Also, I believe you have done everything in your power and control to keep the duscussion going, and to take the issue towards resolution. You have answered all the questions put to you clearly, despite receiving only ambiguous answers from the other side. Based on my understanding of the discussion, I fully support your position; however, I do not know about the intensity and frequency of the reversions. Not withstanding that, I'd still feel that you've done what it takes and quoted the appropriate sections of appropriate guidelines to take the discussion further. You've been calm and civil. That's all that matters. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant picture

I wish you would promote your own pictures, at least to me, as I have a hard time finding relevant pictures of India on Wiki Commons, usually only finding them by accident! As for the elephant picture, I can label it as "Countryside near Kalpetta" or something similar, as long as you do not think it would give a false impression. Mattisse (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the elephant picture to Kalpetta and unexpectedly found a street scene photo to add also. See what you think, and if you think it represents Kalpetta. Feel free to change or adjust as you see fit. Mattisse (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

A Mediation Barnstar

A Barnstar awarded by Striver on 17 October 2006 to BostonMA for keeping his cool and staying on topic during a tough mediation on the Muhammad article talk page regarding the use of pictures on that article. Impressive and inspiring!

PS: I love your "Industrial Sabotage of Wikipedia?" section on the user page! --Striver 06:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :) --Striver 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maome

I think you are doing quite well without my help. But if you get stuck at any point, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston: I'm very cross at you! This dispute resolution you requested ---with my name on it--- is not what you represented. This dispute resolution process should focus on any and all images of Muhowmud, not just the 'Maome' image you mentioned in your request. I suggest (demand!) that you edit the request to include the real issue here: the real issue is that some of us think images of Mohowmud should be included in the Article and others think no imges should be allowed. Before I accuse you of engaging in subterfuge or clever, sly manipulativeness, please respond to this grievous afront to our intelligence and good faith.DocEss 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: using Redirects

Hesitant to rely on redirects as I know Admin (especially) and others hate them and think they cause confusion. One Admin told me there are 2 million useless redirect pages someone is going to have to clean up some day. There is also (or was) an anti-piping crusade going on for similar reasons i.e. confusion and complication. Mattisse (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Repeatedly removing sourced materials without consensus, as you have done in the Muhammad article, is tantamount to vandalism. I refer you also to this discussion. Your edits in Muhammad seem to be in sharp contrast to the principals you yourself assert therein.

I have engaged in no personal attacks on you. Calling an editor's edit what it is is not violative of NPA, as it is the action, not you, that is being called into question. Moreover, I find your attitude perplexing, in light of the fact that you devote a considerable portion of your own user page to an extended attack on another user, disguised as an attempt at diplomacy.

Please immediately cease your harrasment of me on my user page. Thank you. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus image in the article from August 2005 until the recent conflict. The image was changed without consensus, and repeatedly insisting that you have consensus does not make it so. Whether the personal attack was directed at me or not is irrelevant. Improper accusations of vandalism are disruptive to Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your perplexity, statements such as "It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them." are not civil. Therefore, I have an issue with the editor who made them. However, when another editor deletes an image that was inserted without consensus, and which does not have consensus, that is not vandalism. I hope that helps to clarify your perplexity. --BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is clear to me. I still regard it as inconsistent and flexible to suit your needs of the moment. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not say there was consensus for keeping it. I said there was no consensus for removing it, and no one has yet articulated a reason consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy why it should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly "remove the one image but leave the other 'clearly relevant' one" becomes "let's remove all the images". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call for removing both images, but was willing to give support to the compromise proposal made by User:HighInBC. However, you will note that I encouraged User:HighInBC not to remove the other images [1]. --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't at any point say that YOU called for removing both images, but this campaign has emboldened those who would like to censor Wikipedia in its entirety and they have begun to move far beyond what minimum accomodation you intended to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had been always for removing each and every image showing Muhammad from Muhammad-article. It was BostonMA own point of view to remove just one and keep the other. --- ابراهيم 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar!

I appreciate the Barnstar and also your concern. I do know that it is improper to throw around sockpuppet accusations with using CheckUser first. Mattisse (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm beyond understanding such links right now.

But it is true researching the various water projects, I have come across all sorts of strange things about water controversies and companies that come up with complicated "water projects" involving several states, rivers. dams, canals and power transfer od water.

In fact I wrote an article originally aimed at temple tanks, entitled Irrigation tank -- don't like the name but couldn't think of anything else. But the article quickly became more complicated as I saw the ancient water conserving methods contrasted with today's high-tech methods amd people/states caught in the middle.

Take a look at the article, if you wouldn't mind. I keep finding unconnected articles on water projects but all the pieces are not being put together. Maybe you know what is happening and can help out or guide me in the right direction. Truthfully, I'm still at the level of trying to get the rivers straight and figuring out what basins they flow into.

It's fascinating. Mattisse (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Its true, and it was my own stupid fault. I'm hoping this mediation will resolve the issue. Thanks for your concern though --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were worried

Wikipedia Administers noticeboard/Incident#Puppetmaster Mattise repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag

Please read the actual incident so you will see that that I had done nothing wrong. There is no rule that you can't change your own user page.

What makes me feel the worst about the whole thing is that you had so little faith in me that you thought I was in danger. Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you have it in the comments from the person who made the mistake below. He is referring to a comment I made in another section, namely:

When my user page was reverted: User:Mattisse‎; 18:53 . . contribs) (Revert to revision 73364465 dated 2006-09-02 07:33:12 by Netsnipe using popups) it was reverted to a point before the sockpuppet label was put on again, revealing personal information that I don't wish to be available for personal reasons and that I had removed long ago. So now I can't remove my own personal information that User:Ekajati chose to reveal. I was told that it was an administrator that was doing it (which I did not think an administrator would do without due process) so I did not believe that part. Nonetheless, what I want private is now there against my will and there is nothing I can do about it.

