User talk:BozMo/archive

I need one now: long messages with useful content

BI article

Thank you for your willingness to actually try to help. I do appreciate it. If the article is left locked until, as one admin said, Oliver and we "agree", if will remain locked forever. Oliver has no incentive to negotiate or change the article, since the article is exactly as he liked it. The only ones who seem interested in participating are Oliver, and those of us whom Oliver claims are political (as opposed to himself). Still, in the interest of AGF (Is that the TLA - three letter acronym?), I did as you suggested and proposed a section - on rupture. Every statement in this proposed material is true and accurate - eg not slanted or inaccurate for failure to omit an important fact. I do not care for that type of inaccuracy, regardless of one's views on this or any other issue. It is intellectually dishonest.

I also do not think that every single point or study (positive or negative) should be belabored. Oliver raised the two studies that report the least percentage of rupture. Those are the ones I left, with no other studies (that do exist and arguably are as accurate as the ones he claims are 'random'). It is not randam when one deliberately excludes implants removed because of rupture, when considering the prevalence of rupture (amazing!). The authors of that study acknowledge that they underrepresents rupture, as a result, but do not include this in the conclusion, or report how many ruptured implants were excluded. Anyway, other studies suggest rupture prevalance rate is much much higher than either of these two studies. I have omitted mention of them entirely. And, there are no studies that examine rupture rate in implants older than 10 years. Please take a look. And I hope you are not the only one who will participate.Jance 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

G Patrick Maxwell-- Fluff piece is back

Would you take a look at this article again, please? Some of the complaints re WP:Peacock seem to be re-added by Droliver. This was his teacher, and he wrote the article as an accolade, and seems intent on recreating it. For example, as a citation for Maxwell's becoming 'known as the first...' he used a commercial product catalog. A couple of other references are non-existent. He bolded "Best Doctors in America" as an award, which is not a very credible award (rather like the "whos who of college students and the like). I admit to being biased re Oliver, as I find him detestable. Therefore, I won't revert, but I'd appreciate some outside input.Jance 06:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To see the bio of another one of Oliver's teachers, see Hiram Polk. I wasn't aware that wikipedia is a vanity press.Jance 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM - No Follow etc.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your feedback to the NoFollow discussion at WikipediaProject Spam. I also read the long post at Pascal's Talk Page Archive. I can completely relate to the problem of getting tired of repeating the same stuff over and over again. Because of that reason did I move discussions with relevant content to the topic to a consolidated place on my website [1]. I did that, because I saw in the year I am a wikipedian more than one discussion disappear from the Wiki (including history). You can't add comments there which is not so good. I need to reinstall the Mediawiki again on that server one day.

I see your point of the discussion and why you don't want it enabled in the article space and make it a choice for the user pages, however I see also some flaws in it. I think that a link in an article MUST be first and foremost be relevant to the article and add value to it. For whom? The human visitor that is reading the article. Search Engines are secondary. I will come back to that one a bit later. I also think that internal links should have a nofollow attribute as well, except internal links from one article to another. The effect if some external links have the attribute and some don't would reduce the effectiveness of the attribute considerably. If the rule is general with no exception, also the spammer in the furthest region on the planet will learn about it. It would be big news and send out a message that is today only a whisper. "PageRank is dead". The original principle is becoming less and less of a factor for the major search engines because of massive abuse. MSN has the least developed algo's and is the most susceptible to attacks of the big 3. It was "nicely" demonstrated this summer.

But even Google and Yahoo have problems with this which are still not solved effectively. The SE's know that and the only tactic they have today is to scare people to death to reduce the problem that way as much as they can to buy themselves time to actually come up with a solution. Don't buy links, don't exchange links, don't cross link sites you own, add nofollow etc. They could have said: Either don't add or at least flag any link that you would not protect with your life or at least not "co-sign" for, because we do a bad job in determining intend and relevance of links at the moment. We work on it, but in the meantime please help us to suck less. Okay, let us help them and add nofollow to any link that is not to somebody I would trust with my life. Let that become standard practice and Google will become able to calculate PageRank in real-time, because there will not be much to calculate anymore. May be that would cause the SE to increase their efforts to come up with a solution that works better. Until then will Spammers care about links nobody sees, even if only 1 in thousand creates results. If the result is $0.0000000 after a week of work, nobody would SPAM in that fashion, unless it is for research purposes.

Spammers need then to shift their focus ENTIRELY to areas where it is seen by a human at least one of them and there must be at least a remote chance that this human will act on it a way that benefits the spammer. If you spam a site with a 100% readership of strong believing Muslims and offer delicious pork chops, your conversion will be 0, regardless if you spam once or a billion times. The same results would have adult entertainment merchandise which involves young and pretty women with little or no clothes when promoted to an audience of 100% catholic priests. The more it becomes targeted, the less it becomes SPAM actually. SPAM that actually benefits me is not really annoying and I will be forgiving the fact that I did not ask for it. The more the spam moves to the visible space the more relevant does it need to become or the easier it is to detect automatically without a human even seeing it. The latest Blog Spam plug-ins are a very good proof for this. Also "learning" Email Spam filters work extremely efficient and over time almost 100% accurate. It is obviously currently not feasible or possible for the major search engines to use the same principles to solve the spam problem. If it is relevant, the spam filter will not catch it, but it also is not really spam anymore. I removed dozens of external links just because they were not discussed (what we made a principle for some of the heavily spammed articles with an active editor community), good links to highly relevant sites which I found out about, only because of the "spam". I would have left some in the articles but know that this is of no use, because the link will be removed by somebody who does not care about the article itself because of one or more Wikipedia principles that were violated. Some of those principles and guidelines are factoring in PageRank etc. as motivation. It seems to become sometimes the simplest excuse why a link was removed from an article. You avoid spending time justifying the removal.

Another important thing you need to consider in all this, is the fact that search engines today do not treat Wiki Name-spaces differently (unless told so via Meta Tags or Robots.txt). User Name-space or Article Name-space are equal in the eyes of SE's. They can as much benefit the site as they can harm it at the same time. Editors are busy enough to watch the article space. They should not need to have to check other areas for developments of damaging linking schema's that have the potential to harm Wikipedia in one way or another, automated penalties or issues with stuff showing up in Search Results or related results. In the latter case is Wikipedia to a certain extend liable. It will be hard to find content of that nature if it is not included in the search results at all. It must be linked to from a visible and busy place to be seen.

If the spam must become more relevant and closer to good content it must become less spam in nature. It is today already possible to detect spam that is too much off topic. Filters could be developed and be very efficient that work on the principles of existing blog comment/trackback spam filters and email spam filters and remove obvious spam automatically. Those filters could be developed already and they would also help under the current situation btw. If stuff remains in the Wiki after all that, the validation of the provided content will happen on a very different premise than today. It would become a very healthy process in my opinion and probably increase the popularity of wikipedia. The good thing is that it is realistic to get there for Wikipedia today. Search Engines are trying to get there. I am absolutely convinced about that. They don't have a practical solution for it yet, but why should we make their life easier that they have to work less hard on the solution for them?

All this sounds nice, I know. My problem is, that I can not find any data about the extend of the issue, the current methods against it and their effectiveness. We can speculate all day long and probably not come to an agreement if we don't know the numbers to make speculations about the impact of a solution and also re-evaluate solutions that are implemented, if they are as effective as they promised to be or not.

