User talk:BozMo

See User_talk:BozMo/archive

Please put messages for me here! I am rather tidy so I will delete once received unless there is a reason not to (such as interest to others)--BozMo 10:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Message:

Hi, thanks for the note about my recent edits. I was unsure about the ruling on spam, but sure that the links were good. I will now request inclusion as recommended. -- Iru-dcaf

Comments on 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection the charity I work for SOS Children's Villages UK my personal site: Cates, my book: letter to Peter, my religion.

I will visit here most days but have a busy job and young kids so not always. My other email is my christian name @ my homepage.

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to BozMo for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia --A. B. (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is overdue -- I meant to do this several weeks ago. Thanks for all your work and support. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BozMo, when is SOS Children Wikipedia 2007 CD planned? Do you need any help? I would like to participate in the project as well. I am from India and planning to redistribute the Wikipedia CD to students. Phoe6 13 May, 2007.

See your talk page --BozMo talk 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added this link because this is one of my favorite religious websites and I felt that it contains a lot of interesting materials. Some of its contents may be indeed offensive to Christians, but its goal is to spread the Truth. This link doesn't contradict the NPOV rules because there are many links to Christian websites in the same article (such as the Catholic Encyclopedia).Aminullah 20:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question - how are articles selected? Are they all featured articles, or are there some good articles? The reason I ask is that looking at, for example, the television section, I notice that nearly 2/3rds of the articles there are sci-fi series. Perhaps a future release should have some editorial oversight, selecting a few good articles that haven't reached featured status but would balance coverage somewhat? Ral315 » 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, to your original question, if you'd be willing to start a write-up, that'd be great; if you can get it submitted to me on Friday or Saturday, we could probably add to it, compare versions, etc. Otherwise, we'd be happy to write the whole article; whatever works best for you is fine with me. Ral315 » 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really count words. Check this story for an average-length article, but we've had much shorter articles as well as longer articles; it's not a problem. On the TV thing, as long as you've excerpted featured and good, then it'd seem that it's just a matter of systemic bias on Wikipedia television articles; not a problem with you, really. Ral315 » 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please help me in filing arbitration case about Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies? I have no experience in this regard and wish someone neutral files it. Furthermore, can you please edit the article to remove most obvious mistakes? Looking forward for your reply. --- A. L. M. 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I am happy to help (and even flattered that you regard me as neutral) but the next few days are very busy and also it will take me a little while to understand a topic which is new to me. Is there a big rush? --BozMo talk 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No rush. Looking forward for your support in few days :) --- A. L. M. 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Timeshifter William M. Connolley 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, tis done. Hope thats OK William M. Connolley 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching over my talk page. I saw you deleted the latest rant from the workforall spammer.

I suppose that he/she will likely return -- I suggest just leaving future rants on my talk page in place (other than deleting something like a bogus vandalism warning). I'm finding that sometimes it works better just to let a spammer have the last word if the encyclopedia otherwise is getting its way (i.e., no more links). I'm coming to view those sorts of comments almost as stamps in my passport. Perhaps this guy will just wind down. Otherwise, I'll archive the page June 1 and he can start over.

In the meantime, he's really doing himself a disservice; see this discussion that Jehochman and I had about the jam this guy is working his way into. Do Google searches on workforall (#6), workforall.org (#3), and workforall.net (#3) and you'll see what I mean. Between that and the fire-parrot, this is shaping up to be bizarre. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with this spammer were brought to my attention. WorkForAll.org has nothing to do with workforall.net for similar reasons as you exclude him as a spammer. The person is called Paul Vreymans (which is also an alias) and made himself persona non grata in our WorkForAll thinktank. He has some serious personality issues and does not understand well the difference between what he thinks is right and the right way to defend that position. He set up that workforall.net website independently, hereby stealing the name and reputation, and started filling it himself. Some of the contents are acceptable, some of it not. At Workforall.org we apply ourselves peer-review before anything at all is published and opinions are based as much as possible on facts and data. Unfortunately we can't do much against his behavior except as you do, trying to isolate him. He does indeed do himself and our group who apply correct deontological rules a disservice. It is indeed bizarre as well but unfortunately irrational behaviour is difficult to fight with rational arguments. Eric Verhulst, chairman WorkForAll.org

I just happened to see this note you left BozMo. You may wish to leave a similar note on the 35 to 45 pages around Wikipedia that document problems with workforall spam on Wikipedia. If you go to User talk:Bully-Buster-007, you'll see links to the 31 other user talk pages for IP accounts that were used to either spam Wikipedia or to complain and harass people. I'd leave this note on the Bully-Buster talk page and on each of those other pages. Then you might consider leaving a similar note on the talk pages of each of the editors that interacted with him that are listed there. I also suggest you leave similar notes at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist

Finally, you may want to note the unusual claim made at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard." This individual accused Wikipedia of engineering computer vandalism using viruses embedded in pornography; this in turn allegedly set a workforall computer on fire destroying a portion of workforall's offices. Supposedly a complaint was made to the police.

These are purely suggestions; you don't need to take them. It certainly sounds like a vexing situation. workforall.net links are now blocked from being added to Wikipedia by our spam filters.--A. B. ^(talk) 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of schools in Costa Rica, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of schools in Costa Rica is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of schools in Costa Rica, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

--Pejman47 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but you have been participated enough in the talk page of that article to be included.

In this case, but it is throughly up to you. If you insist, I will remove your name from that list. cheers.--Pejman47 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so dear BozMo what should I do?--Pejman47 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know, when i checked the discussion page there had been no information whatsoever but i see you added something about this already. Thanks for letting me know. =)  LaNicoya  •TALK• 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BozMo,

Your input would be appreciated here [1]. Cheers, --Aminz 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BozMo. Thanks for your efforts. The user has made 6 edits to the article today -- all of which are to add back the link, one of which was adding after you reverted. An anon IP was adding the link yesterday and was constantly reverted, I presume it's the same user. I don't believe the editor is engaging in good faith editing anymore. S/he does not address any of the issues about the link on the talk page and seems only interested attempting to wikilawyer it into the article. (And no, I'm not an admin - quite happy leaving all that fire you brave folks :). -- Siobhan Hansa 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Siobhan Hansa 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]