The comments from the guy who made the mistake are below on your page and refer to this statement which, apparently in his eyes, is a sin. Either you read the actual comments and believe what was said on the link I sent you, in which was the ultimate conclusion was that my user page was left to me to do with it what I want), or you believe the guy who admitted he made a mistake. No one likes to admit he made a mistake (although he does in that link I gave you - and also on my talk page to me). In any case, I get the drift of this now. I thank you for being the friend you were before. And I don't hold it against you for believing your friend and sticking by him. I do think you meant well. Mattisse (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for responding -- it truly helps me think good about people again. No I didn't really think I was in danger. First, I wasn't doing anything against any rules. Second, the driving forces in the beginning were not administrators. In fact, those same people had been told to back off recently by adminstrators. Third, what awful thing could happen to me? The worse outcome was what happened -- that two non- administrators got into an edit war over my personal user page, and an administrator got sucked into it and did exactly the wrong thing - as was pointed out in the link I sent you. Now he may have done that out of sheer misunderstanding (which is what he states in the link I sent you) or he may have been sucked into this clique that insists that Timmy12 and I are the same person and have done so multiple times (I now know from looking at his page). I didn't know about the User:Timmy12 thing until yesterday and I was truly horrified.

I've been attacked so many times by this particular clique of persons who want to "own" certain articles, that I am (almost) used to it. Plus there are experienced administrators who have seen me through many of these episodes and will tactfully do the right thing in the end (I believe). Plus, if it means I have to sell my soul to these people and obey their unethical edicts amd back off and overlook the bad things they are doing to Wikipedia, then I will not do that and I will accept the consequences. My nature is such that I am driven to keep the standards of Wikipedia high.

My fault is that I am too blunt and don't have enough patience with the "bowing and scraping" that is required to get along with some of these people. There is some middle road there that I must work on in my own behavior. But in reality, there is nothing they can do to me, except freak me out emotionally -- which they have succeeded in doing previously but I am working on that side of myself now. Compared to previous times, I handled this latest attack well, so maybe I can believe I am improving. It has been a struggle.

Thanks for letting me express all this. I had decided to desert India entirely, but it would be a loss to me. I have been interested in other areas before and can find another area if necessry. There are some really bad people in the India area, unfortunately, along with mostly good, wonderful people. Mattisse (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Advice for a friend

Honestly, I think Mattisse quite enjoyed the situation. He (i'm assuming here) started to talk to other people, just trying to attract attention to the whole situation when he himself said he reverted the edits because he had some private information on his user page. You basically summed up my motive behind protecting the user page. You can see by the protection comment I made, that I had only good intentions, and that I did not want someone to see Cyde's comments and immediately act upon it. Also, Cyde is probably one of the higher up admins, and I would assume he has a good deal of experience and seniority here. Nishkid64 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is true. Things could have been much worse had I not intervened. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by "honest opinion" on your response, so I just told you what I thought of your comment. Nishkid64 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About fire

You are right. Looking at the comments of User talk:Nishkid64 referenced in you last message to me on his discussion page [2], he says I have been enjoying the situation talking to other people. That must mean you, as the only other message I have sent regarding this was to another admin. Since you are definitely right that admins are like fire, lets not talk about this again. And thanks again so very much for being there. I truly appreciate it. Mattisse (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link!

rainwaterharvesing.org - I have never come across that particular page before and it is very useful. Also, their point of view is nice -- Any land anywhere can be used to harvest rainwater The fundamental reason: extend the fruits of the monsoon The basic principle: Catch water where it falls

I was starting to understand this as an ancient tradition of India in writing the Irrigation tank article (hate that name for it). Someone promised me a photo of a temple tank for it. Mattisse (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind

I added of photo of yours (Image:NearNannilam.jpg) to Distributary plus an explanation. Hope the explanation is correct. Feel to change or remove anything you want. Mattisse (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call

➨ **ЯEDVERS** awards this Barnstar to **BostonMA** for tolerance, reasonableness and a commitment to WP:NPOV and dispute resolution that I envy and admire.

To **BostonMA** for a rational and thoughtful approach to resolution of disputes. Your ability to keep cool is admired -- **Samir** धर्म 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Good call on the talk page of that article! I've still nominated it for AfD, but I have reviewed my position on it quite considerably and am doing so for advice, not to make a point.

I'm very impressed with your WP:NPOV thinking, even if I don't agree with your final decisions, and I'm very impressed with your ability to immediately diffuse an edit war. I haven't looked at your contribs or the like, (and you may already be an admin) but would you consider being nominated for adminship? It seems from your temprement and ability that you are what Wikipedia needs and that you could use the tools. Let me know if you're interested/if I'm too late/too early/other.

Thanks... I've been a bit down on Wikipedia of late: you've helped pick me up! I'm off to bed now, somewhat happier! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a second one also! Your cool demeanour and thoughtful approach to problem solving is appreciated around the wiki. Take care -- Samir धर्म 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston,

This is embarkedaxis. Mahound term was used by one or two peoples so it doesnt mean that it is his name's variant. And it is already there in Non-Muslim veiw of Muhammad. So there is no point to keep this word in variant. People are villify by many people but that doesnt mean it is his name variant. Everyone know the defination of variant. And 2ndly some people add this just because they hate him and wikipedia policy is neutral. So i want to keep this article away from skepticism, So that both muslims and non muslims would not be offended. I hope you will understand

Thanks you

Embarkedaxis

Happy Diwali

Happy diwali to u too, belated!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Boston! The AfD is going well, do you think? I mean, not from a wikiprocess point of view per se - and there's clearly a "no consensus" close on the horizon - but from the depth of the discussion and the interesting points raised, I'm very happy with the light generated so far. And I'll be saying so to all the signed-in contributors as soon as it has ended.

But, for the immediate article, did any of the options others have given catch your eye as useful compromises? Would any of the options work if modified? Or is a no-consensus-keep the best option? The latter, alas, could lead to the article being repeatedly nominated (not by me, obviously) but we can be ready for that.

As I've said, I'm impressed by your talent for compromise and mediation (so much so, I'd really like you to reconsider about the adminship thing - you would seem to have need of the tools, but it's up to you and I can wait if you want), so, being better at such things than I am, what would you advise for the best option you and I could work on when the AfD has closed?

(And it can be torn up if someone has a blinder of an idea in the meantime)

(And "keep" is perfectly valid as a response, of course, so don't hold back)

Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's Diwali too! Assuming you are of south Asian heritage (the above messages suggest it!) then happy Diwali to you! (I never get these dates right... my best female Asian friend is Sikh and she's determined that others have the dates so totally wrong... although somehow she manages to make this a great excuse to party for the best part of three weeks. You've got to admit, that's cool... :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston! Me again, making your life miserable with too many postings here :o)

The AfD is nearing a close. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have upon it. I'm happy to close it as a "keep" because the consensus is clearly to keep it: the debate has, rightly, been about what form to keep it in.