I try to learn and find out more about detection and handling of Link Spam at Wikipedias and also try to find Wikipedia SPAM related statistical data. You have much more experience and are also more involved in things here at Wikipedia that you might be able to point me into some directions or even have some information yourself which you might be willing to share with me.

At the end of the day do we have the same goals. We just have to find and verify the right way to get there and make adjustments if we detect that we got a bit of track or the road a bit too bumpy to better check for a detour.

It got pretty late, but hope that all this still makes sense :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOFollow - Got Msg - See Response

Hey BozMo, I got your comment. See my response --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And another one See my response (do you watch my talk page or do you prefer if I notify you here?) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

one one more :) Happy New Year. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming IRC

Hi, I just wanted to see if you were going to be able to attend Saturday's IRC discussion on Version 0.5 - your input would be extremely useful! The new developer from Linterweb will be there, as well as Pascal and Emmanuel, so it should be productive. Please sign up if you can come. Happy New Year! Walkerma 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuel has written a script that uses this list, and rejects any image not on the list. Perhaps you and him can share your thoughts at the IRC on Saturday evening, if your available? Also, you're welcome to add to my index lists, I've spent many hours writing them and they may be helpful. I might even be able to help out a bit with that myself if needed. Cheers, Walkerma 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the navigation pages are reachable directly from the main page, simply by clicking on the section heading. As for the Geographical ones, so far I've only done AfricaTree and Asia, and so I haven't integrated these in properly yet, though they can be reached by clicking on the "AFRICA TREE" etc. links at the top of Wikipedia:Version 0.5/CountriesTree. I'm not sure how Emmanuel is handling attribution, but I was assuming that the full file info was being included (with author, copyright, etc.) I'll check. The Linterweb software is GPL so you can use it for your release. Walkerma 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe

Thanks for visiting my page. The first one is a result of studying Christianity. The third one belongs to Al-Ghazali and the second one is mine. --Aminz 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice meeting you

Hi BozMo,

Nice meeting you. I am also interested in math. I can see you are a Christian. Can you please take care of Criticism of Christianity article. I really feel it is biased against Christianity. For example, please see [2]. Cheers, --Aminz 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christian Ethics section should at least state how Christian Ethics improved the ethics of humanity. Furthermore, it is good to separate Christianity as practiced from Christianity as Jesus taught. --Aminz 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity on my userpage

What I mean here is that an objective person (someone without biases) attempting to learn about Islam with an open mind would come to the conclusion that Muhammad was a bad man and Islam is false. Similarly, some of the people Muhammad killed were good people who just didn't agree with him. The teenaged boys of the last Jewish tribe he destroyed, for example, didn't do anything wrong, but in Muslim thought they were damned. That doesn't make sense. A perfect God would not damn someone like that. I'll be away for a few hours but will be able to respond later. Arrow740 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The concept is even stronger in evangelical Christianity, where anyone who doesn't say their formula goes to Hell. In Islam if you, with a certain degree of knowledge, reject Islam then you're damned. That just doesn't make sense because an objective person would reject Islam (though, of course, many people wouldn't). That's what my userpage was saying. God wouldn't damn a fair, open-minded person who approached "his" religion with an open mind. Arrow740 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the word is used differently here. I'll read what you wrote. Arrow740 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So when are you going to stand for admin?

Interested? --A. B. ^(talk) 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes in principle. Been around for long enough. What about you first? --BozMo talk 10:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been in so many scrapes I'd be unelectable. That's why I'm trying to build a clone army of fellow spam-fighers that can slip through the increasingly odd pickiness of an RfA.

I think if you want to become an admin, do it now, not later -- the RfA process is getting pickier every month and in the meantime, you're always accumulating more little minor, odd things someone will want to snipe at. Not enough AfD experience ... or ... too much AfD experience and not enough article-writing. Or some mildly snappish, perfectly deserved thing said to some spammer/vandal that some AfD participant gets alarmed at. You get the picture.

So better to do it now, I think. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you offering to nominate me (in which case I might delete the aboe) or is it better to get someone else to do that too? On the scrapes perhaps you underestimate the system. But I don't follow it closely. --BozMo talk 12:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone for it anyway. Self-nominated. --BozMo talk 12:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Javanese beliefs

Could you please explain why an external link which was legit gets something like that? SatuSuro 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for going to the trouble to responding to this, it is appreciated. I shall investigate the issue sometime - thanks! SatuSuro 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your AN/I report

If you think there is abusive sockpuppeting going on, I'd suggest reporting all the suspicious accounts to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Isotope23 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my note at User talk:Mackensen#Declined checkuser. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bharatanatyam sock

Excellent! A Ramachandran 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi BozMo. Just wanted to quickly let you know that a large number of editors consider it bad form to respond to the oppose votes in the RFA itself. If I were you I'd either contact the editors directly on their talk pages or take your discussion to the RFA talk page. My recent failed RFA suffered somewhat from not fully appreciated this RFA etiquette. Cheers! The Rambling Man 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, another frequent silly nit some folks pick in RfAs is "do they have 'E-mail this user' turned on" (you do this from your "my preferences" link at the top of the page). Allow me to be the first to pick it ...

Anyway, I tried to send an e-mail to the address on your personal web-site and got back one of those "Please confirm" e-mails in response. When I sent it back, it bounced. At this point, can you just send me an e-mail via my "E-mail this user" link? I'll reply when I get it. Thanks (and good luck), --A. B. ^(talk) 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi BozMo. Good luck with your RfA. Just a note to say that your edit summary stats are pretty poor (80 something% / 20 something%) for a potential admin. Please could you try to remember to complete an edit summary each time? Thanks --Dweller 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might arise! Glad to have been of help... always easier in a RfA to say "I've already fixed that..." :-) --Dweller 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Religions

I think that humans are very complicated, and their religious beliefs are influenced by a variety of factors, many of which are out of their control. So the idea that someone will go to hell for having the wrong belief conflicts with the idea of a perfect God. On the theoretical level my problems with fundamentalist Christianity are the same as with (necessarily fundamenalist) Islam. The reason I don't really care about Christianity is that I don't see Christians hijacking planes and blowing up buildings in the name of Christianity. Arrow740 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, this is nonsense. The bloodiest conflict in the world is in the Congo, where there are virtually no muslims. Henry (henry@happy.co.uk) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.109.130 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Except for the Sri Lanka conflict, Muslims are major players in every world conflict. If it weren't for Islam, we'd have world peace. Arrow740 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No fighting in Northern Ireland or Korea now. I'm alive now and Islam is a problem now. I was raised Hindu so I don't have to defend Christianity and I won't. I'll just say that Islam is a problem, Christianity is not. Arrow740 09:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Sikh thing in India has died down. I encourage you to learn about Islam for yourself. Muslims are encouraged to wage jihad, i.e. fight. I think what says it all is that you don't see Palestinian Christians performing suicide bombings in Israel. You don't know this but the Kashmiri Muslims kicked out 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus, almost all of them, from Kashmir in 1990, and they're still living in refugee camps elsewhere in India. You see this kind of thing all over Islam's borders with the rest of the world. Arrow740 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the main schools of thought on Islam were set in place a while ago. The writings of midieval scholars are still thought to be authoritative. Basically there are a few equivalent of Thomas Aquinas in Islam that are still looked to as giving the correct explanation and interpretation. They have the Quran and books about Muhammad's life and sayings called hadith that they believe are authoritative, and then the key to understanding a verse in the Quran is to see when it was delivered by Muhammad, i.e. what was going on in his life, and for that they use the hadith. Arrow740 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jihad

