User talk:BostonMA/Solicitations

Category:Marxist Wikipedians
We always need more members :-). Of course, I'm only guessing.  I suppose your name suggests you're in MA too, which has a Category:Wikipedians in Massachusetts.  So much in common, perhaps. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Seeking Help
I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me, including wikistalking, because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just launched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct. I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's.  Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks!--Mr j galt 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Districts of India
I saw you changing from "X district" to "X District". Maybe you like to join the supporters of "X District". Talk:List_of_Indian_districts. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship
I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to write a new policy Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

please take a look sometime
Talk:The_Hindu. Please dont revert lazytiger's last change as of when i write. I think, i put in the work, and he comes along, trashcans it all. for context see my recent edits there. also watch the disputes(recent) at the talk. only if you aren't occupied otherwise. thanks a lot.-Pournami 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hi Pournami, I did not quite understand your message."
 * yeah sorry abt the message being a little unclear on what i wanted you to do. ive edited my above comment a bit. well, perhaps it was a hasty rerequest for help. ignore it now. i was editing article, trying to make it more clear, let ppl see the entire issue. it was fine as long as lazytiger disagreed with me. once a seeming consensus was reached, he just "trashcanned" a few lines put in by me, because he thought it was too much detail. this last revert, let's say, infuriated me. ["trashcan" means; when there's a diff of opinion regarding content of article, i refrain from reverting the other editor's edit; only to stop or prevent edit-revert war. Nothing forces me to do so, just that i think talk-talk-talk is better than revert-revert-revert. it's a belief of mine, perhaps the latter way is indeed the better way. so he has just to revert my edit, and he will "win", so to speak. my additions are trashcanned. because i wont do a second revert. if i did a second revert instantly, it would in effect or in theory prevent him from 3rd revert for a day. lets say, me and him are having a shadow war, a cold war. is it worth the effort to try so hard to prevent edit rev war? and inspite of my best effort, he just.. ]. And in my short lived anger, i wanted to do something, but not actually revert the last revert. i thought i'd ask you, "what now?". but i dont want you to go on and revert his revert "in lieu of me". that was only what my prev message meant. if you still dont understand, hell, just forget it all. just assume, that i'm a little bit insane.
 * I understand that it is frustrating when you make edits and they are reverted.
 * not normally. i'm ok with any revert that looks ok to me or if something's fishy, there's some explanation done by the reverter. i may or may not agree with the rv and reason provided, but i respect the action done.
 * I have not edited The Hindu for some time due to the edit warring in that article.
 * for example, jossi and gurubrahma did some reverting recently, which i thought was not very good for the conflict in the article. sure, both times they reverted to my version, but, it only worsened the editwar situation. i was afraid, if i asked for help, you might do something similar, which i wanted to warn you against.
 * Please let me know what you think I could do that could improve the situation.
 * However, I must confess that my desire to see improvement in the article is counterbalanced by the desire to avoid becoming involved in what appears may be conflict without end.
 * i must confess that i think talk-talk-talk is better than rv-rv-rv
 * So please make your suggestions of how I may help, but understand that my help may be limited."
 * for now, dont edit, dont talk at the article; just watch if i'm doing alright. i dont need you to side with me, i assess you as a neutral person, tilting no more towards me than towards lazytiger. just let me know if it's ok if i talk to you about something. abt an article which you no longer wish to be drawn into because of edit-warring situation.


