User talk:BostonMA/Misc Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have the right to disappear. However, in my reading of WP:Speedy, is that it only applies to pages that have met specific requirements. A talk page that has been editted by numerous editors does not meet those requirements. --BostonMA ^talk 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incredible. I have no faith in Wikipedia whatsoever. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Pigman to withdraw from arbitration. Is there another way I should ask? Sincerely, Mattisse 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the person who left a message on Hanuman Das talk page? I can not find the arbitration page and was never officially notified -- just by you with no link. I may just go away for awhile and be unavailable. I do not want to be part of this and I want out. Give me some links to find out what is happening. Please. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Che, I hope that you are feeling well and that your tests have been going well. I am writing to report to you news of the Starwood mediation. Things seem to have broken down to the point that a request for arbitration has been filed. This puts a question mark over the mediation. (I don't think that it necessarily rules out mediation, because it is still an open question of whether the arbitration committee will hear the case). On the other hand, from your point of view, you may decide that mediation is over. In any event, I wanted to thank you for your efforts, and to say that I'm sorry that we were not able (at least for now) to present you with a successful case in which the parties learned to see eye-to-eye. Please let me know what you think of all this if you get a chance and feel the energy to do so. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this. I'm actually currently involved in another arbitration case, as a prior mediator ... I really know how to pick 'em, huh? I don't necessarily expect that Arbitration in this case will solve the issues in this case, and I cautiously expect that the case will not be accepted. I would like to continue discussion, but perhaps we had better be cautious until the arbitration case is over one way or another. - Che Nuevara 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading my talk page since Dinesh mentioned he had been reading it, and I just had to laugh. And now I notice that your talk page is starting to resemble mine! Guilt by association? I quoted you to Dinesh: "There is always drama on Wikipedia." But have you noticed an upswing since you have been dealing with me? I must be just fascinating that my talk page is always crammed and so many people are bothering to take out RFC's and arbitrations and such that seem ultimately to revolve around me! Can you explain this?

Are you ready for the sudden fame that is bound to be directed at you because of me (a taste of which occurred today)?

Good evening, dear friend. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever day is is (I've lost track), I see you are maintaining your balance and have noticed the same things I have. Amazing isn't it? Never fails to astonish me and each time it is a notch up. Good night! (And I think Dinesh has his FA which he has certainly earned.) Sincerely, Mattisse 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good about the grading done! You can return to the drama (not that you seem to have left!) At your leisure, I'm interested to know if your world view has shifted as now you have entered a corner of my world. Good night again, friend. Sincerely, Mattisse 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re people who used you to get me comes to mind first. I guess second, acting as if in AGF and really closing your eyes to other alternatives are separate in my mind. (Maybe it's my involvement in the criminal mentality that makes this distinction so clear to me.) Not that anything changes my view of you! This is just a dialogue. Sincerely, Mattisse 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by this new turn of events. You are not? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COI seems to be muddying the waters. I was shocked to learn of it. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, even if the request is turned down, that too will provide additional grist for the mediation. How so? I would be concerned that one side might interpret a rejection of the arbcom case as a vindication and as a show of support for their side. --BostonMA talk 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm putting on a happy face for this. You're right about how rejection might be interpreted by the factions. However, the process of submitting the RFAR has certainly crystallized some of my opinions around the issue. Because of this, I'm clearer about what I think is congruent with WP policy. While I don't think it will make me intractable or incapable of compromise, it has made me aware of being too easygoing in cases where I believe WP policy and guidelines are being deliberately broken or manipulated. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why 999 is "representing" Hanuman Das in the arbitration. Hasn't he disappeared forever and deleted all his pages and history? Why is a disappeared person still trying to control events on Wikipedia by sending urgent emails to other users? Sincerely, Mattisse 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, you know perfectly well that 999 has been involved from this from the beginning. Why are you running around Wikipedia with your constant whining would be a better question. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Ekajati. Do you have something to say to me in particular? If not, please post your comments where they would be more appropriate. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thats a surprise. Do they choose topics at random?Dineshkannambadi 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your pontificating post. (I have a hard time finding posts on my page often and didn't see the longer part until now.) I think you misunderstood me. I am saying yes, in interactions treat others "as if" they are acting in good faith which much (or most) of the time they are, unless clear evidence otherwise. But keep a bigger picture in your mind and allow for possibilities. I need not go through my list of grievances where that did not occur again!