The article is written according to a Salafi point of view, but that of course doesn't make their arguments less valid. As for your friend(s) that argue that Jihad isn't about fighting "infidels", I find that rather strange. Almost every single trustworthy hadith that exist, speaks about jihad in the context of fighting. Try to type "Jihad" in the search field here, and see what you get. You mention that you are happy to ignore some of the cruel things that can be found in Leviticus. I am not too familiar with the details of the Christian religion, but it is my understanding that the Christians has actually never wanted to apply these things to their society, and that Jesus clearly rejected having any secular political power, right from his meeting with Satan in the desert? -- Karl Meier 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another article that I can recommend reading. It's written by a non-Muslim and from a more apologist point of view than the previous article, but I believe it still has some good points about the concept. Douglas E. Streusand: What Does Jihad Mean? -- Karl Meier 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

[3]. But I'm not that young anymore... --Stephan Schulz 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

No, bots won't pick it up, but it is a "go to this site instead" advertisement to readers. I tend not to like those, except for sister projects of course. >Radiant< 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, DMOZ turns out to be more benign than I thought. But by sisterproject I meant MediaWiki stuff, actually :) >Radiant< 15:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Zbd and Banglapedia

I was looking into this yesterday as well. It appears to be the case of a good source being inappropriately linked to every seemingly relevant article. I left a warning on the user talk page and he hasn't been back sense, but it is a problem. The encyclopedia is mirrored several places, each with their own insidious ads. Not sure how to handle it, but it seems seriously overlinked. Nposs 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Such as notability, cleanup, wikify, merge... Best not to subst these. Se WP:SUBST for details. Rich Farmbrough, 17:13 20 January 2007 (GMT).

Congratulations

You're now an admin. Use the new tools wisely to help the project keep improving, and use them conservatively, especially blocking, as it possibly has the most negative consequences. At the same time, there's plenty of backlogs, so jump in and help clear those out as you can. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 13:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me too!  Glen  13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, bud! See how the cabal^TM works! ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you now activate your email account? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for the pretty funny talk page message. I'm sure you'll do fine as an admin! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that I pinched that template somewhere myself, I can't really complain! :-) Pascal.Tesson 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my neutral vote in the RfA, I'm delighted that the community has overwhelming confidence in you. That so many editors I respect think you're terrific is a very good sign - I'm sure you'll do a good job. --Dweller 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! I think you'll do a great job and am glad that enough editors saw through the edit-count-per-month-itis. I hope people don't really think 1500 vandal reversions show more experience than a couple hundred talk page edits. Again, congrats! -- Renesis (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done, congrats -- Samir धर्म 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BAGHA JATIN

Judging from the inaccurate lots of information supplied by the article on Bagha Jatin in Banglapedia and its mediocre level of writing, I had obtained, with the help of the Bangladesh Embassy in Paris, that it had to be revised; thus the link had disappeared temporarily. Now you have revived it exactly in the old form. Please compare it with the main article, to be convinced about my objection and delete the link. I shall try my best to get the Banglapedia article rewritten, in the name of History. Thank you for your understanding. --BobClive 08:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

External links & Banglapedia

Hello BozMo,

First I'd like to say sorry for long delay of response. Actually this is my first note to any widipedia editor. I worked more at dmoz.org. Let me introduce myself first. I'm working as a System Administrator of an ISP and love to be involve with voluntery activities [within my limitations], I once worked as a professional webmaster when very few sites were from Bangladesh. This is the reason of my interest, specially if sites are related to Bangladesh.

I've seen the post from Nposs, I'll write him too. I admit that I did not go through in details of WP:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. I will soon. I was the consultant of Online Banglapedia who made it possible to free the encyclopedia [project of Tk. 50m, 7 years] for the Internet community after 8 months of effort to convince the copyright owner and hours of discussion and demonstration, 5 times meeting with the board of editors in year 2003. I served voluntarily. So yes I've link to Banglapedia and all of it's mirror sites. I'm not yet aware of if it prohibits me from editing. I'll check the wikipedia policies. But http://banglapedia.search.com.bd is the oldest, authorized, frequently maintained and most important the maximum availability among the other sites though they have ads. You may check http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://banglapedia.search.com.bd even the beginning of the article have link to that site. Yes, I'll mind the ads issue as you've told. Please don't hesitate to write a mail for more discussion. I'm not sure if we can continue here as forum discussion.

Thanks. zbd 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for writing me. You will find the first presence of the contents of the encyclopedia at archive.org on Apr 06, 2004 [ http://web.archive.org/web/20040406225728/http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/ ]. If you take a look at the http://web.archive.org/web/20050403171219/http://www.banglapedia.org/ you'll see banglapedia.org is even parked at banglapedia.search.com.bd. Even the starting [05:58, 31 March 2005] of this article by an individual contains http://banglapedia.search.cm.bd at wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banglapedia&oldid=11713469.

Here is little more of the story:

• Domain Name: banglapedia.net Created On: 18-jan-2005 Content of Encyclopedia came on: Dec 31, 2005
• Domain Name: banglapedia.org Created On:27-Jan-2003 Content of Encyclopedia came on: Apr 03, 2005
• banglapedia.search.com.bd Content of Encyclopedia came on: Apr 06, 2004 [Experimental Hosting Mach, 2003 to convince the publisher]
• banglapedia.net was registered and under control by individual until 2005 when registered again.
• banglapedia.org were registered and under control by individual until 2003 when registered again.Even banglapedia.org was hijack after that and had to buy again in 2005.

All happened because of unawareness about the Internet & technical issues by the concerned authority. How do I know all these? Because I wanted to free the encyclopedia for Internet community. I considered the stability and of the sites preference among them with my own set of parameters. Anyway, please do what you find correct and better for wikipedia.org. Thanks zbd 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind

I read that someone got blocked for 3RR for removing things from his talk, but it must have been warnings. Arrow740 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up

In all honesty, I'd rather earn adminship by having somebody nominate me rather than nominate myself--it's just one of those things about me. So I hope that any reputation that I have doesn't get severely tarnished over this. I think I am going to write a proposal in the WP:3RR talk page to see what I can gather about preventing such issues. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Destructive editor

Please see [4], a contributions log for an anon. He seems to be wikistalking me and blindly reverting my edits. He's also posted anti-Semitic remarks at Aminz's RfC and an incivil one at my talk page, but never uses article talk pages and doesn't use edit summaries when reverting me. If you'd rather not tackle this I can take it to someone else. Thanks, Arrow740 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are so biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.182.184 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

He's expanded his scope of edit warring (without joining discussion) and seems to be wikistalking me. He's also removed a warning from his talk. Please take action, refer this to another admin, or advise me what report to file. Arrow740 05:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of X

