User talk:BostonMA/Misc Archive 1

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

Wikipedia Bill of Rights, etc

First of all, I want to thank you for your comments in various disputes in which I have been involved here recently. I should have responded more quickly, but I wanted to couple my thanks to my response to your request for input on the proposed "Bill of Rights." My response (which has ended up being a full-length, extensive and extensively revised draft proposal) took much longer than I had anticipated to complete. I'm placing the draft on the talk page of the "Bill of Rights"/User prerogatives proposal; I hope you find it useful in continuing/reopening the discussion. If you think another location would be more suitable, please feel free to move it wherever you see fit. Best, Monicasdude 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that; it looks like I lost some text cutting and pasting. I think I've fixed it now. Monicasdude 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is vandalism

That is not vandalism, it is a content dispute, and it will be solved as soon as you present a reliable source to back up the claims you keep re-adding. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is edits which are not made in good faith with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. I showed you the existing references, and I told you that I could provide many more if you had doubts. Among the references I provided are [1][2]. You deleted with the comment "no reliable source added". I can no longer assume that your deletions are in good faith, but are perhaps WP:Point. --BostonMA 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Vandalism is: any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia. Now, the new scientist article was written prior to the event, and is an estimate of who might attend, and Karl Grobl is neither reliable, nor is his reporting on what happened, rather what may happen in the future "By the time the 2001 Kumbh Mela ends on February 21st, approximately 70 million saints, sinners, Sadhus, faith healers, preachers, gurus, charlatans and devotees from across India and the world will have participated in perhaps the single most colossal gathering of humanity since the dawn of time."--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my not quoting the vandalism policy to your liking. Do you seriously doubt the accuracy of the statement or that I can provide reliable sources? If not, then I believe that your changes are "a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia." Please cease. The purpose apparently being WP:Point, perhaps the point being "if you don't jump through the hoops I set up for you, I will delete material I do not doubt is correct." I'm sorry, I don't see such actions as a good faith content dispute. --BostonMA 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA, welcome to the club of Editors Who Fight Irishpunktom's Lack of Good Faith Editing (EWFILGFE). ;-) Netscott 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there is a difference between vadalism and a Content Dispute! We are having a dispute over the content of an article. It is not vandalism, now, the source you have added quotes figures of 30 and 80 [[Lakh], significantly less than what you are using it as a reference for. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep deleting that it is the largest religious gathering on earth. Do you dispute this? Estimates of the crowd size vary, as estimates in that range necessarily must. If you would like to say that the crowd was estimated to be such and such, that is fine. Or, if you would like to say that estimates of the number of people range from x to y, that is also fine. Deleting the fact that it is the largest religious gather on earth, (according to some, the largest gathering on earth of any type), well that is not fine. That fact is well documented by reputable sources, and deleting it, unless you sincerely believe that it may be in error, is, I'm afraid vandalism. Don't do it. --BostonMA 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're about five or six in the club (at least, there are probably others who are silent members). Shall I include you in our roster? LOL! Netscott 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that, altough it being in bold is against policy, but you kept reverting it back in. You keep adding this figure of seventy million, but that was added as specultion prior to the event. You allowed it to be viewed as tough only hindus were present, despite a cited BBC article reporting on India using the event to attract (non-Hindu) tourists. Your article reports as tough these "70 million" people were all present at the one time, despite each of the articles cited referring to it being an event which lasts over one month. Again, this is a content dispute, and the one not assuming good faith here, really, is you. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am not assuming good faith. I came to the conclusion that you were not acting in good faith. If you would like me to assume good faith again, please answer me these questions:

Do you doubt that this was the largest religious gathering in the world?
Do you doubt that being the largest religious gathering in the world is a notable fact that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?
Do you doubt that Wikipedia would be negatively impacted if this information is removed?

As for your other comments, it is not "my" article. It is Wikipedia's article and it was written by many editors, most of them not myself. If you would like to have a genuine discussion about shortcomings that may appear in the article, you are welcome to start such a discussion, although I suggest that you begin in the article talk page and not here in my user talk page. --BostonMA 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevent, the claims you make and revert in, need to be sourced properly. Its not about opinion, its not even about truth, its about verifiabiity. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant. An essential difference between vandalism and a simple content dispute is the intent of the editor. --BostonMA 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, assume good faith and deal solely with the issues surrounding the content dispute. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I believe that you understand that it is a fact that Kumbh Mela has been the largest religious gathering in the world. I also believe that you understand that Wikipedia would be harmed by the removal of such facts. Putting these together, I believe that your removal of this fact amounted to vandalism. If you want me to assume good faith, you need to address these issues. You began this thread because I posted several test templates on your talk page. You are now asking me to treat your edits as a simple content dispute. There are undoubtedly genuine content issues worthy of discussion. However, I will not treat your edits solely as a content dispute, because I believe they constituted vandalism. If that bothers you, you may address the concerns I have expressed. --BostonMA 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Indian planet names

