User talk:Boxter1977

Help Needed
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Books edit to Benazir Bhutto
Good catch!! Edit Centric (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shout out
Thanks again for all the assists on Benazir Bhutto, you made my user page, and my day! Edit Centric (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice mediation, Ted Kennedy, dates
Kudos. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry David Thoreau
Re: Henry David Thoreau... Please don't remove a fact tag without addressing the problem. I'm hoping you can provide a reliable source that explains Thoreau's quote as referring to the Harvard diploma. Otherwise, it appears to be original research, which is not acceptable. The source should show that Thoreau meant to make this allusion, not a source that shows diplomas were made out of sheepskin. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to look into original research and reliable sources. Any Wikiproject is not considered a reliable source because it might not be accurate, or stable/static. What you need to do is find a third-party published source by a Thoreau biographer or scholar that makes this connection, rather than making your own argument or connection. That source should say, basically, that Thoreau's quote about sheepskin was a reference to the Harvard diploma. As far as adding a question on this topic to the article talk page... well, that's not a bad idea. I chose to contact you directly because you were the originator of the content. It's also a courtesy so it doesn't look like I'm going behind your back or trying to gang up on you (that's not a policy, just a personal thing). You'll get used to the environment here (and I'll forewarn you, the 19th century literary world on Wikipedia can be quite cutthroat... there are a few of us that take this stuff very seriously and set the standards very high. Trust me: it's a good thing!). I hope you enjoy the Wiki-world and stick around; let me know if you ever need help. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonham Carter
Spanish and Jewish are both ethnicities, American and Buddhist (Tiger Woods) are not. It's not that "no Jews in Spain are to be taken as fully Spanish", but since the article mentions that her maternal grandmother was Jewish, it's probably useful to mention that her grandfather was part Jewish, too. I don't know, maybe we can combine the two versions? How about -
 * Helena Bonham Carter's maternal grandfather, Eduardo Propper de Callejón, was a Spanish diplomat of half Jewish ancestry; he served as a Minister-Counsellor at the Spanish Embassy in Washington, D.C., and helped save thousands of French Jews from the Holocaust.

All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your conciliatory approach, Wraith. I do think it would be salient to mention that he is of Jewish extraction, particularly in light of what he did for the French Jews. To me, it's relatively insignificant that he was a Minister-Counsellor in DC, but I have no argument with leaving that in. I am a little uncomfortable with "half Jewish ancestry" as I would argue that Judaism is a religion and only a quasi ethnicity. But that is another story. I can't think of a better phrasing than your suggestion, so if you are happy, let's go with that.
 * Oh yeah, sounds good, go ahead and add it all in if you want to. I always thought "extraction" was a little kitschy (I usually change the word whenver I see it on Wikipedia); "ancestry" is much better. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to WP:NPOV
Dear Boxter, this is to inform you that I have reverted the changes you made to WP:NPOV. The reversion is not a pointer to the quality of the edit you made, but simply to the fact that WP:NPOV being an article that defines a pillar of editing on Wikipedia, it would be logical to first discuss the proposed changes on the talk page of the article. You should go ahead with the change after gaining consensus. Please feel free to contact me directly on my talk page in case you have any questions with the reversion. Thanks and warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Wifione, thanks for the heads up that you did that. I really appreciate that. I did not realize that it was not the done thing to do that sort of editing without gaining consensus first. I will post something on the talk page of the article. I wonder, though, if there is some way to avoid this confusion in the future by having the page either be locked, or else have a notice automatically come up saying "please note, changes to this article will be reverted unless a consensus to this change has been first obtained via the page's talk page." No criticism at all of your reversion, but just a thought on how we can improve Wikipedia even more in the future. :) Boxter1977 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just posted something on the talk page. And in doing so I also saw that there was a notice on the talk page not to edit the main page without consensus. But, since you can (and I did!) edit the main page without looking at the talk page, I wonder if there is some way to move that notice to, eg., the top of your screen as soon as you start to edit the main page? Do you know who I should forward this suggestion to? Thanks! :) Boxter1977 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wifione, I saw the new notice both on top of the main page, as well as on top of the page when you go to edit it. That is a great help! May I suggest a change to the wording? Because the change that I had originally made was not substantive (i.e., it had no effect on policy), seeing the new notices probably would not have stopped me. It seems to me that the policy should either be changed to something stronger (i.e., "do not edit this page except to correct spelling/grammar without first obtaining consensus on the talk page), or else something more permissive. Another formulation that I think makes a nice boundary is what is said on top of the "Be bold" page WP:BB It says, in part, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus". That seems sensible to me. What do you think? Boxter1977 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Wifione, I saw the new notice both on top of the main page, as well as on top of the page when you go to edit it. That is a great help! May I suggest a change to the wording? Because the change that I had originally made was not substantive (i.e., it had no effect on policy), seeing the new notices probably would not have stopped me. It seems to me that the policy should either be changed to something stronger (i.e., "do not edit this page except to correct spelling/grammar without first obtaining consensus on the talk page), or else something more permissive. Another formulation that I think makes a nice boundary is what is said on top of the "Be bold" page WP:BB It says, in part, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus". That seems sensible to me. What do you think? Boxter1977 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Claude AnShin Thomas
Thanks for taking an interest in Claude AnShin Thomas. It's good to have editors like yourself trying to improve it. I noticed you removed the Queen 2000 material from page 439, namely: "The march began in Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate, partly retracing a route concentration camp prisoners followed before the end of World War II." Do you have any reason to believe this information is incorrect or that there was a good reason to remove it? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Viriditas, I admire all the hard work you must have done to make this article what it is. What a thorough and well-researched job you have done. It is inspiring! I am sorry I didn't realize the reference was from page 439. I just saw the Queen reference, so when I looked up the book and read the Nipponzan-Myōhōji section and didn't see the reference, I assumed it was an oversight. My apologies for that. The point may yet be worth clarifying, however, as there are two other reasons I was a bit unclear about the Brandenburg Gate part of the story. The first is that the pilgrimage is also described as starting in Auschwitz. The second is that I was part of that pilgrimage for five months (though not joining the group until Vienna), and I didn't remember any mention of the Brandenburg Gate. The official pilgrimage certainly started in Auschwitz, but now I am wondering if my memory is playing tricks on me and whether there was something smaller, perhaps unofficial, in Berlin. However, online resources such as: http://www.jyunrei.net/jyunreij95edx.htm don't seem to mention it. I wondered, also, if it were possible that the Brandenburg Gates were confused with the gates of Auschwitz? There was certainly a commemoration (and retracing of steps) of the victims of the holocaust there: http://www.ifor.org/articles/Praying_at_Auschwitz.pdf Is that possible? If you would like to revert my edit pending clarification of that point, that's fine, of course. I remember Claude very well from the Pilgrimage, by the way, and I stayed with his son (and one or two others) in a hotel in Hanoi for several days. Ah, the old days! If you are in touch with him, please give him my regards. :) Boxter1977 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me! :) I agree, it's strange that Queen was the only source on this, which is precisely why I didn't revert.  Definitely a red flag.  Good edits!  Please continue to review when you have time.  I would really like to see the article brought to GAC standards, but I feel it is missing at least one essential section regarding Thomas' approach to Buddhism, which I admit, should be easy to write, but I haven't gotten around to it.  I know, for example, that there is something to be said for his bell meditation technique, the street retreats, and more about the veteran retreats.  I'm sure there is also more to add about mindfulness.  If you have any insight in the area of practice that would help a great deal.  Let me know what you think, particularly in areas that need more work or improvement.  Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)