Hi BozMo,

Criticisms of X articles, I think, should also include a response section. I am not sure but Arrow is probably refering to this section [5] arguing that the quote of Patricia Crone should be excluded. Please note the size of the criticism section and response section. Even if we include the Crone's material, the criticism section will take 2.5 times more space than the response section. As you can see from the responses section[6], the response to critics is that they self-interpret the Islamic literature, take verses out of their contexts, and then criticize it. For example, Carl Ernst asserts that the scholarship and interpretations of the critic, Robert Spencer, are fundamentally flawed. The quote from Crone presents a short summary of an academic view of Qur'an with respect to warfare contrasting the academic view with Critic's view. I would be more than happy to see your comments on that. Cheers, --Aminz 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, congratulations for becoming an admin. :)--Aminz 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Arrow740 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been thinking about this one overnight. You made a similar point about the Criticism of Christianity Article being imbalanced as well. Part of the problem is that the word "criticism" is ambiguous: often it means assessment (as in theatre critic, source criticism) often it means negative assessment. There is also a difficult issue about the notability of the criticism versus the notability of the subject (e.g. in Criticism_of_Religion quite a lot of the reasons for not being religious seem to me to be true (a lot of people give them) but not perhaps notable as reasons (the truth of the religion gets the notability not its criticism). This seems too hard to call: I will go and try to find a consensus on the issue. --BozMo talk 09:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I think criticism is good when the positive sides are also acknowledged. For example, the criticism of Christianity article doesn't talk at all about the ethical reforms of Jesus. I obviously feel that from the Bible but I don't have hard WP:RS proof-texts available at the moment to be able to contribute to the article. Unfortunately I don't have a strong background in Christianity either. I plan to do some research when I get free though. There are also other reasons to discuss positive and negative points together: For example the idea of monotheism has had an enormous effect on humankind moral developments. It is clearly against aristocratic privilege and hierarchy. It leans towards equality between men in all senses. It unifies people under one religion and forms a community. Monotheists were more concerned with the situation of poor and needy. On the other hand, monotheists have proved to be more exclusivists and engaged in wars much more than others. Bernard Lewis writes: "Polytheism was essentially tolerant, each group worshiping its own god or gods, offering no objection to the worship of others. Indeed, one might have been willing to offer at least a pinch of incense to some alien god, in courtesy as a visitor or, even at home, in deference to a suzerain."

On the other hand, I think having criticism of X articles is good since it is a response to editors who want to criticize a religon and some people are specifically looking for these criticisms and their responses.

And I think the main rival of all religions today is science not one or another religions. But I need to do some deep research on that before start writing anything. I today noticed that the Encyclopedia of Religion has an article on the relation of different religons and science. That should give us an idea of how today's leading scholars think. There is certainly a war going on, the article said. --Aminz 09:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

re:[7]

BozMo, i respect your judgement, but you must look beyond that singular diff. he has made it a habit to direct such comments towards me (i.e. insinuating that i "grew up in Pakistan", and other such patronising comments[8][9], i won't list them all as i'm not interested in diff-hunting) and in that context the latest comment can only be construed as continued, condescending harrassment. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Diff 7 that he presented was inappropriate. I was frustrated with what I thought were his bad-faith edits and wasn't used to wikipedia yet. Otherwise I'd have to say that he is the one making out being born in Pakistan to be a black mark, not me. Arrow740 19:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilean edits

Hello, BozMo/archive, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam account Taleinfo

It looks like the account Taleinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is/was being used by a spambot. Under WP:BOT policy, I'd go for an indef block. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

hello

i just want to ask one thing : The links you have deleted contains many links which contains articles which are copy righted by me (mostly technical ). For example in case of Manometer or Vena contracta .Should i stop making new technical pages by taking contant from my site.

you people have also blamed me for low profile spammer , you page on diesel cycle does not contain content about diesel cycle , who ever has made the page has not taken action even i and others drop few lines into discussion , so i added a relevent page which has correct description of the topic.

If you mind the things i will only put matters into discussion , Then please tell me how much time should i wait before doing the alteration ..

Achalmeena 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple:Stoat

As far as I know, interwiki image links do not work. As simple uses Commons.wikimedia.org for all of its images, I copied your image in en.wiki and uploaded it to Commons (along with categories and adding it to the gallery for stoats there). Pretty much copy/pasted the basic GFDL summery linking it back to you here. Creol (s:talk) - Creol 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Royaldutchshellplc.com

I would be most grateful for your advice. I have just added the paragraph below to the deletion discussion page for Royaldutchshellplc.com. I can supply the email received from the journalist mentioned if you would like to see it as proof that I am being truthful. However, you may feel that I should delete any reference to the possibility of the article. Please do so yourself if you deem it appropriate. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.09, 30 January 2007.

"Rather than clutter up this page with a list of links, I have compiled a list on a separate webpage. Apologies at the time taken to provide the links promised above, but other events intervened, coincidentally including a long interview with a journalist from a quality national newspaper. The contact results from the Prospect article. The intention is to publish a story about the website and the Sakhalin-2 connection this weekend. I have the emails confirming this development. However, on past experience the story could be spiked for any number of reasons, so both this and the other pending article mentioned above should obviously be entirely discounted from consideration at this time. I assume that if a collective decision to delete is made, then I could resurrect the article at a later date and provide evidence of further publication of major articles to support the claim of notability. If on Thursday the preparation of the weekend article is progressing and is likely to be published, I may ask for a delay in the decision process until Monday so that the article can be taken into account. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.00, 30 January 2007."

Thanks for your advice which I much appreciate. I promised to supply the "hits" figure for January for the website and the percentage of articles authored by us, compared with those from other sources. This can be done in just a few lines. I will say nothing more than that. I have been informed this evening that an article similar in content to the Prospect article will be published on Sunday in a UK quality national newspaper. A photograph of my father and I will be featured. Of course this does not guarantee that publication will actually take place. If it does, than it could be used as added evidence of notability at a later date, if needed. User: JohnaDonovan. 20.52, 31 January 2007.

FYI only, a major article about the website is being published in a broadsheet newspaper on Sunday. However, as per your advice, I will say nothing on the deletion discussion page and will let events take their course without further involvement by me. I have not voted because that does not seem appropriate. Thanks again. User: JohnaDonovan. 19.30, 2 February 2007.

Hello, thought I ought to contact you since no article has been published today. At the moment I have no idea why. A photographer took about 50 shots of my father and I on Friday and a journalist read the article to me over the phone yesterday to make sure it was accurate and that quotes attributed to me were correct. So it was good advice on your part not to make further mention on the discussion page. On request I will happily let you have copies of the email correspondence so that you can verify that I have not been fibbing and gave information in good faith. I have not named the paper here because I do not want to cause any upset in case it is just a delay. It proves that you cannot be certain until an article is actually in print. User: JohnaDonovan. 08.39, 4 February 2007.

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

thebestof.co.uk

Hi Bozmo - we spoke last week regarding thebestof - and the message has gone out internally, so no further linking will be done from within TBO. The last comments from yourself and A. B. suggested that now we are sorted on the spamming issue, that in future any linking attempts will be considered by the individual editors for the towns concerned - is that correct? How does one know who the individual editor for a particular page is? I want to make sure no further transagressions are made and that approaches are done in the right way. Thanks Kbourne 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)kbourne

del link now shallower than article

Okay now I'm little confused, you deleted bunch of links to my website under claim they are shallower the article including those which were stated as source/reference - my website has 2000 pages!! http://www.vojska.net/eng/armed-forces/sitemap/ http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/sitemap/ Also you ONLY target my website while leaving everyone else links with even less content intact!?