As to the other, yes the scale is different but growing. Personal use of Wikipedia also can be for other than purely financial gain, such as to promote political or religious beliefs. As far as policy goes, to me there is not so much difference between the two situations. Gangs of editors are covertly supporting each other over investments (of whatever kind) in batches of articles and controlling them. Maybe the second group is more polite. But I thought they were independent, unbiased editors and now it turns out that is not the case at all. In fact, in some ways it is worse. One offender is clearly a promotor and although his supporters' motivations are not clear their behavior certainly is up front. The other gives the impression of neutrality but when you own a website in common that promotes a point of view (whether for financial or other motivations), then write articles on the point of view here and insert links to your web site (even without the selling of the book)? (It happens frequently in so-called psychological articles, not with the organised tag teams though so the organised suites of articles don't develop}. I find it very troubling. But if you can convince me otherwise, please do. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not final until you complete the nomination and list it yourself. Automated tools will then kick in and add further information or ask further questions. You are at liberty to turn it down at this point: I'll delete it out of process if you do because I've sprung it on you out of nowhere. I really do think you're ready and will use the extra buttons to good advantage for Wikipedia. I'm not going to influence your answers other than to say: be yourself, if you get the job please get involved at WP:IFD as I said I would at RfA and really haven't, and take your time over the nomination form as there's no reason to hurry. Yeah, you know all this, but I'm allowed at this point to cluck around you like a mother hen. Back to my wikibreak :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I add a co-nomination? With permission of course -- Samir धर्म 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, I hope you get it! -- Samir धर्म 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist [5])

Hi, I see that you left several templates on [6]. I believe that these templates may not be appropriate. Vandalism refers specifically to edits that are not made in good faith, or with the intent of harming the project. I think you should assume that User:Venu62 is making edits in good faith, believing them to be positive contributions. With regards to NPOV, it is not apparent to me that Venu62's edits violate NPOV. So, I will be removing the tags. Please feel free to discuss this with me further if you disagree. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider imposing a POV as harmful to the project. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this user's previous contributions to this article with respect to this, but, there may be some indication in what's remaining of the archives. He has misleaded many people regarding certain 'facts' when it comes to incidents in Wikipedia in general, let alone here - one of which I will be reporting.

The main article being Sama Veda has been established for quite a long time, and his lack of discussion in removing this important part of the section of the article, is vandalism. There is no 'experimenting' about it. The major part of his POV was when he put a linguistic tint in his addition of "Tamil literature" in this same section, which was discussed (with this user) at an earlier date. I expect also this would be in the archives. I've replaced the warnings, as I'm still not convinced by what you've said. Ncmvocalist 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I agree that imposing a POV into an article is harmful to the project. However, vandalism is not merely edits which are harmful to the project, but are edits that are intended to harm the project. I have no reason to disbelieve that User:Venu62 believes he is helping. This makes it a content dispute and not vandalism. I will be removing the warnings again.