For me, I really like Aminz's idea - move it (with redirect) to Medieval western conception of Muhammad - as this creates a great "seedling" article that I would be fascinated to read myself when developed.

However, I suspect that would lead to the need to create Mahound (disambiguation), a page that would need careful drafting.

Would you like to let me know your ultimate choice, based on the debate and the article (which RHaworth is currently expanding, I think) and I'll close the AfD as an obvious keep and then we can work on your choice together if you like? If you go for a straight "keep", that's cool - would you then like to co-operate in some way (I have no idea how) on Aminz's idea for a useful new article?

Let me know. And sorry to be constantly asking you - I respect your knowledge and neutrality on this matter too much not to consult you! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Richwales re: VP problems

Thanks for your post. Unfortunately, I've been having this problem with VandalProof continuously for several weeks now — I have absolutely never been able to get it to accept my login ever — despite many, many attempts and requests for assistance — so I really don't think it's something that is ever going to clear up on its own. Richwales 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried VP (unsuccessfully) on two very powerful PC's, so I don't think it's a CPU, RAM, or disk space issue. The error I consistently get is that my login attempt failed. It looks like it's reading the list of authorized users and doesn't find me there — but I've been assured several times that I am in the list, and my user name doesn't have any spaces (some people have had problems because of that, but that can't explain my problem). Richwales 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have tried re-logging in using the link in the yellow/orange "login failed" box. It says I successfully logged in — but right after that, it gives me the yellow/orange "login failed" box all over again, and all the tools and menus in VP are still greyed out. Richwales 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling...

Sorry to say this, but I'm not a Hindu. I celebrate Diwali cuz of the crackers etc. So it's back to gambling for me. :-D Idleguy 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Belated wishes

Hi BostonMA, thanks for the Diwali greetings. I was away for most of last week. Hope you had a great Diwali yourself -- Lost^(talk) 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maome

I have not changed my position. REmoving the images to avoid "offense" has only emboldened those who would impose their religious norms on the entire project,[3] as I predicted, and has served no encyclopedic purpose. I regard the recent actions taken in the Muhammad article as reprehensible and utterly indefensible. It is censorship of this nature that renders most of the Islam-related articles on Wikipedia laughable parodies of encyclopedia entries. I have no wish to engage in mediation regarding the image, which I regard as a waste of time. Having limited time to devote to Wikipedia, and waning interest in the project due to incidents like this, I prefer to focus my efforts elsewhere. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the mediating: How long will it take AND will result applying on ALL censoring editors? Otherwise deal only help side who dont keep their deals or AT BEST a big waste of time. No deals unless IF you can tell me for sure, all must comply with what we agree AND will enforce with no mercy.Opiner 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and it sound pretty useless. Wish it didnt but it does.Opiner 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, that was some hard work it is almost done now. Let me know what you think--Seadog ^Talk 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your approval, I am usually slow in answering questions and that is okay by me if you are to! I usually get caught up in alot of things and usually forget about the question. By the way if you don't mind me asking are you Hindu. The reason why I ask this is because you sent out Happy Diwali messages to everybody. If you are not then simply thank you for taking the time to wish everybody a happy Diwali--Seadog ^Talk 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links

Calton, do you know if there is a spam-link noticeboard?

Not off the top of my head. There IS a feature allowing for the blacklisting of spam links -- edits containing blacklisted URLs can't be saved -- which has a page for nominating spamlinks, though that strikes me as overkill in this case.

Near as I can tell, one user (probably connected with the Starwood) was inserting multiple (and mostly uselessly tangential) references to this Starwood Festival -- much like a hypothetical "User:MelonvilleArtsCentre" would be inserting identical "X has played at Melonville Arts Centre!" text into multiple performer articles. Another user, instead of challenging the point of bids for attention, slapped on {{cite}} tags -- give the first user the excuse to insert the external links.

As far as I'm concerned, most of the references seem to be a form of internal spam, since they add very little to the articles and only serve to promote the Starwood Festival (I mean, what does it matter that comic-book creator Michael T. Gilbert went there?) Some references and external links obviously belong, but 78 external links? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to drop a line to an admin (User:JzG, User:Georgewilliamherbert, User:Zoe, and User:SlimVirgin all spring immediately to mind) and ask for advice. Feel free to use any of my words above (they ARE licensed under the GFDL, after all...). --Calton | Talk 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news

Sally Eaton has asked Rosencoment to take down her page for perssonal reasons. That gets rid of a bunch of links right there. Hope is brewing. Mattisse (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms on your User page

BostonMA, I find your use of your user page to criticize DBachmann highly inappropriate, and offensive. Please remove this material, and resolve your issues with DBachmann in a productive manner, where and when content or conduct is in dispute.Observation Post 05:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you opinion. I would gladly resolve my issues with DBachmann. Do you have any constructive suggestions for how I might go about this? Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Are the above links found on Wikipedia - answer YES

Those are the ones I removed just now, (they have already been replaced). I haven't done much looking for a while, with the sockpuppet stuff and all, but the first few places I looked, there they were. They also use the <ref name="about"> (or whatever) to stick more than one actual link in an article. Timmy12 00:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By hand - yes

I don't know any other way. But it shows you they must be all over if I run into them so easily. Timmy12 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a change at WikiProject India

Hi,

I'm proposing a major change related to WikiProject India. I'm trying to build a consensus. Your suggestions/views/ideas are very much valued. Please talk about it here. Cheers. -- Ch e z ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

I just wanted to know whether this is [4] a personal attack. I don't want any action as I assume Good Faith thinking that this is just a (mis)sense of comedy (this being the first instance) but just want to know your opinion as to whether such acts (such acts and not this one specifically) and are to be ignored or something (may be a message) be done Doctor Bruno 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it as ill conceived humor and I decided to let it go by as I did not have a recurring problem with this editor, but you may have a look at this also Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lakshman_Madurasinghe Doctor Bruno 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been reading your user page

It is very, very interesting. (Is that where I got the link to India - Constitution?) I would like to comment more on your issues as I have many feeling about what you are saying. You express yourself very well. You are a good writer. Mattisse (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both topics are complex and I can relate to personally on many levels. The first issue I began reading in the light of more current, nonpolitical events on Wikipedia. There are subtle ways groups of people control the content of articles on certain issues. I notice the slant and the punishment that results when someone tries to change the slant. That disturbs me more than any industrial suppression.