Same thing happened with Croatian wikipedia were crazy admin removed tons of my links which people used (and still use) to write articles, I already specifically banned Croatian wikipedia (after removing few links admin missed) from using my site as source since using my website as source and then deleting links in nothing but stealing.

Is this some kind revenge against former DMOZ editor??? --Ivan Bajlo 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree some links should were badly out of date and/or had no place on Wikipedia (i.e. Tomislav Dretar made his personal autobiography and added link to my website since I published his biography there), some articles are stuck both on Wikipedia and my own website because of lack on information but for few of them my website has more info then any other place on the net including official websites like Military of Croatia, Yugoslav People's Army, Partisans (Yugoslavia), Jure Francetić...

About WP:COI I had enough of that at DMOZ as if I was running porn, pills and shopping website so I have to constantly sabotage my competitors or I have some secret agenda running behind my website – not to mention I had 9 deeplinks at DMOZ before even becoming editor! Only reason my entire website isn't at Wikipedia is that it is very expensive hobby so unless Jimbo is willing to cover my cost of buying books and bookshelves I need every cent I can squeeze from affiliates since PayPal and donations are still far away from being available in Croatia. :-(

As for WP:RS, well my website is really special case since it is often ONLY source on certain topics (i.e. YPA strength in Battle of the barracks) since most of my bibliography is out of print Yugoslav books, to prevent propaganda gibberish from slipping, I often check several sources including published war documents. Errors are always possible but I try to fix them when I spot them. --Ivan Bajlo 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, I do seem to cause trouble everywhere I come - must be genetic. :-)) --Ivan Bajlo 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the note! --Simonkoldyk 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Centiare

The article I wrote had references and notability. Why did you "speedy delete" it without AfD discussion? Andman8 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then could you explain this notability thing to me. I clicked random article five times and got these results. Smooth Touch, XDXF, Nana Falemi, Mahdia shipwreck, Crustaceana. How are these notable while centiare is not? Andman8 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the user above should give this a read. Meantime, I have retagged User:Andman8/deleted_article as the obvious spam it is, no matter what part of Wikipedia it resides in, a project owned by notorious (and now indefinitely banned) spammer User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser/User:JossBuckle Swami. Whether Andman8 is him, a meatpuppet, a customer, or just gullible is immaterial. --Calton | Talk 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say

I really resent that you blocked me, but then couldn't be bothered to make sure that I was unblocked after your 24-hour period. Beelzebarn 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, which I accept wholeheartedly. It probably won't surprise you that I have had computer applications do other than what I expected them to do as well. Cheeers. Beelzebarn 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aloka meditation center

I see you have deleted the article on Aloka. could you please tell me whether you consider the article on St._Gerard_Majella_Catholic_Church to be notable. I cant understand how it is more notable than teh article about Aloka Dutugemunu 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

hi BozMo , thanks for your reply. As i understand the standards for notability , the subject of the article must have received attention in the press and public arena. Aloka has been mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald as one of only 2 stupas in Sydney having the Buddhas relics from his birthplace. this woudl necessarily make it notable . Please see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/11/1031608271844.html.

Dutugemunu 08:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could restore the article, we can go through the aFD process Dutugemunu 08:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with a copy Dutugemunu 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Aloka meditation center

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aloka meditation center. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Although your speedy deletion was at a different title "Aloka Temple", preliminary evidence is that it is the same article. GRBerry 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixya

Hello, I've noticed you have deleted fixya's article and I wanted to know why. [Fixya.com] is a unique website providing actual assitance to users. How is this article different from articles such as Miniclip?

Please explain. Yaniv.bl

Thank you for your swift reply. So if I get this correctly I can rewrite the article. Since I'm new to Wikipedia can you let me know what it was that you found inappropriate. This will allow me to avoid repeating the same mistake and write better articles in the future.

(My post about Fixya was edited. Wasn't the original one good enough?) Thanks again Yaniv.bl

Thanks for your reply. I believe I now better understand the requirements of writing an article. I will rewrite it so it complies with Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks again for making this clear. 192.118.64.29

PDF's

Why are you deleting links to PDF versions of the books? -- Stbalbach 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg does not produce PDF. Electronic texts come in many formats. The five main formats which should have at least one representative example: a plain text version, a HTML version, a text to PDF version, a book scanned version (ie. Google Books), and a audio version (ie. LibriVox). Within each of those you can have duplicates if it warrants (different editions or substantial differences). Just because the owner of the site did the upload is not reason alone to remove it, sometimes it really is a valid contribution. -- Stbalbach 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your return message re: 1833/34. Thanks. Does that mean you would like me to edit the date wherever I may have found it, on various Caribbean country profiles? CLC (numpquar_clc@yahoo.com)

hello

Hello. Please pardon me if I'm in the wrong place to suggest needed edits (which I don't know how, nor feel qualified to make). The one needed is this: The link to the year 1834 includes a reference to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. When you go to the Abolition Act link, you discover that slavery was abolished in the B.E. in 1833. (This coincides with the bio article on William Wilberforce.) Whenever there was a reference to this in country profiles of West Indies (Caribbean) nations, the date is wrong there too: they consistently use the year 1834, NOT the correct one: 1833. Thanks. CLC

Welcome to The Conspiracy

Following up your note on WP:AN, you indeed stand among the "accused" as shown. We gather at midnight to burn black candles around a NEC SX6. Raymond Arritt 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your msg

Thanks. You are welcome to improve the article. You are correct: it is emotionally difficult stuff. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam

BozMo, unless I hear otherwise, I'm thinking that it may be most conducive to report my spam findings to you on your Talk page. I appreciate that you're someone who will consider the facts, even if you suspect an ulterior motive. Signing off for now, this is The SpamWatcher 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I can't put my finger on it, but there's something very wrong about Roy Morgan Research. Maybe it's just the fact that the article contains such unsourced, advertising fluff gems like: "Roy Morgan Research is a truly international market research company and the provider of the world’s most extensive and only true single source survey." Even if that were important, what does it even mean to be "most extensive" and "single source", if you're a survey? Then there's: "Roy Morgan Single Source is thorough, accurate, and provides comprehensive, directly applicable information...". And: "Roy Morgan Research is able to employ the most appropriate methodology to meet the requirements of each study". This is an advertisement, not even attempting to disguise itself as an encyclopedia article. At least, that's the conclusion of The SpamWatcher 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Segment Y has a very suspicious edit history. User Asish.m.j creates the article in late July, then forgets to sign in again in early August (single-purpose account). No claim of notability or outside sources. That smells fishy to The SpamWatcher 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that John Mckeever should be making these edits to the article about his own company? The information is helpful, but how much is Wikipedia NOT supposed to be a phone directory? Who's always finding the spam others overlook? It's The SpamWatcher 04:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got to bust Dittberner Associates. Why? Look carefully at the edits of this anon IP, especially those about Dittberner and IPTV. Spammity spam spam, unearthed by The SpamWatcher 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia CD Selection

Hi BozMo, Thanks for your note on my talk page. I had a quick look (will check it in more details later). I was wondering why all footnotes are removed in these articles?