If you are unable to resolve your content dispute with User:Venu62 without recourse to edit warring and placing warnings on talk pages, then I suggest that you try an article Request for Comment. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, hypothetically, if you believe getting drunk, bashing your wife, vandalising the neighbourhood etc. will help your family, then it makes it totally ok and no warnings should be given to you about the harm you are causing? It's totally ok if you get away with it (again and again) without even some sort of warning because you had best intentions? And then when you're warned, you don't even try fix yourself up and continue going ahead as you please, then it's still totally ok? Answer: no. While those circumstances may be different, the principle applies in the same way in both. One can assume good faith on the first or even the second time. After that, if there's a stubbornness to NOT even try to figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it up, then it's unreasonable. Anyway, I've reported the user. I'm not wasting time on him further. Ncmvocalist 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I was unable to explain the situation in a way that persuades you. I don't believe that making edits, even bad edits, is at all comparable to violence against individuals. Bad edits are easily undone. The harm of violence is not. Further, one who beats his wife is intending harm. However, at this point, I feel the need to mention that "continuing to go ahead as you please" seems to apply to your edits as well as the those of the user with whom you are in a content dispute. I again suggest that you should try some of the methods described in Dispute Resolution, such as an article RfC. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument "Bad edits are easily undone. The harm of violence is not." is fairly weak, in that, it still misses the point that they're both "bad" (as you call it) - the issue was never whether the harm could be undone or not. They both deserve a warning. Simple. This is where you lack persuasion.

On another note again, I will remind you that you may lack experience with respect to this user's contributions to this article, however, as I told a blocked user, "I, or anyone else, will no longer tolerate POV pushing so that this article may be wrecked" [a few days/weeks back I think] when clear attempts are being made to neutralise what exists - we want to be able to reassess this article without "bad" or "unreasonable edits" (in the words he has used against others in this very article). Further, I would imagine that one who checks the discussion page so frequently would not be disabled from merely making a new post and proposing the new change (yet he demands others to do it for him). Ncmvocalist 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the bogus warning message from my talk page. I'll need your help dealing with the difficult users hellbent on removing cited content from the Carnatic music article. User:Ncmvocalist removed the mention of Cilappatikaram with respect to the mention of musical instruments and the early concept of music. I don't think this is fair. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, User:Venu62 needs to propose new changes on the discussion page when it isn't accepted (as he has been advised countless times in the past, and hypocritically, he has advised others of the same). Also, very usually, reasons are given when they are removed. If he is incapable of (at the very least) trying to fix it up accordingly in the talk page as a draft, then he really needs to stop crying wolf. There are issues with his version of 'fairness' and 'neutrality', and some other users think so too. While I can agree that no one is perfect (we are human), if he puts no effort to try see what's wrong or try resolve those alleged issues, then he has no excuse, and deserves no sympathy. Personally, I hope it won't come to that, overall. These comments aren't directed to him as a person, but are regarding the nature of your contributions. Ncmvocalist 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and discuss in the article talk page. I have discussed these changes and additions extensively, but yet to see any valid counter arguments except claims that these citations are 'fake', 'impertinent', etc - Parthi ^{talk/contribs}

A very pathetic expectation for someone who never bothered discussing until AFTER crying wolf here. Until you change your tone to be here purely for the good of Wikipedia rather than for misleading others, your fate will be no different to you know who. Oh, and don't even try the personal attack template - I've got evidence to back up my claim here. Ncmvocalist 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, I am placing a civilitly warning on your page. Civility is a Wikipedia policy. The truth or otherwise of your assertions does not excuse the requirement to be civil. --BostonMA ^talk 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is bogus, and has hence been removed. There is no excuse for maintaining a misleading tone - pointing it out is not being incivil. An imagined personal attack or imagined push for a revert war is not a fault on my part. Ncmvocalist 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning which was removed may be viewed here. The facts that one may point out is not what makes a comment uncivil, but the manner in which these facts are expressed. Words like "pathetic", "who never bothered", "rather than for misleading", and "your fate..." and "Oh, and don't even try" are words that do not contribute to civility. Please try to express your points in ways that avoid unnecessary disparagement. --15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please see my response to your query regarding diffs. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for trying to mediate between Ncmvocalist and myself. I appreciate it, and am ready to apologise for any pain caused. My intentions are not to cause disruptions to any article or editor. However my notices may have been due to my frustration with certain editors who deliberately (IMO) remove relevant and neutral information from the Carnatic music article which are backed by valid citations, while refusing to answer my specific questions regarding this in the article Talk page. My question was simply this: Why is it irrelevant to mention one of the oldest surviving Tamil epics which contain detailed information on the ancient music, while it is ok to mention Sama Veda and the Sanskrit epics? Isn't this POV? Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the warning on User: Venu62's page due to the fact he has been warned not once, but several times regarding his behaviour on this article talk page, as well as others. This is his final warning to clean his behaviour up, on articles + their respective talk pages. Saying someone made a personal attack when they didn't is in itself considered a personal attack, so he really only has one final chance. (The fact he starts his reply in an article talk page with the words "personal attack", "incivility" shows a lack of initiative, so why he's surprised by a suggestion and why he imagines a personal attack is beyond me.) The claim of incivility is ridiculous, considering, my reply merely repeated the words of the user. I didn't believe it was incivil, but as he himself considers it incivil, an extra warning has been placed on his page. Any further issues regarding this user's behaviour will not be tolerated. If it is too frustrating, then Wikipedia is not the place to be - Wikipedians are expected to keep a cool head at all times, and indefinitely, in articles+their talk pages. Ncmvocalist 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BostonMA: I see you've done some editing to both Acetabulum and Acetabulum (unit), and I wanted to let you know I found the following in the online version of the 1911 Encyclopædia Brittanica which may give you an answer:

ACETABULUM , the Latin word for a vinegar cup, an ancient Roman vessel, used as a liquid measure (equal to about half a gill); it is also a word used technically in zoology, by analogy for certain cup-shaped parts, e.g. the suckers of a mollusc, the socket of the thigh-bone, &c.; and in botany for the receptacle of Fungi .

Does that help? Figma 03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boston, You've placed NPOV tags in Ayyavazhi section in Religion in India and History of Ayyavazhi section in Ayyavazhi article. Please open discussions in those pages so that I may be able to answer to each sentences which seems to be a POV to you. But keep in mind, the sites you focus to, are personal and the sources I cited is from University papers which are considered more valid in wiki. Also see the large amount of inline citations in the bothe sections you tagged NPOV. Thanks - Paul 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case you did file for harassment, then the outcome would be no different to a complaint that was filed against Venu62 for similar reasons, a few months back, by an ex-user. This is just FYI. I'd hate to think of the consequences to a user if he/she made a threat that didn't have enough weight. :)

On another note, you are under no circumstances in a position to insist I check with an admin before placing warnings. Nor may your opinion in the Carnatic music article be considered an outside one - far from it! Ncmvocalist 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Carnatic music article, I have not editted the Carnatic music article, nor do I have a desire or intention to do so. Regarding my warning to you about placing questionable warning templates on User:Venu62's talk page, I have warned you. What you do with that warning is up to you. --BostonMA ^talk 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied from User talk:Jefferson Anderson)