To the second issue, I have many reactions and questions. As to your personal feelings, I relate to them strongly. It's upsetting that people use ethnic references pejoratively, and especially to you. Personally, I have not seen that. The only person who has ever even asked about my ethnicity was the guy who threatened to ban me for changing my own user page. So I am not really understanding what is going on here about India and the guy with whom you are having the dispute. Maybe if I knew the pages involved, I could see for myself and get the picture. Mattisse (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{copied from your message} If you look at the most recent changes to my user page, you will see that he has made remarks which negatively relate to (non-Indian) Muslims as well.

I must not be looking at the right place. I don't understand what you mean. I know you were asked to remove a remark from your user page, which you did. Is that what you mean? {I was the person that put the drought photo on the Kaveri River page -- I think I'm the one that started the trouble there, and I've added things since that probably made it worse.) Is this a religious issue? Yesterday I saw somewhere the word "jihad" was used, but I can't find it now. Mattisse (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear. I meant was the remark you removed from your user page, is that a religious issue? The river pic and issues stemming from that I took as a semi-political issue, in that it is difficult sometimes to admit problems. But I feel strongly that it is better to face the problems. Everything I did on that article is footnoted to show that I have a source which then can be evaluated by others -- that I'm not spouting off. I just did a little article today on Muppandal (where there are wind farms) because it is fantastic what India is doing in trying to deal with these issues. Did you know that India is the second biggest consumer of electricity in the world after China? Then I made sure the renewable energy and wind power articles had references to India -- those type articles are often written by Americans who tend to focus on the US and Europe and overlook that huge things are happening in other parts of the world. (That's not an ethnic or nationalistic comment -- just kidding! I'm not thinking you would take it that way.) Also, I started an article called Irrigation tank about India's ancient system of storing water for irrigation, a system that India is reviving today. (I need to spend way more time on it.) Mattisse (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember Salman Rushdie, the writer that had a fatwa against him in the 1990's and had to go into hiding for years? At a university near me a professor was deported for financially supporting the Palestinian jihad. I agree jihad is not a good term to throw around on Wikipedia. It doesn't arouse any emotion in me, but then the comment was not directed at me. (I get more upset about spam and commerical use of Wikipedia.) Wasn't that comment made by dab? Isn't he rather sloppy and loose in his use of language anyway? Mattisse (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'm not meaning to bum you out. Truly I do understand how you feel. It's strange how personal it feels when an attacking individual is a "virtual personality". You have helped me incredibly lately with your support and I wish I could do the same for you. And I admire how you persist and don't freak out like I have done in the past. The fact you keep on going is wonderful, when I just shut down and detach. Mattisse (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dear BostonMA, please remove from your user-page the information that is about discussion between me and dab (Dbachmann‎). It was a personal discussion on his talk page and I already responded to him there in the manner I wished to. It is just a request and decision is only yours. best regards. --- ابراهيم 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come here un-invited. In my opinion all pages are owned by the Wikipedia Foundation and nothing in personal here - we all have responsibility to donors not to waste their money. Please rememebr the caption on this page: this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, we all should behave in a responsive manner to promote the objectives of the Project. --Bhadani 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cool Guy

Bhadani presents you, BostonMA the BS Barnstar for being an excellent person. --Bhadani 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I marvel at your ability to maintain your cool, calmness, and composure despite being in difficult positions. I wish you that you continue to be so! --Bhadani 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also strange that you are not aware of a situation which many Indian wikipedians including me are facing: Many do not like Indians to maintain India-related pages. I am reconciled to this strange and bizarre position! --Bhadani 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference - BS Barnstar

OMG. Please do not get up set – I presented you the barnstar afte reading its description : here, and its meaning is: [5]. And, now you are under an "obligation" to give me a BS barnstar in return. I not only think but definitely know that you are an excellent person. --Bhadani 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhadani. Do not fear that you have offended me, you have not. It is I who should apologize for misunderstanding the meaning of the slogan and causing you to worry. There is a Thanksgiving holiday in the US. It happens less these days, but from time to time I have been invited to dine with friends and feast upon a bird. Although I decline this gift because of my diet, I must still recognize the gift as a gift, made sincerely, and perhaps even with love. I know your gift is genuine, and I tried to accept it as I understood it, and I am sorry that I misunderstood. (misunderstanading based on summary here) Now I owe you a barnstar, and I shall choose one presently. --BostonMA ^talk 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hi Boston. I am not sure of my worth as you are perhaps weighing me in gold. Still, I am thankful to you and accept your gift on behalf of the community of wikipedians. I also thank you for reposing your confidence in me. Yes, we are proud to be members of the most vibrant virtual community of human history! Regards. --Bhadani 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somanathapura

There is something wrong with this image you have put in. Clicking on the image takes you to an entirely different image. Please rectify.Dineshkannambadi 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a local copy of the commons image and it seems to work OK now. Not sure what the problem was. Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Would you please comment on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment Thanks --Aminz 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BostonMA --Aminz 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Re: Teardrops from My Eyes. How very nice of you! I would say more, but I'm scared. Hope you are O.K. as I sense complicated things going on. Mattisse (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always drama. That's a good way to look at it. A dramatic vertual life! (But I don't trust this place anymore.) Mattisse (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are good people -- you are one of them, else I would cease to even try. Mattisse (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi there, looking forward to working on your case. In the mean time, can you point me to where I can read about the belief against depictions of religious figures? I would just like to get some background information. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning mistake

I don't know why/how you got a warning when I never saw your name while revert vandalism maybe a glitch in the software I will remove the warning ok --Kyle G 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email?

