User talk:Boud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") 2002 Gujarat violence, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal

User:Bcorr: thanks for your meta-help :)) Boud 13:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to 2002 Gujarat violence/revision, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the initiative -- haven't heard anything from Lib. An. for a couple of weeks now -- hopefully it's *safe*. Thanks -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

thanks for the mediation, Bcorr - once again i'm impressed with how the wikipedia functions. :) My hope is that sooner or later enough Polish speaking people will feel concerned enough about debates on "encyclopedia level" cosmology/physics on the Polish wikipedia that we also need some meta-process there. So far we're still too low in numbers and unmetered access is still too expensive... Boud 13:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tanksgiving

Please see the note I left on Talk:Thanksgiving, Thanks Lou I 16:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC).

I'd rather move this discusion to our individual talk pages, see if we can agree, then post the results to Thanksgiving. That said:

  1. I don't intend to take on Loewen, since he makes his living pushing a PC view of history. But I will remove the poisoning entry from the Thanksgiving article. Seems to me that ONE sociologist is not an adequate source.
  2. The attack in 1637 did occur. (Researching material for an article on the Pequot War was what brought me here in the first place.) But mercenaries and Dutch weren't involved, massacres on both sides happened, and Loewen is again the only source for 'heads like soccer balls in Manhattan' tripe. I think its logistically impractical (almost impossible) for this to have happened.

Please answer here or my talk page, thanks Lou I 22:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification that you're only talking about the poisoning entry, not the 1637 attack.

Regarding the poisoning claim, at the meta-level, the fact that Loewen makes his living pushing a PC view of history and that he seems to be the only person supporting this POV, is not enough to make it false. After all, most historians make their living pushing PC views of history - the difference is just which political correctness filters they use, how carefully they check facts, whether they naively accept majority points of view or whether they are critical and try to get to primary sources. However, still at the meta-level, i did email loewen (jloewen at zoo.uvm.edu) about the whole question on 19.12.2003 recommending he participate directly on Talk:Thanksgiving rather than replying in private. That's four days ago - maybe not much during the Xmas season, but so far he doesn't seem to have chosen to speak up.

How about simply NPOVing it, with something like One sociologist, James Loewen, claims on the basis of a colonist's letter that... in front of the poisoning bit? People who dismiss Loewen's POV as PC can decide for themselves.

Boud 13:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can't see it. We might note it somewhere with a link back to Thanksgiving. If I had any belief in that Loewen was correct, maybe. Your note implies that we might need or want an article on Loewen. Want to help write one? Lou I 15:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, to be honest i really would prefer to concentrate on areas of spacetime closer to where i'm located or where i'm more intimately involved. If the author of the indymedia article and Loewen choose not to get involved in rational, open, version-tracked debate on a wikipedia Talk page, which so far seems to be the case, then we're just going to have trust your judgment. i spent a lot of time on 2002 Gujarat violence, which is less than two years away in time, and only a few hundred km from where i lived for two years. The witnesses there are mostly still alive and there's a massive amount of evidence which is pretty close to primary source (and a lot is online), which is a very different case from an alleged racism-based massacre which happened in 1623. So while my intuition suggests that your intuition about Loewen is probably wrong, i'm unlikely to have the time to go further. Better that US based people follow this up. Boud 01:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration over the Thanksgiving article. I'd like to think that I'm going on a little more than intuition. I have tried to research his reported incident, but get no where. On the other hand, like Loewen, I'm not a professional historian, just a retired computer nerd, and an amatuer physicist and historian with a growing case of wikiholism. I will write a short summary for the Talk:Thanksgiving Page, you might want to check it. I sympathize with your difficulty over Gujarat. I've had trouble for years trying to find a balanced and insightful write-up about the Kent State shootings from the era of Vietnam War protests. And I'm having trouble now writing the Pequot War article. You might watch that one to keep me honest. See you around the Wiki! Regards, Lou I 04:28, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, and Happy New Year! I just wanted to let you know that I've finished my efforts on the Pequot War, and posted an update on Talk:Thanksgiving. Hope this resolves things, so I'm bak to the Revolurionary War. Thanks again, and the Pequot was an intereting study. Lou I 19:10, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temp graph

Data link at Image_talk:GlobwarmNH.png I haven't tinkered much with images from that data because I'm working on replacement images. But the old data is there if you want to use the old data. SEWilco 22:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Math markup

Thanks for the eigenplane article. I saw your comment in the edit history and fixed it up using the /mathbf{} function. In case you haven't found it already, the exhaustive reference for the math markup syntax is at m:Help:Formula. HTH, • Benc • 09:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Aceh

Good work on KSKBA and so forth...haven't heard of them, or most of the other organizations people have been sending me. All I know is the people of Aceh are really screwed, especially if Indonesia doesn't lift provisions of the martial law Aceh was under for all of 2004.

