User talk:Boson/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for the welcome. It still feels a bit like learning to ride a bicycle. (:-)Boson 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
I see you like translating pages. Would you like to help out at WikiProject Munich's traslation page? Kingjeff 13:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll have a lot of time in the near future, but I'll have a go. Since I'm not really into football etc., I'll try the Dachau article.

--Boson 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for signing up and doing a translation. I know you probably won't have much time so don't worry about it and you can work at your own pace. Kingjeff 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany
Welcome,, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template WikiProject Germany. A few features that you might find helpful:
 * The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
 * Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to [ watchlist it].
 * We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma (討論) 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mayors of Munich
Template:Mayors of Munich is now moved - thank you. Templates can be moved just like articles. You'll need to be carefull to check all usages though. Agathoclea 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we need the article, Mayor of Munich? Kingjeff 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany
Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels
Thanks for clearing up the matter of Goebbels' title, however, are you sure what he gained his doctorate in? As you have put it down as philosophy whereas Peter believed it to be on literature. There was alot of debate over this in the previous incarnations of the article aswell and was wondering if you have a reference for his Ph.D. Gavin Scott 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I didn't follow the previous debate, or I would have checked my sources more carefully. I mainly changed it to get rid of the "earned a doctoral thesis", which I thought sounded odd. I definitely read that he got a doctorate of philosophy, but I will check to see if I can cite a reliable source. I'm not sure I can do that tonight. I'm not sure what sort of doctorate you normally get from Heidelberg for literary subjects. I would still be a little cautious about calling it a "PhD", which you don't really hear in Germany. --Boson 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now found a press release from Heidelberg University (http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news06/2610romant.html "Dass Josef Goebbels 1919 in Heidelberg aufgrund einer Arbeit über ein romantisches Thema (Wilhelm von Schütz) zum Dr. phil. promoviert wurde, dürfte durchaus von symptomatischer Bedeutung sein.") referring to him getting a "Dr. phil.". This is IMO a Doctor of Philosophy, but I'll try to find confirmation of the meaning of the abbreviation). --Boson 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, Duden "Wörterbuch der Abkürzungen" (dictionary of abbreviations) confirms that "Dr. phil" stands for "Doctor philosophiae" (Similar to DPhil in English). So, though he had studied German Literature and Philosophy, he gained his doctorate in literature, but what he got was a Dr. of Philosophy. It would be normal at German universities to get a "Dr. phil" for many Humanities subjects and a "Dr. rer. nat." for many science subjects, but I think it very much depends on the university.--Boson 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Further your comments on my talk page and here, I still feel that the honorific is correct, or at least would have been thought so in Nazi Germany. But it's no big deal, and if you feel that it looks wrong, ok, take it out. It was only my opinion, and I can be wrong at least as often as the next man.--Anthony.bradbury 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem.--Anthony.bradbury 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Munich
WikiProject Munich has over 20 members now which should make for a good WikiProject. To help organize the project, please put down some ideas at the talk page. Kingjeff 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP Munich membership
I'm giving WP Munich members a choice of being active members, semi-active members or inactive members. Please sign up for the correct one. Kingjeff 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kissinger
Funny how that nomination was sitting there for a month before we both reviewed it at the exact same time. On the plus side, where mine was more minutia-based, you provided a solid overview, so it wasn't a waste of time for either of us—or that's how I'll rationalize it. Anyway, I thought I'd mention that there was a new quick fail criteria added the other day, for which Kissinger qualifies. I'm going to give it a couple more days on the seemingly off chance some work is done but I'll defer to you if you'd prefer another course. Doctor Sunshine  talk  19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. I'd been meaning to get around to it for a while, but I should have looked first and I'd have seen that you'd flagged it as in progress. But, as you say, the two reviews did complement each other to a certain extent. I'm happy with your decision. --Boson 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Done deal. Doctor Sunshine  talk  23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion in EU
Ya, prolly the entire section should concern itself exclusively with official positions the EU takes on the subject of religion and the free (or limited) practice thereof. What I did was to take what was there that made it sound like Jewish history in Europe has been rosy, which is far from the truth. As for "several genocide attempts", I was trying to work with text that was already flawed and in my Sudafed-induced stupor, it was quite a struggle... As for the citation request, the aftermath of the 2nd Jewish-Roman war clearly fills the definition of attempted genocide, and that's ignoring the chequered Jewish-Roman history prior thereto; later, the expulsion from Spain and forced conversions or death in Portugal both within the same decade were also genocidal; during the Crusades when 1/3 of Europe's Jews were slaughtered by marauding Crusaders (or by their countrymen who didn't actually go on the Crusades), especially under the rationale "why are we going to the Holy Land to kill the Infidels when we've got our own Infidels right here among us?", also constitutes attempted genocide. Even without the Holocaust, the charge of "attempted genocide" stands pretty well on its own merit. Tom e rtalk 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good...I've invited input from members of WP:JEW, here. Cheers, Tom e rtalk  23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this much better. Good work.  [[Image:Teeth.png]] Tom e rtalk  03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindenholzhausen
Hi Boson. Many thanks for the review, the comments and the upgrade. More to follow. --Feetonthedesk 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deforestation in Germany
Look, to quote Balabkins straight off: A lack of timber imports and the Allied exports of German timber were the two principal reasons for the shortage of pit props. Timber exports from the U.S.-occupied zone were particularly heavy. American military government sources admitted that such timber exports were necessary for the "ultimate destruction of the war potential of the German forests". Clear felling was widely practiced, and an extensive deforestation resulted which could "be replaced only by long forestry development over perhaps a century."