Hi. I haven't got your email yet. It could be the spam filter or in the worst case, I might've deleted it accidentally or forgot after reading it. I'm sorry if I had done so. Can you please resend the email? If you're referring to your message in my talk page requesting mediation, let me start working on it soon. But, I'm particularly low on confidence right now with respect to mediation though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, got it now. English could be funny, especially when a non-native speaker like me tries to make sense. :) I'll soon start communicating with him either over email or in his talk page. Will update you about any fallouts. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Desired parties for mediation

I have left them notes. Thanks for the heads-up! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Not a problem. :) --Core des at 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maomé.jpg

I am confused. I know that depicting Muhumaad is offensive to some Muslims. But what makes this image a special case? It seems like a perfectly plain image to me, with nothing particularly unusual. Could you please clarify why this image is exceptional? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab issue

Hi Boston. Can you tell me what you'd like Dbachmann to do regarding the issue? An assurance that he will avoid mentioning nationality while dealing with edit disputes? An apology? (I'm not too hopeful on the latter part because Dab apologised to Bhadaniji on my insistence but his gesture was not reciprocated because Bhadaniji felt too hurt or something. Or it ~~could~~might have been a communication gap that I couldn't fill myself.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your "utilitarianistic" viewpoint here. I'll try my best in this case. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at mediation

Hey there! Could you please edit your mediation statement to be concise (2-3 sentences)? It would be much appreciated, for clarity sake. At this time, we are not debating, just getting statements out on the table. Therefore, it is not necessary at t[his time to rebut statements by other editors. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair.DocEss 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6] --BostonMA ^talk 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a perfectly okay pic to me. Maybe I'll put it on my user page although its difficult to compete with the beaauty of lower manhattan. whats your problem with it?Opiner 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, adding a "huge" picture at the top of an article seems to me to be WP:Point. --BostonMA ^talk 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA, that appears to be a mistake, see in the markup he put 200px, not too big, but due to a syntax error it came out actual size. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the size of the image might have been the result of an error. --BostonMA ^talk 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hearfelt apology regarding that picture of Mohammud and mt inability to size it correctly. Now please deal with this from above: Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair.DocEss 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state clearly what in my comment you believe should be changed. --BostonMA ^talk 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

BostonMA, if there is any particular topic which you would like to contribute, I would be more than happy to find and email you some articles. Regards, --Aminz 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the article on "Qur'an and Polemics" from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, if you are interested. But it doesn't explicitly focuses on the prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, but it would be useful for some wikipedia article. Cheers, --Aminz 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the description adequately describes the conflict. What do you think of my description? --BostonMA ^talk 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm going off line now, so I won't see your response until tomorrow. --BostonMA ^talk 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it described it pretty well in theory, though, like I said, not in practice. That's why I said that if you agreed, I would too. But you didn't, so the matter is moot. Anyway, I'm not sure I exactly follow your statement, but from what I see, you want to characterize people into categories according to what their actions have been. That doesn't help, because we need to speak in theory if we're going to come up with a consensus. What I mean to say is, talking about a future proposal requires us to work more in the theoretical realm than in defining the past. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing/continuing this discussion on my talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for articles created

Considering my contributions, i wonder if it is ok to create a category for adding the talk pages of articles i have created, much in the same way as Category:Medieval warfare task force articles, possibly naming it "Category:Articles created by User:Striver"? --Striver 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?

Just wondering -- with your mediation going on and all. I have been following it. I think you speak extraordinarily clearly. Mattisse (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what to do about theis?[7]

I'm rather startled. Is there a procedure or a proper way of dealing with such violations? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I agree with you. I didn't know he had been blocked at the time. I don't think I would ever take anything to AN/I though. The experience there is always terrible and nothing gets resolved. Hope you are getting your equilibrium back. Although originally on the side of the "imagists" (reflexively}, now I have now been persuaded by your position in the image mediation. So even if the mediation doesn't go your way, you have opened up my world view. Thank you! Mattisse (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I would hate to see you drawn into the Starwood mess. Nothing good will come of it, it seems to me. User:Ekajati is the only person participating. He is the one that had me blocked a few weeks ago. And Hanamun Das has started his attacks on me and Timmy 12 again.[8] I freaked out (literally) and made a stupid mistake in August. But it will never be forgotten around here unless I acknowledge they "own" those articles and admit that I am not allowed to make constructive edits. Mattisse (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.I agree that admins (or whose ever job it is) should have stepped in long ago. But they didn't in August and they aren't going to now (in my opinion). Most of the ones that stepped in recently have backed off. In August when I pled for help from several admins, I got none (hence my freakout and the reason why I will stay out of it now -- so I won't freak out). I want to detach and accept that Wikipedia is this way. However, I refuse to acknowledge that they "own" the articles and that I cannot make constructive edits now and then. (Do you think that I am being hard-headed and unreasonable in thinking this?) Mattisse (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is good advice. I'll follow it. I never see these things clearly. Thank you. Mattisse (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Sorry Boston, no luck with my effort. I can give you details if you send me an email. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hines sockpuppets

Greetings. The checkuser request could be done under "D", if the vote affected the outcome, but I see the case has been closed and the article has been deleted. You could copy your evidence page to RFCU anyway, just to get the socks outed and blocked, but honestly it might not be worth the trouble, and the clerk might just reject the case since the vote is closed. Sockpuppets made expressly to vote in an AFD almost never are used again (at least I rarely see them--any account whose first vote is on an AFD, is, in my opinion, 100% sockpuppet).

Hope this helps. If you see anyone recreate Brad Hines or something like it, let me know and I'll just delete/block. Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I walk away from my computer and think about it some more, and come back ... this might be an issue for more community discussion. Should we expand criterion "D" to include one-off sockpuppets for a vote, after the fact? Maybe you should post the question on the talk page for WP:RFCU. I'm not sure anyone has ever asked it before. A community policy of outing them might be a good idea. Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your request

Following your request, I have Self Reverted, though I still think this Self revert is detrimental.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation update

Hi Boston, as you may have noticed, everyone at the mediation has agreed with our statements of the sides of the issue except you. I'm not exactly clear what your contention is at this point (everything seems to have been addressed via rebuttal) so would you be willing to either agree, or further clarify your position? It seems like you are trying to polarize the issue more so than need be - I have reviewed the participant statements again and no one seems to be making any kind of "all or nothing" claim - i.e., no one is saying "all images belong in the article no matter what" and no one is saying the opposite either. If we can all agree that encyclopedic and informative images can be included, then we can move on to defining what that means in the context of the Muhammad article. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you write "everyone at the mediation has agreed with our statements of the sides of the issue except you. That is not quite accurate. All of those who agree, (with one exception to be discussed below) are on the pro-image side. The one exception is User:ALM scientist who states that although he in fact disagrees, he is agreeing because he does not want the mediation to be deadlocked. I also do not want the mediation to be deadlocked. However, I would like my concerns to be heard.

You also write "everything seems to be addressed via rebuttal". I left this comment on your talk page, to which you did not respond. Perhaps you believe that DocEss's response is a rebuttal. Please let me know.