I would have sent you this under my usual username but right-wing bozos follow my account and revert everything, so I don't want to bring heat onto your account with my regular account. Spare O 08:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, whoever you are :) Boud 11:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ΛCDM

I didn't understand your edits to ΛCDM. It really says nothing about the finiteness of the universe, other than that it is substantially larger than the observable horizon. Can you please discuss on the article's talk page? Thanks –Joke137 19:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

Boud, great meeting you at Wikimania. Thanks again for submitting to the video interview. Hope to be able to show you something slick soon. Fuzheado | Talk 19:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the article

Hello Boud,

thank you very much for the link. I would read the article as soon as I get some spare time. At the moment lots on the work (after two weeks of voucation) and translation works for the wikimania wikibook. CU. --Philopp 18:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

P.s.: Wenn I get time, I would like to come back to the topic of compression :-) --Philopp 18:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galloway and Rumsfeld on Coleman Page

Hey Boud, I agree with you about them meeting the same number of times, but you might want to revert yourself or otherwise clip that text. Why? Because some editors gripe that the section is off-topic, so we try to keep it to the bare, factual minimum. I totally disagree that the section is off-topic but we try to keep everybody happy as much as reasonable. With the addition of Rumsfeld in there, the passage could be seen as argumentative. Without the Rumsfeld mention, the passage is still effective at illustrating the mistakes that were in the report. I leave it up to you, but someone will probably change it if you don't yourself. DanielM 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm not so sure the passage is as effective at illustrating the mistakes if the Rumsfeld-Saddam-Hussein meetings are not mentioned. The difference between many and two is not that strong, it could be considered as a single careless word and sound like a pedantic defence, playing on single words; the difference between many and the same number of times that Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein is IMHO much stronger, and IMHO it would be NPOV to remove this. However, i'm unlikely to struggle over the Coleman page, there are more important things to work on... Boud 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think this is an important entry, even if you don't. You disrupted somewhat of a balance, and you yourself or best positioned to fix it. You could insert the text "**for example** citing the charge that he had met with Hussein "many times" when the number of meetings was two." But sure, you can go off to something else and leave others to deal with it. DanielM 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm not claiming that the entry is not important. for example added. Hope this helps. Boud 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi Government

Thanks for your thougths. I'll do a bit of research see what I come up with but will probably settle on an interim name just to get something moving AndrewRT 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media concentration

Hi, I'm sorry but i reverted your links to Media concentration in Axel_Springer_AG and Springer Verlag, I appreciate your reasons for making the link, but the target article, is entirely US/Canada oriented (and quite badly written, lacking NPOV) at the moment, and it is not abundently clear why the links are in the article. Zootalures 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

Hi Boud, Just a quick note to say thanks for the info you've added to this article - particularly the stuff about MEK. AndrewRT 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Rationales to Impeach

Hey Boud, I read your response, and it was very well thought out. I'm trying to find a middle ground, which may be ill-advised. If you have time, would you care to revisit the page and see what I wrote on the topic of renaming? Thanks. BlueGoose 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). Your comments are too large for the project page. I moved them to the talk page. Merecat 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks very much again for your time and energy in this matter. Prometheuspan 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various items.

First off, do not create more articles that are attempts to recreate material that was in the article that just failed its AfD. Such edits are considered bad-faith, and articles like this can and will be deleted by any administrator, on sight.

Dear Nandesuka, the material which i put in 2003-2006 alleged US violations of Iranian sovereignty is not the main theme of the deleted article. Threats to attack and an actual attack are two very different phenomena. If you look at the discusssion page of the article (available to admins only), you will see that this was a debate about whether or not to break it off into a separate article. As long as the threats article existed, the conservative approach was not to create the actual territorial violations article. The deleted article was about threats to attack Iran; the new one i created was about actual (claimed) violations of Iranian territory. People on the discussion for deletion discussed the general threats article; they did not discuss about whether or not to create an article about the actual (claimed) territorial violations. Boud 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The material you reinserted in that article was, in fact, word for word in the earlier one that was deleted. Nandesuka 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept original research. Please note that included in the definition of original research is: "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position." (emphasis added). In other words: "Kofi Annan indicated in a speech that the US is planning to attack Iran" is acceptable. "Based on various speeches given by various people, it is clear that the US is planning to atttack Iran" is not.

You and i perfectly agree on the principles. Please help by correcting material which you believe is OR rather than deleting it. The title of the new article you deleted was 2003-2006 alleged US violations of Iranian sovereignty - does this title constitute original research? what would you prefer, that we put the names of all the people making the claims in the article title? Boud 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Kind regards, Nandesuka 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

i did so. What is important is that encyclopedic NPOV+NOR content is properly included in the wikipedia. Arigato gozaimashita. NPOV+NOR desu, ne. Boud 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Middle East Media Center

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! Jibbles | Talk 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields

Hello, I saw you message below and have been considering writing an article on this topic due to the information that is out there. I have no axe to grind on the issue. Can I assist? Do you have any ideas on a neutral article for this issue? 82.29.227.171 23:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the subsection Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields. i have put it back in.

Please explain why the criticisms of the allegations should not be present in the article. The allegations are disputed, so WP:NPOV means we have to present the arguments for and against. i don't understand how someone can remove this, unless s/he is attempting to present only one POV in this section.