Hi Jefferson Anderson, I see that you posted a comment that accuses me of bad faith. You also removed my comment. In general at Wikipedia you should not accuse someone of acting in bad faith unless it is an obvious case of vandalism. It also is usually not a good idea to remove someone's comments. I am pretty thick skinned, so I haven't taken offense. However, I'm curious to know why you believe my comment was in bad faith? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are clearly trying to discredit my opinion. My account is not single purpose, and it preexisted the nomination. I've "voted" in other AfD and understand the process. Please remove your comment, it's immaterial that this account dates, from Dec. 4. Jefferson Anderson 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I did not claim that your account was a single purpose account. I also mentioned the date of your first edit which is clearly prior to the nomination. As for "clearly" trying to discredit your opinion, I suppose you could see it that way. I do think the opinions of editors who have a bit more experience than you ought to be given greater weight. However, that does not mean that I think your opinion is invalid. You will notice that I have not (yet) voted in this article for deletion (and may not). At the moment, I am not convinced one way or the other whether the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. A final point. Your deletion of comments etc. on the AfD page does not help your case, but hurts it. AfD is not a vote but a discussion, and you would help your cause much more by making some arguments, rather than saying (in effect) "me too". Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that you are not marking all the users who appear to be parties to a pending arbitration. That seems like useful info to the closing admin too. Maybe you should add that, if that is, you're not trying only to discredit keeps. Jefferson Anderson 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict so you would not have seen my reply before you wrote your P.S. I assure you that I would note recent users on both sides. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I did not delete any comments, I moved them to the talk page - where in my opinion they belongs. How come your opinion is always right and everybody else's always wrong? Are you sure that pointing out how new a user is is correct when he's "voted" in multiple AfD and predates the nom? I don't think it is, I believe it is a form of harassment. Since people can edit anonymously, they can accumulate quite a bit of experience before creating an account. The only valid reason to tag "experience" in an AfD is if the editor has only edited the area in question or if they are so new that they may be a sock. Period. Show me where it says otherwise. Jefferson Anderson 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did BostonMA say your opinion is always wrong, please correct me if I am wrong. His action were not an attack against you, but simply a standard procedure in AfDs. The closing admin is not going to discount your arguments because of this message, nor is that the reason for the message. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Anderson, I certainly make mistakes, and I welcome people pointing out my mistakes. Am I "sure" that pointing out how new a user is in an AfD discussion when that user has already participated in other AfD's? I am never 100% sure of anything, and am willing to be corrected. However, I believe that it is appropriate to mention that an account is less than three weeks old. In Wikipedia, what is right and what is wrong is largely determined by the consensus of the community. The fact that HighInBC, who is an admin, seems to believe that there was nothing wrong, confirms in my mind that my opinion is likely to reflect the consensus of the community. Of course we both could be mistaken.

I'm sorry that you feel harassed. It is not my intent to annoy you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just don't get it, then. I just reviewed all the AfDs I've expressed an opinion in. Even when my account was much newer, not a single editor felt the need to tag by opinion like that. Now, my first nomination got a comment, and looks like I had overlooked something and somebody thought I might be a troll, but I just don't see what's different about this AfD that I should get called out as "too new". I feel offended by it. Jefferson Anderson 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jefferson, You ask a good question about the fact that you had participated in other AfDs without the recentness of your account being noticed. I took at look at the AfDs in whichyou participated, and I think the answer is this. The AfDs in which you participated seemed to have attracted a small number of editors and were not really controversial. As a result, editors like myself, who would flag new accounts, were probably not paying close attention to these. I hope that helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess that's an explanation. I'm about to take my whole "vote" out along with the whole thread as it is clear I've inadvertently stepped into an ugly situation here. Is that OK? Can I remove my own vote and the thread attached to it? Jefferson Anderson 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume so, (but with less confidence than some of my other statements.) It is at least OK with me. Please refer to this comment if anyone troubles you about it, as they might not understand what you are doing and understand that you have my consent to delete my comment. Sorry about the hornets nest. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. Well, I also asked HighInBC and he said just to strike it, so that's what I've done. I don't understand what the user below is trying to say, and I've gotten no response to a msg posted on her talk page. Me going to do something else now. :-( Jefferson Anderson 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more assuming bad faith here: [7] Other editors added multiple citations to that article which either mention me, or include work I've done in the field. I did not add those cites. But now Jefferson Anderson and Frater Xyzzy[8] are ignoring the comments of other users (including two admins, who said that even if *I* placed the cites that mention me it would be fine) and are continuing to accuse me of writing about myself. Or something. I'm not sure exactly what they're doing but it feels like attempts at intimidation, a la two of the departed users from one of the other contentious situations on WP. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what exactly are you accusing me of here? I had the article on my watchlist as I had tagged it as uncited some time ago. When Frater Xyzzy exposed your use of your own self-published original research, I agreed with him. I believe everybody has been carrying on a quite civil conversation about it on the talk page of the article. Where are you coming from that you are going around accusing me (of what exactly?) to other editors? Something is very wrong here. Jefferson Anderson 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment by Xyzzy did seem a bit odd, I will look more closly later. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn, I have not gone through Jefferson Anderson's contributions. However, the one diff that you provided by Jefferson Anderson doesn't seem to demonstrate an assumption of bad faith. Did you mean some other contribution?