You wrote in this comment on the mediation page that "BostonMA seems to believe that there are some who want any images in the article regardless of questions of being encyclopedic, and my point is that no one seems to be taking that position." I will try to clarify my position for you. The first of the two bullets states:

"Encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad should be included in the article. Removal on the basis of relevance or notability may be discussed on a per-image basis."

The history of the dispute, I think is different. Several editors, including Irishpunktom and myself attempted to discuss the issue of the informativeness of the Maome image. The general response from the pro-image side was not to respond to this entirely relevant issue, but to argue that the issue was irrelevant, because a) Wikipedia is not censored, because b) other articles have images of their subjects that aren't accurate, because c) people have an alleged need to see images etc., because d) what will happen if Wikipedia "gives in" to a minority, because e) we can't discuss this over and over with every image that is to be added (how many images do they want to add?) and so on.

I thus think it is gross misrepresentation of the sides to place the demand for encylcopedicity on the pro-image side, and the forbid all (apparently without question or discussion) on the other side.

Like User:ALM scientist, I do not want a deadlock. However, what I propose is that we test in practice whether we can discuss the encyclopedicity of a single image, i.e. the maome image. If we are able to resolve the issues with one image, then we may generalize our considerations to other images. Please give this proposal serious consideration. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this illustrates why I am approaching the mediation the way I am. Discussing one particular image before we agree on a principle is sort of placing the cart before the horse. I thought it would be more useful to agree in principle on whether any sort of images can be in the article before we move to defining the criteria by which we measure images. You have a valid point in bring up the history of the dispute, but I would rather base the mediation on the statements people have given, because I see those as statements of what they are willing to put forward in the mediation. For example, if someone has historically refused to respond to discussions of relevance, but then they agree in mediation to the relevance of that issue, then we can hold them to that agreement. Does that make sense? If you disagree that anyone has taken the position that all images should be forbidden, then we can remove that as a position. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the suggestion that we test in practice discussing the encyclopedicity of an image because I feel that we have different understandings regarding what the dispute is about, and it was my feeling that such an experiment might help to clarify for you the positions of the various parties. If someone has historically refused to respond to discussions of relevance, but then agree in mediation to relevance of discussing relevance, that is good. However, please do not ask me to state agreement to assertions to which I actually believe to be incorrect. Is my assent to your description of the conflict necessary to move forward? --BostonMA ^talk 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, with no disrespect intended, I've seen your comments on the mediation page: wouldn't it be best to let the mediator decide what's relevant and what not? It is, after all, his job, And as for the case-by-case basis, shouldn't that come later, after we've all fashioned some sort of agreement? Please realize, that by saying this, I may be hurting "my own side", as I've taken away a bargaining chip (we can no longer say we want all images, so a mediation is to allow some) - but I think in the interest of expediency, it might be best to let Aguerriero, a seasoned mediator (?), decide what's relevant and what's not. If you find yourself on one of the sides, perhaps you could simply agree, as the text says, and bring up any ignored issues later. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patstuart. I do not wish to deadlock the mediation. However, I can neither state that I agree with something that I believe is wrong, nor can I encourage others to do so. I do not understand the value in asking for my assent in this case, or why it should hold up mediation. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't belong to the first group? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

I don't see the division between the groups as being descriptive of the conflict, nor do I feel that division according to those bullet points to be particulaly relevant. --BostonMA ^talk 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, let me approach this from a different angle. If I'm not mistaken, what you are trying to communicate to me is that there are editors whose behavior does not fit into one of my groups. Is that correct? In that case, I will try to explain this mediation technique. By proposing the two groups that I did, I presented two options that are compatible with Wikipedia's policies. By doing so, and requesting that participants align themselves with one group, I automatically filter out positions that are not compatible with Wikipedia. Does that makes sense? So the effect is that no matter what the outcome of the mediation from that point forward, it is an outcome that follows our guidelines and policies. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that I believe that there are editors whose behavior does not match either group. More than that, I believe that dividing editors according to your criteria does not do justice to the editors involved. Editors may as individuals hold positions which are not compatible with Wikipedia policies. They may believe that those policies ought to be changed. What is important is not what someone personally believes, but how they behave as editors, and whether those edits conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact that an editor believes that all images of Muhammad are offensive and uninformative should not be used against that editor when they argue that specific images are offensive and uninformative. Segregating such editors, when they have made reasonable and valid arguments on specific images, into a special camp, seems to me to be wrong. I will again repeat my request that you move on despite my disagreement, because it does not seem likely that we will agree on this soon unless you are willing to consider a formulation which more accurately reflects the conflict as it has actually appeared. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't move on, sorry. Because later, you can use that as an excuse not to follow what is agreed to in mediation. I have had that happen to me before - I'm not saying I think you would do that, I'm just saying you could do it, and it has been done in the past. After reading your earlier proposed changes to my groups again, it looks like your major point of contention is that I have people divided up into (and this is simplifying it but you get the idea) a) some images should be there based on being encyclopedic, and b) no images should be there. You see to want to add "removing any images is censorship". BUT. Note that even though that is not one of my two choices, the participants have agreed to my choices. So why is it an issue? Do you suspect that someone is going to bring out that argument despite the mediation? If we agree to a description of what is encyclopedic (and again I stress this will be LATER in the mediation), I see it as a non-issue. Everyone will have their say as to what is encyclopedic. You have used the term "informative", which is part of encyclopedic. It will all be defined. We don't need to incessantly wikilawyer the groups. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you won't move on, let me try to explain from a slightly different angle. The way the two groups are divided at present, DocEss and I would probably both say we belonged to the first group. ALM scientist would probably say that he belongs to the second group. However, in the real conflict, I have had no edit disputes with ALM scientist, and I have been in constant conflict with DocEss. Any grouping that puts me in the same group as DocEss and positions me to have a conflict with ALM scientist is a grouping that just does not correspond to the real conflict. I hope this helps, and I am sorry that I was not able to articulate this earlier. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. And that's okay, sincerely. By placing yourself in that group, you are not saying "I agree with DocEss's methods for adding/removing images". You are just saying that you allow that some images can be in the article, by criteria we will define. Placing yourself in the second group is saying that you do not believe any depictions of Muhammad could be encyclopedic in the article and/or that you find them offensive. The purpose of this exercise is not to mimic the conflict, it is to define what the positions are. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indenting) The original statement read in part:

"Now. Sign below to indicate whether you agree or disagree that these two points adequately summarize the debate."

