Jump to content

User talk:BozMo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)
Alboran (talk | contribs)
SOS Children's Villages edit
Line 83: Line 83:


On this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marknutley/Sandbox] It is nowere near finished yet but i would like your thoughts on it thus far, thanks --[[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
On this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marknutley/Sandbox] It is nowere near finished yet but i would like your thoughts on it thus far, thanks --[[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

== SOS Children's Villages edit ==

You are quite right, not everyone can nominate for a Nobel. Thanks for pointing that out. But eligibility is not restricted to " only a small number of very significant entities and individuals" either. Among those who can nominate are "university rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes" can nominate. If you think of the number of such people within even a small university, and the number of universities that exist, it adds up to a very significant number of people. The details are beside the point - what matters is that being ''nominated'' for a Nobel is not in itself an award. A nomination is the decision of ''one person'', who can use whatever subjective criteria they like; it is not like being shortlisted for a prize. This is perhaps the reason why the Nobel Committee does not release details of who has been nominated. The claim that an organisation has been nominated x number of times, is not therefore notable enough to be repeated on its wikipedia article. [[User:Alboran|Alboran]] ([[User talk:Alboran|talk]]) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:04, 2 February 2010

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)[reply]

Barnstars

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Apology

I wanted to apologize for my implication in my article ban appeal that you acted in bad faith. At the time, my confusion regarding what constitutes a revert, lead me to feel like I was in a kangaroo court. There was know way for you to know about my misunderstanding (at the time there were three conflicting definitions of revert on WP, that's been fixed) and you were just doing your job. Regards. JPatterson (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Jpat34721

Jpat34721 (talk · contribs) has requested that the rest of their article ban from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be commuted to probation. It has been about a week since that ill-advised CoI report, and they have been making all the right noises in terms of seeking consensus and chronicling the incident without using the article to support one side. They have also been discussing more general issues over at my talkpage, and contributing productively in non-climate related areas. I am, however, loathe to ignore the concerns raised in the community discussion. How would you feel about lifting the talkpage ban in the next day or two, but letting the article ban abide?

On a related issue, how do you think we should handle expired sanctions in the log? Strike the wording and note expired? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry am really tied up with Haiti stuff. Will be back soon. --BozMo talk 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did it - good luck with the Haiti stuff. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Not canvassing (moved from MalcolmMcDonald (talk))

This is not a vote, it's a work in progress trying to discover whether the body of editors is "happy" with the NPOV of these articles.
I am contacting the "unhappy" first because they have more to say, need a lot longer to put it up and think about it, and because they're the only ones who can provide the feedback on what they consider the real issues to be.
I'm not even sure how many of the "happy" editors will agree to put their names here, I may end up with a note saying "I have listed for myself xx editors I consider to be happy, this compares with xx editors prepared to say in public that they are unhappy".
I am prepared to answer all questions and respond to all comments, but intend to either keep this TalkPage clean or move other material to the top. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which article or articles this is refering to? Some of it seems a bit specific. ... I have not made any objection whatsoever to this page and do not spend my time looking around for things to object to. I also consistently take a pretty broad view on what people should be allowed to do in their own space [1] [2] etc. FWIW aside a general desire for fairplay my limited partisan concerns on GW are at the BLP treatment of sceptics (its too negative) which is the only place I have become involved for a long time aside chasing socks [3] [4] [5]. It was unclear to me if this is somewhere to discuss broader sceptic BLP stuff or you are just discussing one article. But you obviously don't want me here so I will leave you to it. --BozMo talk 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Improvement Chart" I'm aiming to build is intended to cover the whole topic of Global Warming (I might later need to list which articles it does cover and which it does not).
Examining "RealClimate.org" and seeing the ridiculous abuse being handed out ("potty peer") I can imagine the kind of BLP concerns there may be/have been arising at these articles. My first thought is that that's more a policy concern than a POV concern and I'm reluctant to permanently pad out the chart with another row over something that bothers few others. I'll put it in temporarily and I'm quite prepared to make it a feature if you think it's a major concern. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might i ask for your input

On this [6] It is nowere near finished yet but i would like your thoughts on it thus far, thanks --mark nutley (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Children's Villages edit

You are quite right, not everyone can nominate for a Nobel. Thanks for pointing that out. But eligibility is not restricted to " only a small number of very significant entities and individuals" either. Among those who can nominate are "university rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes" can nominate. If you think of the number of such people within even a small university, and the number of universities that exist, it adds up to a very significant number of people. The details are beside the point - what matters is that being nominated for a Nobel is not in itself an award. A nomination is the decision of one person, who can use whatever subjective criteria they like; it is not like being shortlisted for a prize. This is perhaps the reason why the Nobel Committee does not release details of who has been nominated. The claim that an organisation has been nominated x number of times, is not therefore notable enough to be repeated on its wikipedia article. Alboran (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]