I'm editing a section of the word planet in the English Wikipedia and was thinking of adding a brief mention of the Indian names for the planets and their origins. However I am a bit confused. I know there are many languages in India, but do they all use the same Navagraha-based names for the planets? Thank you for your help. Serendipodous 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply; yes that was helpful, but I was also wondering if what they denoted (ie, the gods) was the same, regardless of language, in much the same way that the countries of east Asia use the five Chinese elements to identify the planets, even if their own respective words for them may be different. And would that be true for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the other countries of the Indian subcontinent as well? Serendipodous 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaya Patra

Instead of renaming it, you may want to try a re-direct. It is not wrong to call it an NGO, but somehow it doesn't resemble typical Indian NGOs; let it remain. After some investigations, I have found that there is nothing common between ISKCON and them on paper. However, all the active board members are from ISKCON, Bangalore. --Gurubrahma 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hindu Mathmeticians etc.

Hi! In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an article titled List of Jews that categorises people based on their profession. The same has been done at List of Christians and List of Hindus. In these articles, the focus is to highlight prominent people who are followers of the religion. Hence, a categorisation is required to assert their prominence. The sub listings can be justified per WP:SS. However, it is unnecessary to have such a classification via a cateogry. There are already categories for Hindus as well as for athletes. So a further classification as Hindu atheletes is unwarrented; and if need, can be accessed using the category intersection functions.
And yes, Kerala is a place that surprises me by its beauty even today, despite having lived here all my life. I havent been to Brahmagiri though. Will try to, now that you recommended it. Regards-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the delay. I have decided not to push in the cfd debate any further, as I'm not interested in sacrificing my integrity, and be branded as a pseudo-secularist by certain users. I do, however, owe you a reply. Listings can become very long like this one. We can make it more compact and readable by creating daughter articles and linking to them from the original article. Something similar to summary style procedure. This is as opposed to a category, which is not in the article namespace, and the content is more or less unencyclopedic when presented as such. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for the advantages of a list over a category.-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely fine. But as a last attack, I must, of course remind you...Oh never mind! I keep forgetting my decision to quit this cfd. Cheers and best regards :-) -- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD =

For the record, I am about to propose many "lists of Jews" (and especially "categories of Jews") for deletion. You are welcome to vote to delete them (or propose some more lists for deletion!). These lists and categories have been extremely controversial in the past. Bellbird 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New anon user

Oh, I didn't know that you were online still. You weren't harsh, you were to the point. In fact, you have oodles of patience - I was always impressed by your mediation efforts. Thanks a ton for making WP a better place. Do keep an eye on the user though. --Gurubrahma 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole

Indef. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BostonMA! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13

You to me: Hi Bhadani, could you semi-protect this page, as well as September 12, and 10. If that is not possible I understand. However, there is a sockpuppet who has voted multiple times, was blocked, and he keeps removing the notices that he is a sockpuppet, by using what I strongly suspect are new sockpuppet accounts. Your help is greatly appreciated. --BostonMA 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response:These pages are highly visible pages, and no nonsense may continue unnoticed long by others. In case, some one is really a sockpuppet, he/shall gets exposed sooner than later. I think protecting pages would serve no purpose. If some one is removing comments, he shall be treated as a vandal. Please do not worry much. --Bhadani 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Skin of a Lion

Thanks for the note. I feel a bit bad - didn't want to bite a newbie. I really should have checked. Victoriagirl 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thanks for your recent note. I, too, am beginning to wonder whether things aren't quite as they seem - but will assume good faith. Since your post, I've received communication from 572766 [3], to which I've responded [4]. I must say, my sympathy has decreased after investigating the user's first three posts [5], [6], [7]. Victoriagirl 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've again heard from 572766 [8]. As the motivation for the post seems to be an edit you yourself made (one I support fully), I thought you should know. I have already responded.[9] Victoriagirl 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to a voice

Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Converting units

Hi Bhadani, I have been working on Kaveri river to get some facts and figures into the article about usage of the river. One of the issues that I face is that the many references use differing units, millions of acre-feet, mega-liters per day, cubic feet per hour etc. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to convert these to a single common unit for the benefit of the reader? Have you come across this issue before? What are your thoughts? --BostonMA 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have come across such problems, and sometimes used whatever figures I could get conveniently. However, this guidance is of help: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_districts#Basic_India_conventions --Bhadani 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Skin of a Lion *2

U r rite Boston... there is a battle goin on... i am arrogant and don't give up that easily. Here is my gmail address: abhinav.kanaya@gmail.com . I want to discuss the editing of this lady. Plzz write to me soon. As long as she proves that my info on that topic is all irrelevant, i will not back down! ... thnx

                       Abhinav ;-0

Time Format

How do we get IST time in place of UTC(on the edit timestamps)...? Sorry I didn't know where to ask, so I'm posting this here.

Cheers,

Amogh 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tippu and Rockets

Please do.Thanks.Hkelkar 11:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it satisfies WP:Reliable Sources it is fine I think. Also, you might want to put the article in your watchlist and monitor it. I have seen numerous cases of OR and POV that I have marked down, but users with nationalistic biases have been vandalizing it and I can;t keep them all at bay. If you could participate in some of the issues that I have raised on the talk page and monitor the article for vandalism etc then I would be extremely grateful. Please do consider doing so as it would mean a lot to me to have this article achieve a modicum of credibility. Thank you very much.Hkelkar 11:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Some infoboxes have a size column, I dont know how to work it/make it on my temple infobox.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offset

(moved from User page) Although I have changed the setting here(see image), it still isn't displaying the correct time settings. Thanks anyway.

[img]http://i10.tinypic.com/4htlzb4.jpg[/img]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amogh gulwady (talk • contribs) . at 12:21, 24 September 2006 to user page

In The Skin Of A Lion * 3

HEYYY BOstonn.. check it out now.... tell me if if i am improving.. thnx

572766 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad clarification

Yeah, I re-read what I wrote and realized that what I wrote could be taken in so many horrible ways, none of which I intended. There's definitely a reason that Muslim contributors might find the use of the "Western" A.D. on an article on their most revered prophet, and I think that was relevant to the discussion, but there were clearly non-Muslim participants in the discussion who also preferred C.E. I realized that what I wrote might be seen to imply some sort of nefarious motives on the part of our Muslim contributors, which was far from my intention. Captainktainer * Talk 05:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri River

OK. --Bhadani 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattisse

Yeah, that's one of the things Mattisse's sockpuppets do: duplicate an article and then change it. Like take a biography and repost it with the first name changed. Or take a musician and rewrite the article under another name as if they were a wrestler. Weird stuff like that. Probably better to bring it up on WP:AN/I rather than do a formal report, she gets belligerent. —Hanuman Das 04:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take the next q

Hi, Plz take the next question... --h y dka t 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice board

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=79439633&oldid=79439353 --Bhadani 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian admin noticeboard

I have listed it on the Indian deletion sorting page. I would like all editors to comment on it, not just administrators. Please comment whether you feel there is a need for it or not. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yours

This user was the winner of Round 12 of the India Quiz.

Congrats! :-D -- Longhairandabeard 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(text here is to fix formatting of following section)

PINQ

Hi, thanks for asking me to inaugurate the next round. I was very tied up this week and couldn't do it. Thanks once again for the nice gesture, --Gurubrahma 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Peace of mind

Hi Bhadani, I notice that your recent edits seem to indicate some distress. I wish for your peace of mind. BostonMA on 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you. It is not distress. It is sadness that despite a lot of collective efforts, we are unable to deliver the results. Anyway, man proposes and God disposes! --Bhadani 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navaratri in Chennai was fine. Now Diwali is coming. Happy Diwali. --Bhadani 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in India

The most recent census of India was performed in 2001 Indian Census - Muslims. According to it's results Muslim constituted 138,188,240 or 13.4% of the population in 2001. The figures in Islam by country are incorrect and they quote unreliable sources and webpages. My changes to that page has been reverted many times. Most people quote India's state Uttar Pradesh percentage where Muslim constitute 18.5% of the population. According to Demographics of India, India's population is 1.125 billion in 2006 [10], so 13.4% would be 150,321,200. While Pakistan population of 165,800,000 million in 2006 is 97% Muslim and is 160,826,000. Please provide reliable references to back your figures. Siddiqui 14:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]