I have also wondered whether a retired user might return under a different username. However, I would not jump to conclusions that such a course would be necessarily malicious. It would be naive to discount the possibility of a bad faith return. However, it is also worth considering the possibility that a user might wish to turn over a new leaf, and feel that they are unable to escape their past without burying their identity. Other wikipedians may take a hard line on this which would certainly be understandable. But for me, I would like to see clear signs of disruption even if I knew a user to have made a deceptive "retirement". --BostonMA ^talk 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wish that Indians, in English, would avoid different usage from the rest of the world of this very common term. In an article on India, then, perhaps there's a case for spelling out "thousand million", but I wouldn't agree to it elsewhere. Tony 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston, I guess he's agreeing to lower standards for India articles. He's the last stage Feature Article editor that Dinesh is dealing with now and for quality articles he would not let that pass. Guess that means he does not consider the article I wrote important enough to enforce MoS. Discourging. Do what you want with it. (More reasons why not to do articles on India.) Sincerely, Mattisse 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing my User page. Btw I will soon reply on picture mediation. I am still busy, with study/research work. --- ALM 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on that last one - I should look through my others and add. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser - User:Revstang contribution (his last posting was December 20 on Jeff Rosenbaum) [9] Mattisse 18:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Bob Dobbs of the Church of the SubGenius which is mentioned in Starwood etc. and related to the whole enterprise. Mattisse 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what role 999 had in driving this person away User talk:Catherineyronwode - over Aleister Crowley and Magick with a "k". Mattisse 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 67.117.130.181 -- have you looked at the quality of his edits? To me he seems like some sort of person who knows what he is talking about at a level far over us. November 14, moreover, is over a month and one half ago. I don't understand what you are doing and it seems over zealous to me. Remember, you just apologised to Jefferson whatever his name is for far fewer edits of substantionally less quality. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are playing some sort of wierd devil's advocates game? Must be. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I am simply flagging new users for the benefit of the closing admin. It doesn't mean that their position is wrong or should carry no weight. I don't recall apologizing to anyone for flagging new users, as that is a standard practice as far as I know. --BostonMA ^talk 02:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the arbitration goes in our favor, it will be because of him. He is giving by far the most mature and over arching arguments in the case. He has pulled in much more far reaching evidence, less parochial than the other arguments. He is extremely credible. I can't help giving weight to the quality of his edits as well as the quanity -- a big fault of mine, I guess. I really admire a user who has the capacity to speak directly and still sound human. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He writes very well and is very credible. He should get more weight than an editor who write "me too" (or its equivalent) in an AfD, and I have no doubt that he will. There is nothing personal about flagging new accounts. --BostonMA ^talk 02:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you note User:Revstang then? He has made far fewer edits.

You must have missed [10]. --BostonMA ^talk 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is User:A. B. one of the main anit-spam fighters, and it was postings on the spam ANI that got his (I'm assuming he) attention. He very appropriately linked to WikiWendi's postings on that board in arbitration, thereby bringing in my case for me, for better or for worse. So I am a big fan of his and was from the time he originally posted at the arbitration. To me he is a cut above the rest of us. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sorry, I see you did not miss the Rev. But I hope someone tells you to stop being so petty -- almost 2 months is not a "new user" as the term is used in ADF. And if no one else, will then I shall! I've never seen even over a week treated that way before unless there were only 3 or 4 single purpose edits. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on my behavior. Despite the harsh tone, such feedback is useful, because we frequently do not see ourselves as others see us. Your comment prompted me to scan some of the AfD discussions. Pointing out the recentness of account creation seems to be much rarer than was my impression. I will be more conservative about pointing out such facts in the future. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking what I said with such good grace. I want to feel that I can be honest with you, even if it sounds harsh. If I don't say something that bothers me to you, however badly expressed, it puts a gulf between us and I don't want that. So please forgive. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put Revstang in the Checkuser request, although HD said somewhere that he was moving and getting a new IP so it probably makes no difference. He is an endless game player! He loves all this. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very informative experience, both in learning about the subject matter and in gaining some faith that there are those who care about quality on Wikipedia. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article comes closest to answering the money question:

• Billion - disambiguation page
• Long and short scales

(quote)

• India - see Indian numbering system  which is commonly used. For Indian English speakers see below.