So, two issues, 1. Balabkins uses the word "admitted", which is why I felt it is OK to use it in Wikipedia. Since the author felt it was the correct word it is rather to make the text less NPOV by changing the word to a more bland one. 2. The years that this policy took place. The sources does not say when it started, nor when it ended. Almost certainly it was started already in 1945, along with everything else that the U.S. did. When it ended? Maybe it ended in 1947, more likely in 1948, but maybe not until even later. We cant tell from the source, thus it is false to provide specific years in the article based on when the books used to source two quotes were published.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources cited by Balabkins refer to specific years. "During the occupation" implies a much longer period.


 * Balabkins does not necessarily have to demonstrate a neutral point of view. In addition, since the Americans had specific orders to destroy the war potential it seems inappropriate to suggest that they were "admitting" something, whatever Balabkins' view of the matter. Indeed, since others state that the Americans in control in Germany were doing everything they could to ignore their orders, one could equally argue for "claim".


 * The report of the Military Governor states clearly: "As a basis for developing a future program looking toward control and ultimate destruction of the war potential of German forests a complete inventory of forest resources in the U:S. Zone is being made." This is IMO not consistent with "admit". Quite the contrary. --Boson 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you mean that they refer to specific years.


 * 1. We have the U.S. policy of clear-felling, unknown in temporal duration.


 * 2. "Admits": We have the source quoted by Balabkins and also by you here above which Balabkins uses when he interprets the purpose of the clear-felling. That is the purpose of relying on scholarly secondary sources, they are deemed competent to come up with interpretations and conclusions, based on available primary sources, that can be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedians are not permitted to do the same, when they do it's called original research and thats a no-no.


 * 3. If you know that there are scholarly sources that dispute Balabkins conclusions, then the way to go is to include Balabkins name together with his conclusions. E.g. According to Nicholas Balabkins U.S. forestry policy in Germany was bla bla bla, but according to XXX U.S. forestry policy in Germany was bla bla bla.