You are now asking my to sign on the basis that:

"The purpose of this exercise is not to mimic the conflict, it is to define what the positions are."

Is the purpose to accurately describe the conflict or not? If not, then I suggest changing the wording to something like:

Please sign below if you agree that the above two bullets represent positions held by one or more editors in this mediation. By expressing your agreement you are not agreeing to a position that the difference in these positions defines the conflict to be resolved by this mediation.

Also, I neither believe that at least one image belongs in the Muhammad page, nor do I believe that no image belongs on the Muhammad page. I believe that images should be evaluated on an individual basis for their encyclopedicity and the informative value they may add to the article. So, I would suggest changing one of the bullets to:

Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. Standards will be defined in this mediation.

However, if you are willing to go out on a limb, I would propose an even more drastic change. Here is my proposed summary in toto.

Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. The debate to be resolved by this mediation concerns the standards by which encyclopedicity, relevance and informativeness will be judged. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this description of the matter to be mediated."

[optionally include bullet items representing different standards that have been offered]

Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, I have no problem with the changes you have made. I will not have very much time through the weekend due to family commitments, but I would support querying the other participants to see if they are okay with your change. I think there are at least 1 or 2 people who are of the "no images" camp, so that will still need to be presented as a position that is represented. In regard to my statement "Now. Sign below to indicate whether you agree or disagree that these two points adequately summarize the debate." I acknowledge that that was a misstep - what I actually intended was "...that one of these statements describes your position." and I have been held to task for that misstep. Oh well - lesson learned, and we can move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From DocEss

As I said in Ag's page, it looks like Boston's modus operendii is to continue making noise so that the orchestra cannot begin the performance. His insistance on arguing about one particular image instead of all images in general is just part of this diversionary noise.DocEss 18:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DocEss, is there something you particularly wish to discuss with me? --BostonMA ^talk 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not. All my discussion are for the whole group.DocEss 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is nothing in particular you wish to say to me, it would probably be more appropriate for you to comment where the whole group can see. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DocEss, while it is possible that BostonMA is trying to confound the mediation, it is also very possible that his concerns are sincere, and that he is working toward a better encyclopedia. Even when speaking in the third person about someone, it is not hard to accidently violate WP:AGF(I assume it was an accident). This issue is very contentious and assuming good faith is more important now than every before. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get your message sooner

I was getting so many at once and then losing my answers in editing conflict that yours got lost in the shuffle. About Sivasamudram Falls, I didn't know that -- one of the many frustrating things about not naming things after what they really are. For a while I was embarking on a complex river basin, dam, falls, water use project about India. But today has been so frustrating that I will not try it again. All this started because Dineshkannambadi asked me to help her with one of her temples. I should have gotten it through my head when Brihadeshvara Temple (which it is called at the UNESCO World Heritage Site) was turned into Brihadeeswarar Temple and subsequently became a mess. I think people in India do not want non Indians monkeying with their articles and I am getting the message. Well, I had a great time writing the article and although I haven't read the other one, I probably won't since I am not interested in wading through one of those town articles which it sounds like it is. Mattisse (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., male. I guess I made that assumption, but I don't think I have said anything to Dinesh that would indicate that. Usually I assume everyone is male, so I don't know why I didn't in his case too. Is that something he would get upset about? Mattisse (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive an invitation to the Starwood Mediation Cabel. I'm sure I bookmarked it but I can't find it right now. The last time I looked nothing was happening. Do you think if I weighed in, that might encourage this confusion that continues to be generated that he and I are the same person, since he was on the list of invitees? Mattisse (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to bother you again

Should I be preparing for something?[9] An RFC? How can I get help? After the 7 AN/I in one day on October 27, and the sockpuppet Checkusers since September, and being blocked by the yakety-yak person. What should I do to prepare? Mattisse (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one to ask. I have tried before. I guess for the same reasons you expressed disappointment in you message on my page about AN/I 's not resolving anything and admins not stepping in -- everyone is too busy etc. Mattisse (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me the link. It's helpful just to deal with it. But I'm beginning to wonder if the guy isn't crazy. All that work over stuff for which I have already paid the price. Got this message from a friend: "DOn't worry about the RfC its all old news now delt with. They will shoot themselves in the foot with this. Just keep cool." Mattisse (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread your message to me about your Mediation Cabal and the feelings you are having. It makes me feel better to read what you say. It seems there was a flurry of activity today but I haven't had the chance to check it out. It appears you are right, though, in your evaluation of what is happening regarding the mediation you are going through. (I just discovered that if I give my refigerator a good shove, it stops sounding like a D.C.3 taking off for a while.) Maybe tomorrow will be a good day for each of us. I appreciate the contact with you. Mattisse (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Outs

Please stop striking things out in talk pages. Nobody can know the reason for the strikeouts and you're just adding smoke.DocEss 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding clarity. Since I had to look in the history to find what had been removed, it seemed to me to make more sense to have a struck text than removed text. Especially since some of the comments referred to that text. --BostonMA ^talk 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the striking out of point three, I have explained on the mediation page. It is also explained lower on the page, and in the edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I found point three in the edit history. Since point three is mentioned in the comments, it seemed to me that it would be more convenient for other readers if the text were present in struck out form, than simply replaced by a message saying that it was deleted. --BostonMA ^talk 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi BostonMA,

There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here [10]. I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[11] so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Holist Site AfD

Dear BostonMA. Thank you so much for your insightful comments in the Third holiest site in Islam AfD project page. I was late when I saw the page, since it was locked and I could not contribute. I have added a comment thread on the discussion page of the project. I am not sure what can be done at this stage, but I am positive that a civil resolution can and should be reached, rather than locking the discussion page with a "speedy keep" tag. Aboosh 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make heads or tails of this argument; I asked for some explanation of what was so biased about the artcle, but none was given. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Could you please archive your talk page? It's slowing down my browser considerably. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress. --BostonMA ^talk 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperors do not archive pages, we will have to vandalise and archive during mid-night (in India) to avoid being blocked!!! --Bhadani 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Reading your last posting on Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, I am agreeing with your position, which you have whittled down to a clear statement of a general principle (it seems to me). I take your side on that general principle, although I did not at first. You are a talented communicator. And you keep your cool. Mattisse (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding too -- that the rivers begin in the ghats, then flow across the plains, and (in the case of waterfalls, for example) plunge off the edge of the plains, and with tributaries conbributing, flow to the coast. Last night I was working on a Subarnarekha River and I had a sense of deja vue -- I know I have already written about the delta area before. I wrote a whole article but can't find it because I can't remember what I called it. It's very interesting what is going on there. I know we disagree on this, but I would like dams to be called dams, waterfalls called waterfalles, resevoirs called resevoirs etc. because the whole water topic is a network of issues and history that (in my mind) ought to be attched in a network of articles that would include the hydroelectric plants and irrigations systems etc. But don't worry about changing anything I write as I am figuring it all out as I go along. Mattisse (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[12] He still does not get it. The people who think they are helping him are actually enabling him to perpetuate his wrong-headed thinking. It is hard for me to understand this. Mattisse (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Q's