If you click to "below": {quote)

Indian usage------

Like the other English speaking countries, also India is currently strongly influenced by the usual U.S. short scale use. However – outside of financial media – the use of Indian English speakers highly depends on their education background. Some Indians may continue to use the traditional British long scale. In everyday life, Indians largely use their own system.

I am hoping I may use the standard of modern British English which is that of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently answered you on my own talk page. (Don't know how that happened -- doesn't matter anyway as my answer is trivial!) Sincerely, Mattisse 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.Dineshkannambadi 23:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're great, and I love my picture every time I see it. What a beautiful place! NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make more user pages to remove items from my user page to sub pages. Somehow the pages I make end up in the article space instead. Do you know about this? It is unclear to me how this happens. (I know vaguely about namespace issues, having learned a bit of XML but I don't quite get what happens here.) Sincerely, Mattisse 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I am talking about. I thought I was doing the same thing I usually do to create a user sub page. But it turned out to be an article page (mysteriously -- the way everything is around here). It was put up for deletion and I supported that with db-author. Also (on another subject) someone explained to me how to download an IRC client. But now that I have it, I don't know what to do with it. You probably know about this kind of thing. (Originally I wanted to access the AMA chat.) Also (on yet another subject), do you think it is early to ask for Checkuser, as the person in question says he is moving and getting another IP? Sincerely, Mattisse 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about Links. What I am talking about has disappeared -- no mention even on watchlist anymore. It started with Article -- is that the key? Never start a sub page with the word Article? What a fog I exist in! Wikipedia assumes much more technical expertise than I have. I just learned about User Contributions recently from the now disappeared Ars Scriptor. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(answered on my own talk page again -- don't know what's wrong with me!) (Copied)I think it was called "Articles I created". Re: CheckUser, you probably know more about it than I do. I just received a "severe" email message from WendyWiki but I'm not sure what was meant. So I defer to your judgment. He/she also said RevStang was a very important real world person, but then why did he vote on Jeff Rosenboaum, or is there something I am missing??? (Reassuring that you are not sure about IRC as I feel like a dumbbell.) Sincerely, Mattisse 01:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's it! Start it with Mattisse! Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 02:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when tagging good faith contributions for deletion when you see them on new page patrol. Experienced editors know to follow the rules, but newbie editors can be pretty shocked when their page immediately gets tagged for deletion. One solution to this is do new page patrol from the bottom of Special:Newpages, thereby tagging articles after they have been created for almost an hour and the author has had plenty of opportunity to get the article in a decent state. Please don't let my mild critique discourage you; I appreciate your work on new page patrol. We need as many good patrollers as we can get!--Kchase T 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I've given a lot of people the same advice and I've never gotten a more persuasive response than yours. That said, it can often be difficult to find an assertion to notability from the stub that is the first version of most pages (one example). Anyway, I'm sure you'll find the system that works best for you. If you've got pages loaded in NPWatcher, you can just start at the bottom of that list to get to the oldest of the new pages.--Kchase T 02:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a holiday for me as I am a spiritualist without a group (connecting directly with the universe as best I can, unaffiliated). Thanks though for your good wishes. It's not a holiday for you either, but you are in my thoughts. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I feel so dumb. I wish I could talk to you about Wikipedia more. Maybe you could explain. I don't understand the place. I looked on Timmy12's page and A.B. put something there -- or maybe I hallucinated that.) Should I be doing something about arbicom or just stay out of it? My main fear is that HD, 999 and Ekajaki will resume in some form against me -- and if I don't weigh in then I will have lost standing. ??? Mattisse 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should assemble evidence of harassment. (I have a lot but the diffs aren't always good.) Plus I don't know how much or what kind to show. (You could look at my "evidence" and give me some advice, perhaps.) And what about Timmy12 -- he was more of a newbie than Rosencomet -- what about stuff off his page? He was sucked into this whole thing because of me and didn't know what was happening. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion of Evicence moved to User talk:BostonMA/Mattisse/Evidence)