 * 4. The sources cited by Balabkins refer to specific years. "During the occupation" implies a much longer period., you are right and you are wrong. I've removed the sentence "during the occupation", since we don't know exactly when deforestation was taking place. The quotes given by Balabkins were published in 1946, 1948, and the additional supporting source in 1948. Their dates of publication do not necessarily have any connection to when policy was carried out, and they only are used by Balabkins for two purposes, back-up his conclusions regarding a) the reason for the policy, and b) the consequences of it. The source published in 1946 refers to the year that had passed since Potsdam  e.g. since August 1945. Presumably logging was begun already in 1945, even though the book was not published until 1946 but we can't know that from that source, we cant even know whether logging didn't start years later than 1946. The source published in 1948, about the consequences of U.S. logging, does it say that logging stopped in 1948? From Balabkins quote we cant judge that, only that by 1948 the consequences of the U.S. logging had become obvious. For all we know it could still be going on. --Stor stark7 Talk 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My main concern was that "during the occupation" strongly implied a longer period, probably lasting to 1955. The implications may have been different in the context of Balabkin's work. I think your solution of removing the reference to the duration is best.
 * As regards "admits", it includes the meaning of "states" but adds an implication that there was something underhand about it, that it was conceded only subsequently, when confronted. Since it is obviously a point of view that implies motives rather than a simple interpretation of events, it is not appropriate to use the word, even if Balabkins does. Using "admits" in Wikipedia is POV, even if it means only that Wikipedia is adopting Balabkins' POV. Reference to the sources cited by Balabkins underlines the fact that Balabkins, rather than stating a fact, is implying a POV (incidentally  one that is clearly at odds with the sources he cites to support his view, which addresses the reliability of Balabkins as an authority). --Boson 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain how you in your research came to the conclusion that Balabkins conclusions are at odds with the sources he quotes. And also how you feel you can make judgments on his authority. From the correspondence I've had with history scholars on the subject (admittedly only one e-mail that mentions Balabkins) the Balabkins book in question is treated as one of the most pre-eminent works, possibly the best, on the topic of occupied Germany.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not his factual conclusions that I am objecting to but the use of the word "admitted" (other than in an attributed verbatim quote). Assuming you quoted Babkins properly in context, it's not my research, but Babkins' own research that makes the use of the word "admitted" inadmissible. The document he cites as evidence for his facts states something quite clearly and explicitly. It is also quite clear from the rest of the Wikipedia article that what is stated in the report is in line with the explicit orders to the military government. Babkins does not appear to dispute these facts. If he does, please tell me where. In these circumstances, the use of the loaded word "admitted" is not appropriate. It is not something that can be effectively disputed because it is not a matter of facts but of insinuating language. That is why the word has no place in Wikipedia (unless you want to use a word like "state" in the Wikipedia text and quote Babkins verbatim in a footnote.--Boson 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psych less Type words! .

List of member fraternities of the Cartellverband
Hello, I am Thw1309. You rated the article List of member fraternities of the Cartellverband as start class and added comments in behalf of the five criteria, showing that the article failed the criteria one and four. I want to thank you for doing so, because this enabled me to improve the article. At least I hope so ;-). I removed your rating to gain a rating on the now changed article. You rated the article start again. This time you did not leave any explainations. All the criteria you proved showed a "criteria met". Please could you tell me the reasons of your rating? --Thw1309 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that. I didn't check the history, so I didn't realize that you had deliberately removed the class etc. I thought I had assessed it, and when I found it in the list of unassessed articles I thought I must have inadvertently forgotten to enter the rating. The second time around, I was not able to immediately confirm the information given on the basis of the Web site given, so I made a note to myself to have a closer look later but did not rate the criterion as failed. As regards criterion 4 (grammar), I thought there were a couple of minor mistakes in the English (e.g. "it's" instead of "its" and plural "informations"), though I wasn't sure they justified a fail on grammar -- but I wasn't happy entering "yes", so I left that open too. I would suggest the following changes:
 * "Each fraternity is listed under its umbrella organization and is identified by a token consisting of the first letter of the umbrella organization and the membership number, based on the date of entry into the Cartellverband."
 * "Information on the fraternities of the Cartellverband are taken from the Cartellverband's official list" (with footnotes citing the publication details (I like the Citebook template, but that is a matter of taste) and the Web sites also in footnotes). I would not abbreviate Cartellverband to "CV" because "CV" is very common in English for "Lebenslauf". --Boson 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I followed your first advice. Thanks for helping. I could not put your second acvice into practice, although you are absolutely riht about this. I already tried to do so, when I reacted on your first rating, but the table "did not like it" ;-). Whatever I do, the table will appear at the end of the article. Now, half of the text of the article is written under the table but is shown above it. I am used to show the references under the text at the end of the page. It looks quite stupid above the text. Therefore I decided to solve the problem the way you can see now. It seemed to be the smaller evil. --Thw1309 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed your rating of the article from B to start because I think there is to much empty space within the list. To recieve a B rating, the article should be more completed. I asked for your reasons only to be able to improve the article. I have to tell you, that I was very impressed by your way of rating and very thankfull about your help. Therefore I do the following. --Thw1309 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject European Union!
--Thw1309 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union
Hello, I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Târgul Frumos‎
Do you really think it's just a Start article? --Thus Spake Anittas 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the individual assessments, I thought the article was B-class on structure, grammar and additional material. I failed the References classification because I think a few citations with page references are needed for the major points. I expect you could easily provide those. I didn't assess content; that is probably best left to someone with greater knowledge and/or better access to books on the subject. Personally, I would have liked a couple more sentences providing the wider context. --Boson 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Second archiving:

Hi Boson, Thanks for the welcome message! As you know, I am inexperienced here and I was pleased and surprised that "someone" stumbled over the article and took the time to proofread it, spiff it up, and get it in conformance with Wikipedia conventions. Thanks also for the links. Mary Masters 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Europe Proposal
Hi, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in a new "WikiProject:Europe"? It would cover non-EU pan European elements and more national elements where there isn't a project to cover it (e.g. there is no project for Slovenia). I am just trying to get an idea of numbers before I propose it but if you have comments on the idea please see the Discussion on WPEU. Thanks for your time! -  J Logan t: 08:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks!--Boson 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

EU page
Hi, sorry to bring up the European Union article again, I know it can get tedious. Basically it is about the city table. Small point but we've been wanting to replace it, thus far Lear has been the only one wanting the old and has reverted any changes. A summery of options has been written up, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a comment. Don't mind what you pick as it will either help convince Lear to compromise for once or it will legitimise what he is doing (if he has support I don't mind, so long as it is not him alone). See here for the summery. If you could pop an opinion I'd be grateful before it turns into 3 pages of "standard content" vs "consensus" again. I understand if you don't want to or don't have time to. Thanks! - J Logan t: 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, good to see you still working around. Sorry to bring this up again again and again, we've got another summery: numbers of cities. If you have time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Thanks. - J Logan t: 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland / Rep. of Ireland
"attempt to avoid confusion while respecting sensitivities of those on both sides of the border."

There is no consusion. The only official name of the State is 'Ireland' or 'Éire'. 'Rep. of Ireland' is only an official description. If you believe this is causing confusion, perhaps you should change the UK to it's long form name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Wiki01916 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no need to use the full official names. We don't do that for the other countries. The point (to me) is that people who do not already know the facts might think that "Ireland" actually refers to a single state covering the whole island and that there are therefore no significant differences between northern and southern Ireland. Especially in an EU context this is not the case, for instance: the euro is not legal tender in Northern Ireland, EU labour laws apply differently, and there are potential differences in the free movement of nationals from new members in eastern Europe. The potential for confusion is indicated by another editor's comment to the effect that it doesn't really matter, since both parts of Ireland belong to the EU. This is why -- though I understand the logic behind using "Ireland -- I think it is best to disambiguate in parentheses. It would be possible to use "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but that might be even more confusing, since Northern Ireland would (lingusitically) appear to be part of "Ireland". Personally, I have nothing against "Éire'", but I don't think it would be understood internationally by itself. Would "Ireland (Éire)" "be acceptable?--Boson 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Boson.

I believe that it should be left as just 'Ireland'.