Anyways, I, and many other wikipedians, have worked a lot on Islam article to raise it to FA status. I think the new version is significantly better than its previous version.

I also rewrote the article on Isaac. It is now a GA article. I think it might be worth adding.

I'll check with other articles later. Cheers, --Aminz 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. --Aminz 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through it a bit. There don't seem to be any controversial articles on Islam on there, fortunately. A neat (uncontroversial) one to add would be Mukataba. It's a thorough article on an obscure topic. Also, a good person to ask about this (better than me) would be User:Beit Or. Arrow740 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so "uncontroversial". --Aminz 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GW stuff

How do you think its going? The GW talk, as ever, seems to me to be bogged down. Is it time for a straw poll on the wording? William M. Connolley 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the admin who protected the article Michaelas10 does not seem to have even participated on the talk page. On a featured article I think one should move in quicker to try to resolve it but it looks like he is a bit tied up after accidentally deleting the Main Page... I am inclined to unprotect the page and I guess a straw poll is a good way to set about this. --BozMo talk 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To avoid any more excuses for confusion, it should be designed properly. There is so much verbiage on talk that I'm not even sure what all the pseudo-issues are; but assuming its mostly the "weasel words / OR" stuff, then a choice between the pre edit war version (text and no tags) and ... actually I don't know which version the Blue-Tie-ites would prefer. Perhaps this one? (text and tags) William M. Connolley 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had a go. --BozMo talk 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have jumped the gun somewhat as we now disagree as to the "pre" version William M. Connolley 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Not Medes or Persians here. --BozMo talk 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Fixya Page

Hi BozMo, A while back I've written to you about including a webpage about fixya.com. I've revised the page in hope that it stands to wiki's requiremetns. Would you please review and send me your comments. Fixya

Best, Yaniv.bl 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BOzMo. I'll look further to make this thread more likely to get accepted by adding more sources.

Yaniv.bl 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Global Warming) Phew, that was close

Polls are non-binding and are used to gauge consensus. People sometimes mess with that rule a bit in policy space, but in the main namespace, it is an absolute. Else we end up with polls enforcing statements like "2+2=5" in encyclopedic articles.

So I've corrected your actions at Global Warming. Please come discuss with me if you have any questions! --Kim Bruning 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at this from a third party perspective, and that was not agreed on at all by anyone. Your actions are in violation of Wikipedia:Polling guidelines, and the guidelines are like that for good reason! I am trying to help you bring them in line before anyone actually notices and blows up. --Kim Bruning 09:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How the heck did that get switched to essay? It's pretty darn fundamental. Thanks for pointing that out. I've returned the guideline tag on there, pending further explanations. I am quite adamant about enforcing it too. I'm also on #wikipedia-en-admins at this moment in time. --Kim Bruning 09:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what violation you're talking about. We've had a (non-binding) poll to determine opinions. This is better continued on t:GW William M. Connolley 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Originally BozMo interpreted the poll in a binding manner. --Kim Bruning 09:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't interpret what he did in that way. But are you happy/tolerable now? William M. Connolley 09:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite alright thanks. Just tried to do some quick-lets-fix-it-before-folks-see-it, which didn't work out. Some bits are still ok now. We'll just have to see how people respond, and hope we get lucky. (Yeah right ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 09:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously someone hasn't read the objections to the polls yet. ~ UBeR 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the poll and your administration

1. You are not an unbiased observer. You have a very strong perspective and considered one side of the issue to be essentially enemies to the article and thus to wikipedia. You basically said as much here.
2. Yet you injected yourself in the debate and put it to a poll. Your construction and administration of the poll were invalid and bad for several reasons that I outlined (as contained in this diff here. You never responded to any of those points or gave any indication that you considered them. Not one single point. I have already told you how my perspectives are ignored and once again, they were ignored, this time by you.
3. I did not want to strain an obvious point but perhaps I should have. Note the difference between the two options you put up: Option 1 was nearly described as the pure version prior to meddling. Option 2 was described as weasel words. What objective third party, seeing that choice would choose for Option 2? Furthermore, Option 2 was apparently created by you. There is no discussion of it on the talk page. It just appears there without any conversation about what should be in it by the group. Suddenly the poll appeared with two options, neither having been discussed previously. It was just wrong. It looks like you gamed the system.
4. You were advised by a neutral third party with substantial experience not to consider the poll as binding. Yet you did anyway.
5. Once more, this article gets treated in a way that demonstrates disregard for wikipedia policies meant to favor consensus and NPOV. This time it was you, an administrator, - who is admittedly not unbiased -- imposing final judgment on the article. You are not the only person who has done such things but your actions are one more brick in the wall.
6. I have said that it will squelch discussion. If it does, you will probably notice it, but you will consider it a success. You can pat yourself on the back. You "saved" a "flagship article" from some weird minority. Or rethink that a bit. Perhaps you will have been successful in undermining one of the key elements of wikipedia's process even though you had ample warnings and reasons not to do so. --Blue Tie 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I screwed up, life is short. But just for the record:

1. I did not claim to be an unbiased observer, I only offered not to vote.
2. I invited UBeR to suggest a version to revert to as option 2, since finding a "neutral version" on the edit war issue (weasels) seems the best way forward. He proposed the wording as option 2.
3. I have never claimed a poll was "binding" and don't see how it could be. Nor was my judgement on the article in anyway "final".I explained my actions to Kim.
4. You objected to the poll and I read your objection, and others. I did not reply because I didn't have the energy, sorry. But I did satsify myself that they contained no substantial objection to what I considered I was doing and that I felt they were misled. Basically I think you have to fix problems in succession not stop the world until all is agreed.
5. Even though the effort is serious I am still trying to understand what your objections are to the article so we can improve them together. Why not concentrate on that instead of complaining about process?

--BozMo talk 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you know why I did the edits the way I did them  ;-) (even if I could have probably done that a bit tidier... I was under time pressure, :-/).

Blue Tie: I Emailed BozMo, and he agrees that the poll isn't binding.

Basically any version is m:The wrong version at the moment. At least the current state of affairs is that the page is set at the version that makes the least number of people squirm for now, for what that's worth (not much, I know). I don't know if that can be made more ideal, well, not until we've discussed a bit more. That's the next step though :-)

With the poll done, people now have a bit of an idea who to negotiate with to come to some sort of agreement. I think that's what we need to concentrate on.