Sorry about that minor deletion, I think we got into an edit conflict. -- Avi 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis on my talk page, the reason I did not get back earlier is that my internet connection went down. A couple of minor quibbles in that I mentioned you added Jerusalem to the text, but it was already in' the article. Check the references, they all bring quotes, so I did supply that to the article -- in the reference section as opposed to the main text, but I personally have no issue with it in the text. Also, of course I meant one George E. Bowen in UofT, how do you think I found him? The campus faculty directory lists a number, but only one GE. I figured that would be understood. Once again, I am not arguing that a peer-reviewed journal, where available, is the best. Thank you for your participation. -- Avi 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be pretty much a non-response to most of the issues raised here or here. --BostonMA ^talk 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I think I addressed each one of your points. What in particular are you still missing? -- Avi 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um,

you claim that this web page is a paraphrase of a paper named "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", correct?
Have you seen or read the actual paper for which the above link you say is a paraphrase?
Was the actual paper published?
If so, when?
If so, what was the name of the publication if there was one?

To which I will add

What evidence do you have that such a paper exists?

And you may optionally address the issue of your commenting on your imagination of me as an editor on your questions page, rather than simply answering the questions I raised. --BostonMA ^talk 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I have not read the actual paper. The evidence, nay the source citation itself, is the paraphrase hosted on the the university's own server. This is not a personal e-mail or blog hosted on the server, this is an official page. In general, I think one can presume that the University of Tennessee would not allow blatant falsehood about one of its decorated scholars on its own site. We use pages from university sites constantly, for example, when editing the bios of notable professors. This is not different. Thanks. -- Avi 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to "the source citation". Could you describe to me exactly what you mean by this. In particular, a citation is a very brief description of a written work, which usually includes at least the name of the work and the names of the authors. Could you quote to me here such a citation? --BostonMA ^talk 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowen, George E. (April 3, 2001). "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus". Patrick S. O'Brien on the University of Tennessee server. Retrieved 2006-11-12. Three historic churches and monasteries are within the city. Just outside the city is the location of the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque, the third holiest place for Muslims in the world. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Um, that is you making a citation (of a paper which has not been proven to exist). What I want is a citation that was written on a server. The link you provide is not to a citation, is to a summary of research. That summary of research does not say that there exists a paper that was written by George E. Bowen with the title "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", nor does it conatain a citation for such a paper. --BostonMA ^talk 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh. Once again, the paraphrase itself is supporting the statement, the way that a newspaper article can support what it talks about. -- Avi 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the webpage or "paraphrase" as you call it, says nothing about a paper and does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name. How does it support your claim that there is a paper by Prof. Bowen? --BostonMA ^talk 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks it might be better to hold off on this discussion. From looking at the deletion review on this article is appears that a consensus is forming that it should be relisted. (→Netscott) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not followed this discussion, but it seems we are using newspapers in order to identify the third holiest place in Islam!!!! We have academic encyclopedias around!! Newspapers have no religous reliability and authority whatsoever. I have sometimes seen crazy things in newspapers. --Aminz 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit

Instead of just reverting, I'd like to point out that this edit is written more in essay format than in encyclopædic tone. I'll try and redo it, but you may have a better idea. -- Avi 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means improve it. I am not the most gifted writer. --BostonMA ^talk 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look; how badly do you think I messed it up -- Avi 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your edit I can no longer assume good faith on your part. --BostonMA ^talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you respond to my question about Hadith and Quran on the articles talk page? Thanks. -- Avi 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, might I ask, are you asking me questions about Hadith and Quran? --BostonMA ^talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

university sites

Just happened to get caught up in reading your talk page (always interesting) and noticed an editor's statement that information posted on a site hosted by a univeristy must be true. People seem unaware that persons associated with a univeristy have access to the university's servers and may post their own websites and say whatever they want. How is it that you understand these things and others don't? It's your ckear-mindedness, I guess! Mattisse (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 643: / Line 643: @@
 Take a look; how badly do you think I messed it up [[image:smile.gif]] -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
+:Given  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_holiest_site_in_Islam&diff=next&oldid=87684876 your edit] I can no longer assume good faith on your part.  --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 Also, can you respond to my question about Hadith and Quran on the articles talk page? Thanks. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
+:Why, might I ask, are you asking me questions about Hadith and Quran?  --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 == university sites ==

Revision as of 12:04, 14 November 2006

Archives

Mohammed deletion

Muhammad pics

Units in Kaveri River article

Re: Thanks for work on India articles

Muhammad pic

Elephant picture

Barnstar

Maome

Re: using Redirects

WP:NPA

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Sorry, I'm beyond understanding such links right now.

Thank you

You were worried

Re:Advice for a friend

About fire

Thanks for the link!

Hope you don't mind

Good call

Happy Diwali

AfD

From Richwales re: VP problems

Gambling...

Thanks and Belated wishes

Maome

thanks!

Thanks

Thanks

Spam links

Good news

Criticisms on your User page

Re: Are the above links found on Wikipedia - answer YES

By hand - yes

Proposing a change at WikiProject India

Personal Attack

Been reading your user page

Request

The Cool Guy

Somanathapura

RfC

Thanks!

Mediation

warning mistake

Your email?

re: Desired parties for mediation

Re: Thanks

Maomé.jpg

Dab issue

Your statement at mediation

Sources

Not sure what you mean

Category for articles created

How are you?

Mediation

Brad Hines sockpuppets

Re: Your request

Mediation update

From DocEss

Sorry I didn't get your message sooner

sorry to bother you again

Strike Outs

Request

Third Holist Site AfD

Archiving

hello

ArbCom Q's

Your recent edit

university sites