User talk:BozMo/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I need one now: long messages with useful content


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bharatanatyam sock

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

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thanks.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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 cabalTM 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Spam account Taleinfo

It looks like the account Taleinfo (talk · contribs · logs · 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] thanks

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aloka meditation center. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/z/User_talk%7EBozMo_archive_f141.html"