'Republic of Ireland' (ROI) is usually used in articles that relate to Ireland / N.Ireland, when one must distinguish between the two political entities. 'Éire' is the official name of the State in Irish, so you wouldn't use it in an English language article, just as you wouldn't use 'España', for example. 'Éire' is also the Irish name for the whole island of Ireland.

The majority of Wiki articles refer to the ROI as just 'Ireland'. Are you suggesting that these should be changed too? I don't see why the EU article should be any different.

I can find countless examples where 'Ireland' is used instead of ROI by doing a quick search on Google for "members of the EU".


 * Wiki - EU States
 * The European Commission's Delegation - Members of the EU
 * Europa - EU Countries
 * US Department of State - EU States
 * France Diplomatie - EU members
 * About.com - EU Members
 * Advice Guide - Members of the EU
 * CRW Flags - EU States

Conclusion:

"Ireland" is the only offical name of the State and it the name is officially recognised as the sovereign State occupying five-sixths of the island.

Look forward to a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki01916 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too worried about leaving "Ireland" in this context, though I would have preferred to add the descriptive phrase "Republic of Ireland" for disambiguation/clarity. The politicians have unfortunately presented us with a problem that is not easily soluble. If we want to use the official names there is a danger of being counterfactual or ambiguous (or at least appearing to express a POV). The same problem existed with West Germany before reunification, but at least it was only the short name (Germany) that was ambiguous. Some would have claimed that "Federal Republic of Germany" was counterfactual; I believe there were diplomatic problems with Spain because the Germans didn't want to accept that one could not distinguish between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "German Federal Republic".--Boson 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

European Union Emission Trading Scheme
Hi Boson, you added the tag "inline citations needed" to the article European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme. Could you please be a little more specific. Which facts are not supported by citations? Maybe we could change the tag for specific hints, using the "Fact-tag". Thanx, --Spitzl 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to address a couple of minor concerns:
 * there are no full citations (including date of access etc.) in a "References" section. This is not a great problem as long as there are only inline links with no references to print matter, but I'm not sure what happens if such references are added. Personally, I would prefer use of footnotes with ref/reflist and Cite web but I didn't want to interfere with any differing consensus.
 * I think two statements could do with citations:
 * the first sentence ("is the largest . . .")
 * the statement about "infringement proceedings against Austria" etc.
 * The Nofootnotes template I used was probably not the best choice, so please feel free to alter as you think fit. --Boson 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your quick answer. I agree with your concern about the references. I would also use "cite web" etc, but there are different styles. The problem is, I'm not sure how specific information about the source is presented using the current style. So I'll leave it the way it is. I will replace your nofootnote-tag and add fact-tags to the statements you are concerned with. --Spitzl 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ECTS grading scale
Hi, Boson. I noticed you [ added] a merge tag to the ECTS grading scale article. Well, I've been expanding it and I'd like to know your opinion about how it is now. Do you think the merge tag should still be kept? Waldir 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Boson, thanks for your reply I am still not done with that article, but as far as I'm concerned, it wont change much more. I'll wait for some time and if nobody says anything I'll remove the fusion tag. :) Waldir 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after a while, nobody pronouciated in favor or against the removal of the tags, so I [ did] [ it] :) Thanks for your help. Waldir 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nürtingen
I removed the tag. At first, I didn't realise that the EU project was only for the broad scope of things, but I will be glad to help any way I can. If there is any special thing I can do to help please let me know. Illinois2011 | Talk 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment ?
Maybe you want to comment this. Lear 21 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you ever voted and commented here? :, ,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.6.74 (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mulled wine
I didn't realize ^^. I edited, decided to make some changes, and re-edited. I had no idea until I saw your message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwolfen (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I.U.S.W.L.S.S.
Hi Boson, Im new to wiki, did you comment on my article I.U.S.W.L.S.S. ? I dont know what that is all about. Douggiephresh