--Kim Bruning 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things. I do believe that even if biased, BozMo acted in good faith. I believe that bias and good faith may easily co exist and probably do most of the time. So, I hope I did not give the impression of BozMo not acting in good faith. I absolutely do. I also appreciate the efforts by admins to do things that are often thankless. I just wanted to register my complaints about the process. If I do not register them somewhere and things get worse, where can I point to, to demonstrate my efforts for equity? Its just a note. I have to admit, I laughed when I read that BozMo saw no substantial objections to what he or she was doing, and that he or she did not consider the poll binding. If you don't see something, you just don't see it. What can I say? As far as the article goes, I do not have "objections" to it. I note that others have objections and their views are discounted, reverted, ignored. There is something wrong there. I prefer compromise edits that people can live with. For whatever reason, some people see all kinds of weird conspiracies in Global Warming. Im not one but I don't have a problem with those who do. To avoid the stress of disputation, give a little ground to them -- under terms of wikipedia policies -- and then stick to wikipedia policies to enforce the agreement. If we say "many" so and so's believe x and the opponents do not like that wording, just take the "many" out (it is, after all a weasel word, even if it is true) and make it more precise (or maybe less precise). I am convinced that there are ways to meet in the middle and then, once you do, use wikipedia policies (not guardianship) to protect that version. I also think the article can be restructured to improve it and remove content lacunae. See my on-going private edits here which is a work in progress. When I consider it appropriate I will introduce it as a sub-talk page for discussion, perhaps with a review by others on my subpage first before I do that. --Blue Tie 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, and sane for now, I suppose. I was really worried about people getting angry today, so first and foremost: thank you both very much for staying cool. --Kim Bruning 14:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And I am sure that as you say I have biases and interests. About 15 years ago I went to a diversity training course which started with a sheet of paper with photos of 10 dogs and 10 owners and asked us to match them up. Ten minutes later the presenter stopped us and said "if you think you can match any dog to any owner by appearance you are prejudiced, full stop. Now recognise your prejudices and get on and manage them". In general I try to recognise them and work round them--BozMo talk 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very sane approach. I wonder if we could adopt some concepts from that on wikipedia too. (Apart from already having you here, of course :-) ) --Kim Bruning 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. Can we please use the mediation request page which Blue Tie created, to try to get Global warming to reflect more diverse opinions? If you need more information, please go to the talk page, and then click the link at the top for the mediationr request. please let me know what you think. thanks. -Sm8900 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Asiarooms

Good work :) I've added the {{test5}} template to that IP's talk page, so that they are encouraged to contribute positively once their block has expired (it does not state the length of the block) :)

Chrisch 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming article

Hi Bozmo. I am now signed on. i appreciate your last reply to me. however, i want to be sure I understand. Are you saying you completely agree with me, re that specific edit? If so, do you agree with me re my feelings on the direction of the article itself? Please let me know. I appreciate your input, and want to make sure i understand the full intent of your message. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed

You think calling himelf a leading critic isn't peacocky, for example? or that adding details of lengths of time, etc., doesn't require sources? I don't understand your insistence on this. (Nor should there be an advert for his books being sold on his Website.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my Talk page

I never know where people expect me to reply. RonCram 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your comment that neologism is the overriding argument. I do not understand the comment. What word is new? If you google "data withholding" you get plenty of pages dealing with science. If you google "data withholding" and "science," you get plenty of pages. If you google "data withholding" and "genetics," you get plenty of pages. "Data withholding" is the common term used for researchers who refuse to provide their data. RonCram 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Yeah he is. He tries to separate being an "editor" and being an "admin" but he is aggressive at times. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Data withholding" is a common term

My substantive response is on my Talk page. Try googling "data withholding" or "data sharing" some time. RonCram 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable response. Check my Talk page for my comment.RonCram 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Global Market Insite -- BozMo, This page was up on Monday < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GMI_%28Global_Market_Insite%2C_Inc.%29&action=edit >, and disappeared yesterday. There is no discussion why? Do you have any idea what happened to it? Or why it no longer exists? Thank you for any insight! Irishlaw 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No clue what happened, I'll try and find the deletion log entry. --BozMo talk 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BozMo,

Thanks for restoring. When I did not find it in the deletion logs I was curious what happened to it. Have a good day.

Irishlaw 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you passing through Hubbert Peak Theory. Look forward to more of the same, if you're so inclined. --Skyemoor 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed

A singularly unpleasant and disappointing experience. I never expected to have my edits characterized as spam. I think I need to take a break for a while. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

recent behaviour of incivility

BozMo, i have been experiencing difficulty with Matt57 (talk · contribs) who has seen it fit to harrass me by interrogating me on my talk page and issuing forceful threats of blocking. Matt has posted an aggressive and uncivil blocking threat on my talk page, and edit warred to retain it when i removed it (see the recent history of my talk page). the reason for this "warning" was my reversion of contributions initially made by a block-evading sockpuppet, which Matt57 then reverted to restore. i undid these reversions,[10] citing that the edits of block-evaders should not be supported, but also stated that i would not revert further.[11] he then consulted an admin, and then saw it fit to launch an aggressive campaign on my talk page, irrespective of the fact that he had misrepresented the admin in question (see this). it seems that such brusque and uncollaborative behaviour, as well as the tendency to shoot from the hip in bad faith, derives from a desire to show an "iron hand" to "them"[12]. other examples of what amounts to harrassment, previously trolling on my talk page here here and here. he has also taken bad faith pot-shots in discussions i'm not even involved in,[13] and tends to address other users with whom he disputes with in a similar manner. [14][15][16]. i consult you as a) you have been able to intervene in similar disputes previously, and; b) i would like to see an end to this disruptive behaviour. ITAQALLAH 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, I believe you are overeacting to my comments about your reversion of good edits.

BozMo, my main complaint to MerBabu and ItaqAllah has been that they have been reverting edits of a user based solely on the fact that it was a sock puppet or banned user and not because it was a good or bad edit. The quality of an edit should be the only concern. For example a sock puppet can make a good edit and that should not be reverted. This is an example of one wrong revert which resulted in loss of good information, and this is all what I wanted to point out to them. --Matt57 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Merbabu and Itaqallah's user's name has only one capital letter.

BozMo, Please see User:Matt and User:ProtectWomen's support of usage of the website "Prophet of Doom" website([17])

P.S. some quote's from the website:

*Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.

* Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet.

*Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist.

• As an expert on Islam and terror, I know that all good Muslims are terrorists and that most all terrorists are Muslims.
• Muslims, like Nazis and Communists, can’t be trusted. Their moral code encourages deception and overtly states that treaties are not binding on them.
• Hitler simply followed Muhammad's path.
• Decadent egomaniacs like Muhammad are deeply troubled and tortured souls
• Pope Benedict IV... Benedict became like Muhammad, demonic, fixated on the occult, demented, delirious, and lascivious.

And lastly: Winn[the author of the website] claims: "Prophet of Doom is the best documented and most comprehensive presentation of the Islamic scriptures ever written."

--Aminz 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I dont see how this is relevant to this discussion? --Matt57 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am "Aminz", not "Amioz" fixed by Matt --Aminz 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Block#Evasion_of_blocks says: "Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted." --Aminz 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your comments BozMo. it's not so much this incident alone which i have perceived as an inconvenience, but this incident as a culmination of previous encounters as referred to above. however, thank you for your words of wisdom. ITAQALLAH 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"May be" ... as I have just replied to [[ITAQALLAH]] its a grey area. --BozMo talk 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bozmo, thanks for your message, I've said sorry to Itaq and a left a message here. I feel bad that admins have to spend time in resolving these little disputes. I'l try to avoid them next time as much as possible.--Matt57 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Hi BozMo,

Happy Easter!!

