User talk:BostonMA


User	Talk	Leave me a message	Essays	Appreciation	Toolbox	Let's talk it over	Wikimedia Commons

Wow!

Let me be the first! And now it doesn't that 30 seconds for each letter I type to register! Sincerely, Mattisse 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BostonMA! You still here?[1] I want to send you a Barnstar for being such an all around great person but I looked at the Barnstar collection and none of them seem good enough for you! Guess I have to figure out how to be creative. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting, although of course you are a free person to do as you like, that you not feed into the Starwood thing anymore, per Katherine and others such as Salix alba. It just feeds the farce and keeps their show on the road. (My opinion and what ever you do will not change my opinion of you.) Your fan and sincerely, Mattisse 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that! This probably isn't the best diff[2] but Kathryn NicDhàna also mentioned that the question about Jeff Rosenbaum had not been answered in Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation. Should not anyone who is worried about such mention on a talk page be more worried about that? Need to find a huge Barnstar for you! Sincerely, Mattisse 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also he stalked me to the mediator's page and called me a sockpuppet again. You probably already saw that. It will be interesting to see how the mediator handles all this, as my view is that he underestimates what is going on. (So glad you are back!) Sincerely, Mattisse 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think I have been named and I don't intend to get involved if possible -- of course usually I get dragged into these things because everything Starwood is all my fault. (Glad to see your Purple Star -- definitely deserved!) Sincerely, Mattisse 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I see I am added. I don't have anything to say in arbitration and intend to stay out of it if possible. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to arbitrate if he withdraws? The Starwood thing would not be an issue if he and 999 did not harass. Rosencomet himself has just been enabled and condoned by all this circular mediating and allowance of windbag stuff. To me he is the least of the problem. He by himself could never have pulled it off. As for me, what am I arbitrating? I'm sick of the whole thing. If it means the end of my harassment I'd be interested. But most likely it is just another chance for everyone to drag me through the mud and take up my time when I could be doing edits. In fact there is already a message on his page from an arbitration person asking for more information about me. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is leaving Wikipedia. Didn't he just do that a few weeks ago over the sockpuppet report you filed? This is all a joke! How can all this be taken seriously! Sincerely, Mattisse 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to do it offically, like Ars Scriptor did, or this is just a farce. It's like that Starwood mediator going overboard worrying about scaring him off. It's all the worse for me. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, leave officially, if BostonMASS would stop interfering. I hope this gets brought up when he tries to become an admin, You do not interfere with such things when you are involved in a dispute with another user. Even an admin would ask another admin to do it. It's wrong —Hanuman Das 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaqbal

The template you have used is ok. I will keep an eye on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mustaqbal. Also, thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my user page yesterday. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry confirmed. Discovered 3 other socks of Mustaqbal in the process. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother

You are clearly trying to pre-empt the mediation when you eliminate an internal link to the Starwood page because YOU have decided that Starwood isn't important enough to merit a link. By 1999 Big Brother was doing rib burn-offs and other such venues; Starwood was one of the more prestigious appearances of the late 90s, and they cut their fee to get it. They had just released their second album in 25 years. They were not at all one of the most expensive groups Starwood had hosted, but they were well known and offered a good, well-received performance. Halley DeVestern has her own article, not created by me, and I thought it would be nice to link her name to her Starwood pictures on a NON-STARWOOD website. I did NOT add a link to the Starwood website, and the internal link PRE-DATED the mediation. In terms of gigs, cost of performance, recent recordings, record sales, collaborations, and a whole lot more measures of notability they are NOT so big or popular that a mention of an appearance at Starwood is trivial. Today they play mostly clubs, hotels and casinos, and haven't had a CD out since 1998. Rosencomet 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation includes discussion of whether mention of starwood is appropriate in given articles. The link that you added on Dec 11 increased the presense of starwood on that page. You did not discuss this link in mediation prior to adding it. If you are going to make such edits, then your complaints about "trying to pre-empt the mediation" are going to fall on deaf ears. Since there is a mediation page, please do not discuss on my talk page. --BostonMA ^talk 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information=

Rosencomet has not voluntarily posted his name. Speculating about it is a violation of policy. —Hanuman Das 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not stated anything that User:Rosencomet had not already stated. I don't see any violation of policy. --BostonMA ^talk 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here

{{pinfo4}} —Hanuman Das 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the ANI filed against you is that you violated no privacy rules.[3]

Would it be all right if I removed the template put there in error? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI postings are all in support of you.[4]

Sincerely, Mattisse 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information BostonMA linked to was provided by Rosencomet himself, whether as self-descriptions on talk pages, or in his autobiographical Jeff Rosenbaum article, or in the links he profusely added to Wikipedia webpages that click through to this on the ACE/Starwood/Winterstar website. This is an abuse of warning templates and the ANI process by Hanuman Das. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure did miss it! But see, we took care of it for you!

For you ... Sincerely, Mattisse 21:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Star
		Hereby awarded to BostonMA for continuously being the voice of reason, in numerous conflicts, and gracefully weathering unwarranted attacks and harassment in retaliation for his excellent work. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mediation

Hi Bostan, how are you? I hope above mention ANI case will go in your favor. I think that our mediator has left wikipedia. Can you ask for another new mediator so that we can continue this. I like to conclude things instead of leaving them in the middle. Hope to get your reply. With best wishes. :) --- ALM 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Arbitration

I have put in a request for arbitration on the Starwood/ACE conflict here. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, and if you would be interested in adding a second statement to the arbitration request after mine, please do. I went ahead without asking for additional statements from others. A copy of the form I abbreviated in my submission is here. A short essay on how to present a case for arbitration is here. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me and let admins decide

STOP IT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanuman Das (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

STOP IT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REVERT MY USER PAGES. —Hanuman Das 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's at m:Right to vanish which explicitly mentions deleting user talk pages. Back off. —Hanuman Das 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at last message on my talk page

Can he be blocked for that? Sincerely, Mattisse 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother, Mattisse, I'll be permanently gone in ten minutes if BostonMA stops interfering. —Hanuman Das 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]