Thanks. Boud 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the source for who killed Bradley Will

Ok, now I understand what that sentence was trying to say. My only problem with your source is that it's in Spanish and this is English wikipedia. I'm pretty sure we're only supposed to use English sources. Can you find a version in English and link to that instead. Also, it would be nice to say which local news group is making the claim. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, i agree that English sources are preferred, but AFAIK non-English sources are not excluded. Look around and i think you'll find this is the policy. Boud 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and your right. [1]. Still, if there is an English version, can you link to that instead? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabrang

User:Hkelkar and User:Bakasuprman have reverted your edits on 2002 Gujarat Violence and V. R. Krishna Iyer stating that Sabrang is not a reliable source. You may want to discuss this with them. BhaiSaab talk 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I undid my revert on Iyer pending further fact checking on my part. See my post to BhaiSaab's talk page regarding Sabrang, a terrorist propaganda rag that cannot be cited reliably except as a primary source which, in the case of your Gujarat Riots edit, it is not.Hkelkar 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's an article for you [2]. It solves many of the mysteries. Btw, CAG is an anti-Hindu group of nutcases, please use reliable sources like the Tribune article, which I painstakingly searched for to give you.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to initiate WP:DR regarding this matter?Hkelkar 00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coca-Cola Company

Since we are supposed to AGF here at Wikipedia, I'm coming to your talk page to ask you if you really believe it is NPOV to expand an article lead so that half of it is unproven negative allegations about the subject as you did with your recent edit at The_Coca-Cola_Company? You added the term "wikiturfing" to the article twice, but when I followed the reference link that one would assume would support such an allegation, there was only the briefest and vaguest of allegation that someone involved with the company was responsible for the supposed POV fork. Do you feel that is NPOV and more importanatly, intellectually honest and encyclopedic? AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Afghanistan war

Look, a little NPOV is not a bad thing, k?

cheers-RatSkrew 18:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric

Hello. You moved Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric to Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric by cutting and pasting; please note that this is not the proper way to move pages. The correct method of moving pages is described at Help:Moving a page. I'm currently in the process of sorting this out. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Don't Attack Iran Coalition

An editor has nominated the article Don't Attack Iran Coalition for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Attack Iran Coalition. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Don't Attack Iran Coalition during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Action Iran

An editor has nominated the article Action Iran for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Iran. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Action Iran during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well poisoning

Hi Boud,

Regarding your statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war:

"one of the people wishing to delete the page claims to be from the US army"

This is considered a personal attack. The user you're referring to has a userbox that says he is or was a member of the military, not that he is "from" the army. Whether or not someone served in the military has nothing to do with the rationale for deleting an article. Please see poisoning the well. GabrielF 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that "whether or not someone served in the US military has nothing to do with the rationale for deleting an article" about an organisation opposing a US/Israeli military attack on Iran ? In any case, i do agree with the substantive part of your argument, i.e. that it is more productive to focus on the arguments rather than on conflicts of interest. i suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations) and compare it to your deletion proposal and the discussion can return to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Iran. Boud 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed AfD

I noticed your name on a recent AfD, you may be interested in this: [3] The page you wanted to keep was removed by a well organized group of wikieditors. Travb (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

[edit] Nandigram under fire

Boud, please help edit the wikipedia article on Nandigram. It is the centre of a major controversy and a people's resistance to government brutality. Please also invite others who can cover such issues neutrally and in perspective. Panchhee 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine Project Invitation

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

--Abnn 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boud,

Thanks for the note; you are right, of course, at the least I would have to interview them formally, but all I have is stories they've told me, since they've all passed away. I am a wikiholic! Unfortunately I don't edit or post nearly as often as I just read the articles (mostly because, I'm ashamed to say, I still haven't taken the time to learn the conventions and really understand the wiki markup).

Thanks again for the note! -- alawi

[edit] Check your sources

Hi Boud,

In the future, I would strongly urge you not to copy articles verbatim from Sourcewatch as you did with Iran Policy Committee. Their article on the subject is highly POV, OR and completely inaccurate. If you had read the organization's website you would have seen that Sourcewatch was wrong about:

  1. The date the organization was founded
  2. The organization's supposed "affiliations" with other think-tanks
  3. The association of "several of the principals" with AIPAC.

Additionally, sourcewatch quoted the organization's mission statement as saying: "providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change" whereas the organization's website says: "Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate democratic change."

Please remember that we are here to write neutral encyclopedia articles, not to push a particular agenda. GabrielF 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning that you've edited the article. We can discuss on the article's discussion page in case there are any difficulties getting to NPOV and NOR. Boud 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good addition

Good addition to Fawaz Naman Hamoud Abdallah Mahdi.

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't checked Talk:Fawaz Naman Hamoud Abdallah Mahdi, prior to leaving the above comment -- and I didn't recognize we had ever interacted before. Now that I have checked Talk:Fawaz Naman Hamoud Abdallah Mahdi I am going to (1) repeat that your most recent edit was a good one; (2) I am sorry if you found me abrasive in our earlier interaction -- if so, my apologies; (3) as I reviewed the talk page I saw that I had made the suggestion, but not carried through to completion, a rewording to address your excellent point that a guy with mental health issues can't give informed consent. So I made that change now.
Cheers! Geo Swan 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)