User talk:BozMo

From MedBib.com - Medicine & Nature

Contents

Messages

Please put messages at foot. I will delete them when I have read them. If you are replying to a message I left I don't mind where you reply but try to keep conversations together. If you are offering to help with the Schools DVD I would be very glad to hear from you. There is loads to do at present and we are working through the new subject index:

Art Business Studies Citizenship Countries Design and Technology Everyday life Geography History IT Language and literature Mathematics Music People Religion Science

The new selection of articles is about two weeks away. We are still hand checking version numbers (yawn) and still aiming for about 5500 articles to fit on a DVD. Just to update the selection of articles has just moved off wiki to allow a quicker automated run but it will come back. --BozMo talk 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello I had no idea what to put this, but here it goes, I was looking at the discussion page of the Algarve article located at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algarve and a huge mistake was made. You claim that the webpage www . visitalgarve . pt is not official, but it is, you see, that website belongs to a government entity called Tourism of Algarve, which is located at http://www.turismodoalgarve.pt/, you can look at the link from that website to that one. I sugest the website visitalgarve to be restored to a whitepage. Also it might be a good idea to put it back at the Algarve's article, as it contains several information about the region itself. Those kind of links are common ammong other regions. I am sure you added it by mistake, I am portuguese so I can assure you it is an official one :) If you need to contact me, www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~pmd09 . Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.186.91 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thank you for the appreciation which I have moved off as they clutter the page. --BozMo talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


HAITI EMERGENCY APPEAL

Please see http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/Haitiappeal anyone with a blog etc who could link to this would be appreciated. --BozMo talk 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed etc - hope you don't mind a compromise for now currently on mine - http://shelterbox.org/, will look more at yours soon. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Weako

Thanks for [1]. I for one was fooled and assumed he was an admin. Yes, that section *should* be for uninvolved admins only William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting WMC's sanctions ...

Since you opened the issue of making revisions to WMC's sanctions, perhaps you would also consider making it clear that the sanctions apply on any discussion venue, such as the RfE page and other noticeboards, to avoid further wikilawyering of the type we are seeing in the current request. I would have replied there except that you commented in the admin only section. Thoughts? Would you even consider this an expansion of his restriction, or merely a clarification? --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am too tired to think about this today. I did not like the delete though so I think we probably should just clarify to include project pages.--BozMo talk 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned words list

Just a thought: do we really need to maintain a comprehensive list of banned terms? Is there any context in which "clueless" would be considered anything but an insult? There is no case for plausible deniability here, neither for "clueless" remark nor for the comment removal. The comment removal is a violation even without considering his prior sanction against "talk page" removals -- since when do we get to remove others' good faith comments anywhere except our own talk pages, and especially on a probation page which specifically exists to address such problematic behaviors? Even using a strict interpretation of what is meant by "talk page", the existence of a WMC-specific sanction for removing comments is, at the very least, relevant as an aggravating circumstance when evaluating this similar violation. ATren (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. See above, I am too tired for now. The plus side of a banned word list (like Parliamentary language) is that the rules are clear and arguments are few. Clueless may be an accurate assumption about an editor (it doesn't go against good faith since being clueless is compatible with having good faith) but it might well always be uncivil. --BozMo talk 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
But the mere existence of a "banned word list" seems like an invitation to seek out words not on the list. In fact, I would argue that such a policy completely disarms the original sanction, since no matter how many "banned words" are listed, an editor could find a word not on the list and claim exemption. The bottom line is, WMC's specific sanction was not to use derogatory terms, and it is inconceivable that "clueless" could not be considered derogatory.
I'd also be curious as to when you consider removal of a good faith, non-abusive comment acceptable? WMC's specific comment-removal sanction aside, isn't removing MN's good faith comment an example of disruptive, uncivil, battleground behavior? MN was actually agreeing with others on the thread (including WMC), condemning Oiler, so how can WMC's actions be considered anything but battleground behavior directed at MN, whom he previously insulted? The letter of WMC's sanction wording should be considered as an aggravating circumstance (at the very least -- I still consider it a violation of the spirit of that sanction); but WMC's removal was a violation of the probation even without that sanction. ATren (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: note that this edit (yahoos, septics and fools) makes the "banned terms" list moot since septics is on that list. ATren (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Give him time to retract it atren, he is just lashing out over the block mark nutley (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Just pointing it out since it has direct relevance to the "banned words" discussion, and since BozMo has objected to the block. If WMC retracts, I'll gladly do the same here. ATren (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well as he removed my post and called me worthless I withdraw my previous comment mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to defend his attitude in general, but there are two mitigating factors here: (1) people are generally given wide latitude on their own talk pages and that probably applies even when they have sanctions, and (2) they are also given some latitude to vent after being blocked. One would hope, however, that after some time to think about it that he will decide that it is in his best interests to stop acting like he is and simply remove the statement. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Decisive and quite possibly wrong

On your suggestion here, I think a lot of us can live with the probation generating collateral damage, as long as things get better. In my opinion things won't get better without quite decisive and strong action, particularly on these "editors who have never made an original contribution to a single article in the topic except perhaps a revert, who are filling up talk pages with low quality comment." Act to remove the clutter, and that may mean individual admins taking action within the terms of the probation and sometimes getting it wrong. I'll be quite happy to settle for "more right than wrong." --TS 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that admins take action specifically against editors who do not have extensive prior involvement? How can eliminating editors specifically because of their lack of involvement be considered in any way helpful? ATren (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Chill out. You are reading too much intention into my comments. I think I said about not against. I also was specific about trolling by non contributing editors. I don't propose with any blanket actions against editors who have not contributed but the way that we treat argumentative behaviour could be different for accounts with a significant track record of helpfulness or contribution. --BozMo talk 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's the way I read it. Elsewhere I've suggested concentrating on the more egregious abuses of content policies. but the focus should always ve on behavior patterns that are bad for Wikipedia. Filtering out the more tendentious behavior should lower the temperature in this area. --TS 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then I apologize if I misread your intent; my edit history has come under attack lately, so your comment struck a nerve. ATren (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

your efforts

Hi BozMo. I want to applaud your recent efforts and statements in regards to civility. you have truly upheld the spirit of Wikipedia's ideas and values. For some reason, some people complain that the idea of "civility" means giving free rein to people whose views and intellect they consider inferior to their own. the truth is that civility is a key part of how things get done here at Wikipedia. It really is an important goal in its own right. it's amazing how much can be achieved here when you start to be open to other people's views and ideas, to treat them nicely and to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even when they hold views which may be actually DIFFERENT than one's own. thanks so much for all your great work. see you!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
All material adapted used from Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?