(Moved to bottom of talk page and added heading)--Boson (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Boson. got your message re adding at the bottom not the top. still finding my way around. oops, forgot a title. Daiyounger (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Literal Translation into English
Further to my original message on the project page and your reply, i would offer the example of the entry for "John George 111, Elector of Saxony". the sentence " In addition, his language instruction as well as learning the building of fortresses and the warfare, apart from a strictly Lutheran education " actually makes no sense. i think it means that as well as recieving a Lutheran education, he was taught languages, and about warfare and the building of fortresses. Daiyounger (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation a machine! that makes sense. some languages are like lego, bits fit into each other with a satisfying click; english is like a collection of wooden blocks badly cut by the child's father; be careful or all the whole thing falls over. taken note of your comments, many thanks. Daiyounger (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

EU semi protection
Maybe you want to support this. Lear 21 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuous editing
Hey Boson, this is HARSH!!!

Do you want me top link this to a couple of thousand Wiki pages for reference? ;) If you want verification just visit any more or less substantial and prominent article talk page :) And trust me, there is nothing original about this research since I bet 99.9% of Wikipedians have encountered it, jut never put a name to the experience.

It is very much a unique description of something as unique as the Wikipedia itself. Can it be categorised as Wikipedia? --Mrg3105 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added some more information and citation details on the film editing technique and removed the part on Wikipedia, which was unsourced, and apparently original research.I don't think the contention that it has been encountered by many Wikipedians makes it any less original research. It might be more appropriate in a different namespace.--Boson (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to make suggestions under which neamespace it would be appropriate? How would you source a new phenomena?--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

EU intro
Your recent stance is convincing, considering the importance of the economic size(GDP) of the EU. Keep up this opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.19.156 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Plaxall
Can we remove the remaining flags now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe all remaining problems have been fixed with the Plaxall article flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.249.106 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have now removed the remaining flags.--Boson (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - - Newsletter Bot 'Talk  14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)''

Otto Zobel
Why did you change Chung-Kwei Chang to Chung-Key Chang? That's how he spelt his name in the paper.