 * 1) i try to tackle the non npov-ness of the article by working on individual, small pieces of the article, rather than attempt to edit the whole article at one stretch. lets say, a few sentences a time. Tiger has confessed he is lazy; i might not be as lazy as he is. is it ok that i try to "improve" the article?
 * 2) is there someway that tiger can be "talked into" not reverting my changes without proper discussion? i'm not talking of no-rv; i'm talking of no-rv-w/o-talk. assuming there are two counter-forces trying to pull the progress of article in two opposite directions, can something of a cease-fire agreement be reached. so far, my unilateral cease-fire is a terrible failure. i'm prepared to continue the unilateral ceasefire, but i want him to agree to "no-rv-w/o-talk". i'm already following the same and will continue.
 * 3) regarding this issue. my approach, the direction in which i'm pulling the article is that of, providing detail to illustrate how biased the perspective of those who insist that the hindu is biased is. i provide detail, ask for source of opinion. i susupect much of hindu's crit in article to be OR. If it is not OR, then i appeal to  whoever put it in to say, "who" made this crit. once i ascertain who made this crit, i edit an individual segment, to read, "so and so said..". now after all this dragging and longwindedness, we have something of npov. then this guy comes along, reverts me, saying, too much detail, too long, too tedious.  why is the guy so intent on painting Ram a marxist? Ram is a marxist, he is sfi founder member, he's one of the best journo around. in the np his family owns, in the position he has earned by merit and not any other means, he does what he does. he isn't perfect, neither is d.k. hindu has crits, so state who crits and what the crit is. no or. i've asked for a source ot the crit, in failing to provide which, i might just delete the point as such. now that would provoke an angry reponse from tiger, would it not? so i wont do something silly as that. he wants it exactly as he says, no more, no less. who does he think he is? now, if i tell this to him, it will just intensify the conflict bw me n him. so i'm telling it to you, venting my anger at you, instead of at him. but i dont want you to go and revert him. i just want you to listen to this side of the debate, and say if my reasoning is sound. just dont do anything to help me pull the article's progress in the direction to which i want to pull it.
 * here above, i threatened, "i've asked for a source ot the crit, in failing to provide which, i might just delete the point as such". but i wont carry out that threat. because i respect the work of whoever that put it in, and follow agf to think that it was just overlooked, the need for citation/source. someone forgot to add the detail, i try to believe. am i not eligible for a little bit of respect "of that order of magnitude" the least? not me, personally, but the edits i made, the time i put in, not the time to make the edit, just in crosschecking, verifying citing etc? and afterall, what i put in was no OR, just plain "work", consisting of: "look around, find, phrase, weigh, put it in". No OR it was, please believe this that i say.
 * one issue: he wants to insist in the article "the hindu has given unequal coverage". "has given" is his jugdgement. "unequal" means, "unequal" in his opinion. if he insists i'll measure how many words anjali mody article is. and say: "the hindu *has*<--implying "has surely"--> given unequal coverage to <--what are in his opinion equally important(or perhaps reversely unequally important in his opin?)--> newsevents<--as the chief-ed, acting on his discretion thought so was right, that that was the proportion in which he wanted it--><--i wonder: who are we, to decide relative imp of two newsevents. i, nor he has any right to insert our judgement of the "relative equality" of the two newsevents into the article and assert our judgement. -->because the hindu carried a 100word pti report on the asi excavation report, and a 300word report by anjali mody reporting that certain historians disagreeed with asi, both on front page, a few days apart. <this last, "because.." part, i intend to include with a sarcastic, mocking tone, i confess. the words that follow "because" are all, pure fact, non opinion. with link if asked for. "because" is an insertion by me, to mock at the pov he is asserting. i hope you get the point. two segments of writing linked by a because. the first segment, an assertion of a pov of an unnamed source, possibly tiger(which means its OR); what follows because is just fact, reported by me after verification. ("100" and "300" are arbitrary numbers i put in, i confess.). I put in the hypothetical because to illustrate the point to you. i ask for removal of what precedes because, replacement with a more plainer, neutral statment of case. "ask for" means, not ask you, ask him.
 * what does he do? he deletes "because" and all that follows, and replaces it with a small summary that obscures the plainfact. what should i do?-Pournami 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Woggly
I would like to bring to your attention that a request for comment on User:Woggly's conduct has been filed. Thank you. Bonnieisrael 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforce Wiki Policy Equally - Block Woggly

 * After reading all the facts of this dispute - I really don't understand why Israelbeach has been blocked while Woogly goes on editing after making very clear and transparent personal attacks, legal threats and overall harrasments against Israelbeach.

I would expect that the managment of Wikipedia and its volunteer administrators would have enforced Wikipedia policy equaly for both sides. Wikipedia could have prevented the above lawsuit if it acted properly and swiftly. Maybe there is still time to avoid it. I have also been a victim of personal attacks by Woggly (being named a "sockpuppet" without any evidence). If anyone here is willing to meet or speak with me - you are most welcome. Some editors here are playing childish but very harmful games to other's personal and commercial reputations instead of focusing on the real mission of Wikipedia - creating a fine community service. Bluegrasstom 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a change at WikiProject India
Hi,

I'm proposing a major change related to WikiProject India. I'm trying to build a consensus. Your suggestions/views/ideas are very much valued. Please talk about it here. Cheers. -- Ch e  z  ( Discuss  /  Email  ) &bull; 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Would you please comment on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment Thanks --Aminz 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks BostonMA --Aminz 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)