(from the Arbitration Evidence)

• Sep 2, 06:59: Sockpuppets are caught and blocked by Rdsmith4: [11]

This is not evidence of a CheckUser. This is just a list and I don't know on what it is based. I want to know. I have asked numerous people and have not gotten a reply. As far as I know, there was only one CheckUser ever done on me. I have looked through the archives and found nothing. I have emailed Rdsmith4 and others and received no reply. Can you find out this for me? Sincerely, Mattisse 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has bothered me as well. The process between the complaint about Mattisse using sockpuppets and the declaration of all those accounts as definitely being Mattisse's sockpuppet accounts is not clear. I'm not questioning the accuracy or veracity of the results as much as wondering what the proof was and who vouches for it. I'm looking around for this info but if you come across it would you mind dropping a note on my talk page? I'd appreciate it. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote you, but I don't know where that is -- maybe on your evidence page. I think I am nuts. Now when I go to user User:Dattat it says a sockpuppet of mine, but I swear that is how I found this: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shravak. Now I don't know how or where I found it. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess anyone can tag another user anything and it sticks. I thought there were rules but I guess not. I'm grieving the death of James Brown. He died yesterday. He was "the hardest working man in show business." I remember the first time I ever saw him, years ago. I was struck down. It is alive within my mind. I'm surprised I'm so affected. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that he was a trail blazer in music. I have also read that he would beat his wife. Please accept me despite my rudeness in mentioning this fact about someone who is mourned. --BostonMA ^talk 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess User:Dattat didn't know enough to deny it. We will never know. Seems from Contributors History that User:Shravak wasn't all that interested in editing. One wonders how many people are unjustly and arbitrarily blocked. How did you find that much out? Hope Pigman gets to the bottom of all this. He added a very good addition to his query. I'm glad you asked for all those CheckUsers as it is strange how one goes on "Wikibreak" but there is always someone to carry on with the same old thing. Pigman says it is a "strawman" strategy. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I learned about the tags was looking at the history of the user page. --BostonMA ^talk 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does your religion say about death? Whose user pages? Sincerely, Mattisse 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dattat's user page. --BostonMA ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that about him. Genius is independent of behavior in my mind. It is a direct transmission from the universe, and great transformers are not perfect people. I admire the genious of what he did. He touched my soul even though I treated wife beaters professionally. Art is separate. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent} Interesting new statement by Rosencomet entered into "evidence".

(quote)The importance of the Matisse issue is quite obvious, since the number of external links, the loss of civility in the discussion, the number of articles, the defensiveness and therefore the incidence of reverting, and the supposed "harassment" (which, in my opinion, was a case of some editors trying to give a multiple offender a taste of her own medicine)...

That is exactly what Hanamun Das told me the reason for stalking me was -- so I could understand the feeling of being stalked. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last arbitration edit, I wondering why you disregarded Pigman's comment. To me that is an important factor, as Pigman clearly states. [12] Sincerely, Mattisse 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rosencomet received some bad advice and some bad examples, but now seems to be trying to work with the community. I don't see any benefit in keeping that fire going. I am actually somewhat disappointed that focus contiues to revolve around rosencomet. If there is a potential for continuing conflict, I think it comes more from the parties to the arbitration who previously advised Rosencomet. As always, take my opinions with whatever salt required. --BostonMA ^talk 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And congratulations. You shine through. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you even more. Things like that bother me (mislabeling and so forth) so you have taken a weight off my mind. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]