Also, I see you put a biography rating tag on the talk page. Should Christopher Henn-Collins have one too? I created that article about a month ago. Thanks  Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! I have changed it back. I was using a spell checker, but I thought I was only making actual changes manually. That must have snuck past me. I added a project tag to attract the attention of Biography Project members and invite an assessment from the appropriate task force. I did some copyediting to facilitate an assessment as at least B class, which I thought possible. I have also added a WP:WPBIO tag to the other article. --Boson (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Phew, for a minute I thought the Chinese had changed their phonetics again and we were going to have to learn new names for Peking and Mao Tse Tung etc all over again!  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dein Link auf WT:MoS
"Die aufgerufene Spezialseite ist nicht vorhanden." Welche Seite meinten Sie? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Metric Directive
If Directive 80/181/EEC survives its deletion vote in 3 days time--which looks likely--have you considered accessing Directive 80/181/EEC and hitting the 'move' button? This lets you to rename the article into the Metric Directive as you suggested. You just have to give a reason--that its relevance from a 1979 EEC directive appears questionable or the title is very bureaucratic whereas Metric Directive is more relevant today, etc. At present, there no article on 'Metric Directive' so you can do this. If every Wikipedia article on regulations was titled 'Directive XX', people would fall asleep. In the US, every WWII veteran knows of the G.I. Bill rather than its technical term--PL345. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it survives, I will move it and expand it a bit, since a lot has happened in the last 12 months (though the amendment legislation is still pending, I believe) and I have done some more research. When it was created, I think the original author just made a very short stub to link to from an article on a court case in England; I later added a couple of sentences to give some indication of its notability, but I know I didn't do a very good job, being rather pressed for time. I have tentatively concluded that the (semi-) official title is now "Units of Measurement Directive", though it was previously referred to in the press as the "Metrics Directive", so I would probably create a Redirect for that as well. I also didn't like the title. It was probably then that I came across a discussion on standardizing the names for articles on directives and shelved any further action for the time being (and then forgot about it). If I recall correctly, the discussion was not on the talk page for the EU project, so I will have to have another look. I think the main problem was that some directives did not have a short official name and there may have been discussion about whether to include both a name and the "number". If I can find it, it might be worth reviving the discussion on naming conventions at WP:EU. The current status of the legislation seems to be that (probably because of uncitable  protests in the UK and expected trade problems with the USA, together with efforts to get the constitution or reform treaty through) the EU decided to have "consultations", and on the basis of the results the Commission decided in late 2007 to propose prolonging the use of dual labelling etc. indefinitely. This appears to have been approved by the EP and the EESC (around December 2007), meaning that amending legislation should soon be published. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. After some reflection, I suppose Directive 80/181/EEC has some significance for the gradual application of the metric system which is the predominant system of measurement in the world except for the UK and the USA/Canada. However, the title is a real put off! Only a bureaucrat could think of calling a legislation about the metric system by its purely technical name. I could tell this legislation was somewhat dated from its reference to the EEC. The EEC's name was changed in 1992, I believe. I never dreamed it dated to 1979 though...but it would have much relevance for the British. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't come across very well (or at all) at the moment, but I'll try to add some material to make it clearer why this 1979 directive is especially relevant in the 2006-2010 time frame (the main problem is that it takes a lot of research to get all the facts right). The thing about EU directives is that, unlike EU regulations, they are not immediately binding on normal citizens but oblige the national governments to adopt national legislation giving effect to the directive within a specific time frame, usually a few years. I think this directive insisted on metric labelling within a few years but allowed dual labelling to be continued until, I think, 1989, this later being extended to 1999 and then, finally, to 2009, the indications being that there would be no further extension. As from 2010, it would (probably) have been illegal for advertising or labels to additionaly give weights and measures in inches, pounds etc. The US government seemed to wake up to the significance of this in 2006, suddenly realizing that American goods would have to be re-packaged for sale in Europe, advertising would have to be changed, etc.; they probably also realized that the EU can impose very serious fines for deliberately ignoring EU law. I suspect the EU Commission also woke up to the fact that this also presented a problem for EU companies selling to the US. This is in addition to the protests in the UK by a sizeable minority who object to what is perceived as a would-be European superstate riding roughshod over UK cultural sensitivities (Nazi jack-boots seem to be the preferred image). As regards the "EEC" designation, "EEC" was replaced by "EC" (European Community) some time ago, but the EC remains an integral part (pillar) of the EU and is still often used in official documents, partly because the EC has a legal personality but the EU doesn't. This will change when the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force.--Boson (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew my application for deletion: I trust you will change the article once it survives the deletion process. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Directive 80/181/EEC has been saved. Good luck on rewriting this bureaucratic legislation and changing its awful title. Artene50 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreignchar
I don't think the closing admin will reconsider. See his comments on WP:DRV Agathoclea (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep the closing admin made some changes to the template after undeleteing. He moved them parameters around to be able to do away with the foreignchars template.

Have a look at the editsummary I did for the first few I reverted. Also get the link to the list of bot edits as well as his comments on the changes from User_talk:Happy-melon - Can you copy my editsummary when doing further reverts? Agathoclea (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulrike Meinhof
Your work on the Ulrike Meinhof article has been very constructive but there are a couple of changes I think are a little off stylistically. I don't understand why Meinhof's Bibliography should be moved beneath references (as this seems illogical, unlike how most references texts are presented and unlike say George Orwell or John Prescott), although if you can cite a style diktat I will have to relent. I also feel that the edit of 'the banned KPD (German Communist Party)' to 'the KPD, the banned German Communist Party' is detrimental, if only because it implies that there was another 'Communist Party' active in West Germany in 1958 which was not banned. I may have missed a positive aspect of this edit, however. Apologies, if I'm being overly aggressive or even offensive. (When you can tell you're too tired to edit Wikipedia...) Thanks, Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force under wikiproject Europe
Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Obverse & Reverse
Hi there,