Cheers,

--Aminz 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been away over Easter and will look through the above tonight. --BozMo talk 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

t:GW

You may want to take over the poll on t:GW. I declared it closed but ME has declared otherwise so the current status is unclear. My opinion of his neutrality you know William M. Connolley 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that I am the best person given the previous poll. I will try to think of someone. --BozMo talk 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about WMC's COI review

I thought I should briefly answer to your last "aside-note" as I understand your feeling. But it seems to me that we should not come to believe that because someone is scientifically knowledgeable about a topic, he is no longer susceptible to feel the need of pushing a POV. Scientist or not, we're all humans and remain subject to our respective personal needs and interests. Philosophy of science teaches us that truth does not exist in science anymore than in other fields of knowledge. That is what is more and more denied in WP global warming articles, and the fact that WP is not about finding truth should not bring us to deny this important scientific issue. WP:COI has a special clause that says that a climate scientist is welcomed to edit climate-related articles. But this should not be construed as a freepass and still warrants high caution from such a person, as the policy also says that high personal involvement in a subject constitutes a COI by itself. This, I think, has been overlooked. Regards. --Childhood's End 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to your point of view (or at least that we aren't getting it quite right, and it is too much of a one man show). If the article ever got discussed in a more relaxed fashion I think I would feel more comfortable with WMC having less personal involvement (and actually probably so would his family). Unfortunately the atmosphere ain't right and the vitriolic nature of the attacks on WMC almost guarantee I will defend him.. especially when the same people seem moved to personal attacks on people like me (I am pretty much a bystander). On the policy thing I am not sure I agree with your interpretation though (and I regard policy as a way of expressing what we feel is right not defining our feelings). At present there is a wide community who feel the article is about NPOV and who leave WMC to sort the details. That's not really fair on him but perhaps only necessitated by the behaviour of those who feel the article is not NPOV (whose frustration is palpable of course). --BozMo talk 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tough problem to sort out. I'm sure WMC often feels under siege and it's clear that there are those who deliberately provoke him. It's tough to keep your temper in such circumstances, and I'll admit to sometimes writing things myself that could have been expressed more tactfully, so it's not just WMC. On the other hand I've been appalled that the community has given a free pass to some on the "skeptic" side who have posted on- and off-wiki attack pages and the like. There's also the problem of trolls whose main purpose appears to be engaging others in endless back-and-forth on talk pages. Some of them are obvious; others are capable of switching to their "reasonable" persona when it suits their purpose. Raymond Arritt 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridicules

It was bad enough when you delete bunch of my links leaving bunch of articles without source (and if I start adding them back that would be WP:COI and somebody would run off to tell admins again and I'm already at war with admins at Croatian wiki so don't need more troubles...), it was even worse when Jimbo made all links nofollow making remaining links worthless but things are getting really ridicules... some vandal simply copied my entire page (from link which you deleted :-) ) [18], and my paranoia about my copyrights is being equally followed by paranoia about commercial links [19], (data for 1918 has been obviously been copied from my website) and another copy/paste from my website [20]. Any hopes for wiki to adopt DMOZ model for external links? 99% of SPAM would be solved, nofollow wouldn't be necessary, commercial links paranoia would be gone and deleting a sources would be impossible. ;-) --Ivan Bajlo 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your back so any advice on how to handle bunch of pages with unreferenced materials ripped off my website (together with accidentaly and deliberately placed factual errors >:-) ). --Ivan Bajlo 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot really answer on nofollow: I think it was a bad decision but... On the page rip offs there is a copyright process. If you give me a list of pages please I will get it fixed. --BozMo talk 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright process doesn't really work since these are historical data (unless entire text got copied), I have tried that once and failed even though all the data was copied solely from my website and there is no other source. Also many of my links are placed under external links instead named as source so they often get deleted but you know that already. ;-) At the moment Military of Montenegro has copy of my orbat from 1918, there use to be a link but under external [21] so and Yugoslav Army order of battle, March 1999 is totally unreferenced although it is obvious copy of my orbat [22]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivan Bajlo (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

In theory I think you have a good case but it is hard to know where to argue it. I am very busy for a few days on something else after which I will try to prepare something. The better argue is not "I need the money" but "you guys need to play fair" and we need to draft something along these lines. --BozMo talk 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll probably be busy too since I'm going on a book safari which will cost me at lest $200 (investing entire profit back into the website - that would make my website non-profit too :-) ) so it would be really silly if my new articles ended up on wikipedia before Google even visits my website. ;-)) Hey, maybe we could use WP:NOR to deleted everything? >:-)) --Ivan Bajlo 09:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message

The comment to which you link (from A.B.) referred to comments by EdJohnston (talk · contribs); I never used the term "spam" in that discussion (see Talk:John T. Reed#New Editors - please note - JTR vs the Real Estate Guru Cultists).

The phenomenon you notice is probably down to what I say on my User page: I react badly to incivility, and to people flying off the handle as they overreact to their misunderstanding of my comments, or taking personally what was clearly not meant that way. All those things happened in that discussion, and it left me... tetchy. It's a character flaw, I know, and I try to control it; sometimes I'm successful (though writing calmly when the other person isn't often has even worse effects), sometimes I'm not. So it goes. (K.V., R.I.P.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Oddly, the sort of comment added after yours doesn't raise my temperature — it's so over the top that it's just mildly amusing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message - not at all, whats true is true. Everything has to fair and follow policies I agree, thats the only way we can make good articles. I appreciate your input on the article infact I'll read it again when looking for better sources. Its good to see opinions coming from outside people who usually dont edit Islam related articles, so its a breath of fresh air and perspective. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

LUGs in Australia

Why did you delete LUGs in Australia, and shouldn't this have been discussed in Talk:LUGs_in_Australia? -- JDX 07:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It qualified for speedy deletion (reason A3) and got flagged for speedy deletion by another editor. You can recreate it but please try to do so in a way which makes the reasons why it qualifies for an article clear. --BozMo talk 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is significant but mainly in the context of the group of related articles about Australian IT organisations and LUGs worldwide. If these were a single article there would seem to be no problem because the article shows the reach of these groups. I see this getting into an edit war and simply don't want the hassle. You might want to delete the redirect Australian LUGs as well. -- JDX 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maritz Inc.

FYI, you tagged Maritz Inc. for WP:PROD and I deleted it. Now someone has made a request for the article to be restored so I have done that and de-prodded it. You are welcome to bring the article to WP:AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey BozMo. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

I apologise if anyone is bothered by a couple of self revert edits. They were done to provide versions in a page history like this [23] which were suitable for young children (who in this case may not wish to know about red hot pokers up Edward II's anus.

On to Consultants

I've wrapped up my investigation of Marketing Research firms, and I think we did a good job of ridding Wikipedia of about 6 or 7 articles that were clearly created by an employee of the firm, were uncited, and generally failed WP:CORP. Time to move on to a new category -- Consulting. I'll use this area, if you don't mind, to provide "leads" for the WP:CORP or WP:SPAM teams, as you see fit to forward on to them.

• First, take a look at this connection between Kuczmarski and Mandolia. Next, look at the contributions of User:Rishumandolia.

1. Chicago innovation awards - created by Kuczmarski
2. Kuczmarski & Associates - created by Kuczmarski's assistant
3. Thomas D. Kuczmarski - created and lovingly maintained by Kuczmarski's assistant

That's all for now from The SpamWatcher 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Halo4life

I've 2 things to say: 1) why were you almost supporting halo4life and over half of his edits were vandalism? and 2) I agree with the indef block. Seems appropriate for trying to divert admins away form his edits, for a while at least. (he said "I'm not gay", when look at his most recent diff!) Mister1nothing 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

forget #1, I looked in the history and saw what happened. Mister1nothing 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)