I will provide the sources, do not worry. The problem is that now they are not in the shape I would want them to be in order to be referenced from Wikipidia. Once that is changed I will add the references. Do you know this site: http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/ ? It is referenced all over Wikipedia as a good source of information about the euro; that will be my source once I clarify one item with them.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Well their FAQ at http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/faq seems to refer to a national obverse side: "'Communication from the Commission on the recommendation of 29 September 2003 concerning a common practice for changes to the design of national obverse sides of Euro circulation coins' (10 October 2003) OJ 2003 C 247/5. Official Journal of the European Union."
 * Here are some more references from the EUR-LEX Web site:
 * http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003H0734:EN:HTML+
 * http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:373:0001:0006:EN:PDF
 * http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:264:0038:0039:EN:PDF
 * http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004AB0013:EN:HTML
 * And the ECB main euro coin Web page at http://www.ecb.eu/bc/euro/coins/html/index.en.html has "'The obverse sides show country-specific designs, surrounded by the 12 stars of the European Union.'"
 * The ECB and the Commission appear to follow the common convention of the obverse (heads) being the side with a head on it (which is the national side) and the reverse (tails) being the other side.


 * The Bundesbank seems to prefer the other way round. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of different usage by the ECB; perhaps they deliberately insist on technical distinctions made by numismatists.


 * This quote from http://www.numismatics.org/dpubs/termsandmethods/#body.1_div0.3_div1.2 seems relevant


 * "the obverse is "the side of the coin bearing the more important legends or types" [Ger. Hauptseite or Vorderseite]; since coinage is a prerogative of state, and most states have been monarchies, the more important face is most frequently that which we would today call "heads", after the head of the ruler that gave the coin its validity. . ."


 * "In many branches of numismatics, however, including the classical, the term obverse denotes the lower die and reverse the upper or hand-held die. The fact that the obverse usually bears the more important image, or "head", is the result of technical considerations. Dies absorbed stress at differential rates: reverses tended to break more frequently than obverses because they absorbed the impact of the hammer directly and were not shielded by the flan. Since the execution of a portrait, be it of a god, hero, or human, usually required more care and more talented artisans to produce--in short, was more expensive to produce--minters favored this face of the coin by making it the protected die; this face was usually the obverse."


 * I would suggest that in the euro articles we use the terms "common side" and "national side" and possibly explain who appears to use which convention (perhaps in a note. In the article on Obverse and reverse‎ we should explain the different usages in the main text.


 * --Boson (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a couple of days to sort this out, if not possible to get reliable sources then I agree with you that it is simpler to use "common side" and "national side". Exactly the FAQ in that site is what I am asking them to change, since in their forum, one of the administrators clearly said that the common side is the obverse.  Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew I had this discussion pending some where but I did not remember where exactly. Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a note that you were right, the obverse of the euro coins is the national side. I think the articles have been re-written to fix this point.  Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Boson on German Wikipedia
I was wondering, if you are also editing the German Wikipedia with the same user name. The user pages do not really look like so, but it's the same handle. Perhaps, you don't mind telling. Tomea s y T C 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is another user with the same name on German Wikipedia. --Boson (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Late Happy New Year !
Dear Boson, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you want to support this: EU inclusion in lists. Would be much appreciated. Even a short comment helps to keep the longterm established version. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ian Sommerville
Hello,. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Ian Sommerville" section of my talk page. You can [ remove this User:Jerzy/tb -generated notice] at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends " < !-- START Jerzy/tbnh -->" and " < !-- Jerzy/tbnh END -->". -- 22:01, 9 January 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Ian Sommerville" section of my talk page. You can [ remove this User:Jerzy/tbnh-generated notice] at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends " < !-- START Jerzy/tbnh -->" and " < !-- Jerzy/tbnh END -->". --Jerzy•t 22:27, 9 January 07:58, 9 February 2009 2009 (UTC)


 * False timestamps in both of the above corrected; sorry! --Jerzy•t 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 

End of second archiving.