User talk:Boson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

Euro#Linguistic_issues

Thanks for the clarification regarding the euro plural. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Euromyth

Nice re-write. Hopefully your good work will see the article settle back into a more peaceful existence. Setwisohi (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

German Unification clarification on citation requests

Hi Boson, thanks for going through the article. I'm wondering about some of the citation requests you've entered. For example, the formal dissolution of the HRE in 1806 -- you added a citation needed after it. In other encyclopedia articles I've written these sorts of things aren't cited. Basically, if I could find it in 3 or more peer reviewed articles, if it's a "fact"-- If you still want a cite there, then how do you suggest I do it? Shall I put in a list of all the books that date is in? I think that's excessive. I can expand some of the other citations needed to include the discussion points in historiography, but I'm not sure how to deal with this.

Another one, also: the Germans met at Versailles because they couldn't meet in Paris. They had Paris under siege. So they met at Versailles. It's outside of Paris. (or was then).  ??

Furthermore, in the opening "list" I've included several things as factors that I go into later, and include citations there. These are not my opinions, but within the sections later I do cite where these factors come from. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Article tweaks and improvements -- now what?

Boson I could use some advice. I've worked on the article, added all the links that seem appropriate, etc. apparently the "peer review" is closed, but the rating has been removed, so I'm not sure what's going on. Do you think it needs more work? What would be my next step in having it reviewed by the proper folks? newbie --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an error in the assessment template. I'll see if I can find out what went wrong. --Boson (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks. it seems that it warrants higher than a C, and I don't know even what happened to that. I've read some of the B and higher articles, at it is on a par with those. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First French Empire -- i'd have put the end-date at 1814, because of Napoleon's abdication. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Boson, I've requested a peer review from the various projects in which this article fits. Would you mind taking a look at it again? In particular, I'm looking for succintness, clarity, and any missing points. I've deleted quite a bit of what I had originally written, and probably most of the more contentious (unverifiable) sections of the previous version. I'd like to know if this should be suggested for good article status or, whatever. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

nominating for FA

Boson, last month German Unification was not promoted to FA because, apparently, not enough people had taken the time to read and comment. If I nominate it again, will you read it (it's lengthy) and comment? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. There is some documentation and rationale for things on the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find time, but my available time usually comes in small chunks at the moment.--Boson (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cassis de Dijon

Just to say thanks for your work on tidying up the Cassis article!

Stuart. Stuartwilks (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants

Croatia is not the member of EU. #31 Is Zagreb in the European Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.244.29 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this?

John Smith (bishop)

Death John Smith, Bp of Llandaff

Doubtless the discrepancy is due to the old Lady Day start to the year (as Smith died in February). I shall check Emden's policy in this respect before emending----Clive Sweeting 22AUG2009

Please

Hi, could you lend a hand here please?

what is it with the revisions on the archive

What is the point of what that person is doing on the archive? Or is the point that there is no point? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Germany semi protection

Hi Boson, I think there now enough proof that the Germany article is facing frequent vandalism. What do you think ? I´m aiming for a re-application of a semiprotection tag. Any thoughts about that ? Would be great to see you joinig this effort. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hêbê Debate at the European Parliament: Wikipedia - Truth by Consensus?

Boson! I see that you are a prolific Wikipedia editor! Do you live in Brussels by any chance?
I ask, because there is a debate planned on the usefulness and reliability of Wikipedia at the European Parliament in Brussels on Monday evening, September 28th. If you are interested in either debating the subject or simply attending as an audience member, you can register on http://www.asbl-hebe.eu.

For more info, I'd be happy to help, just email [email protected].

We would be happy to have you there!

Kindest regards,
HêbêDeb (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EU, ECSC, & Benelux

Please read User talk:Lear 21#EU_.26_Benelux for a series of EU innovations that were all preceded by the same or stronger innovations in Benelux. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but your changes to the article state as fact conclusions that you had personally drawn and were not stated as such in the sources you quoted. This is original research. The new references you have added may support statements made in other articles concerning Benelux institutions but do not support the statements made in the article.--Boson (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you know

I did some changes to the article discussed here. As you can see, I had some open issues when I was done. I am confident you can solve some of them. Thanks. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Van Rompuy takes office on ... ?

What do you say about this Swedish Presidency announcement? We are discussing this subject here. Perhaps it is 1 December, perhaps 1 January, or perhaps a date in between not even known yet. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

EU infobox and ranks.

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and I would like to begin a discution (or mediation, I don't know the exact name) in order to decide whenever there should or shouldn't be a ranke displayer on the Infobox as in all others Wikis I could read, how do I do? Thank in advance --Taiko3615 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your concern

And here is another example [1]. But frankly I don't see why you even bothered adding the "verification failed" tag on such a minor point, and it should anyway be common knowledge if you have any interest in the topic. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you have not addressed my concern; "pressed into labor" misrepresents both sources, and makes very selective use of what the sources say, apparently to advance a point of view. The sources cited do not use the term "forced labor" (or an equivalent) and mention use for labour only as one motivation of several. If you wish to use the terms "forced" or "pressed" (explicitly, or implicitly by inclusion under the heading "forced labour"), please find a source that uses those terms or an equivalent, rather than deducing it from other statements. This is not "common knowledge", in the academic sense. And yes, I do know whereof I speak. --Boson (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well apologies then, I misunderstood what your problem was here to be referring to where the laborers came from. But are you seriously saying that one could conclude that the prisoners to be used for "reparations labour" were volunteers or could refuse to work without penalty? That indeed is something that strikes me as semantics in order to advance a point of view, hence my previous inability to understand that that could be the direction where you were coming from. I'm better advised now. Also "mention use for labour only as one motivation of several", is indeed true e.g.

"There were two main purposes for this transfer: screening, political re-education and de-nazification and, for non-officers, their employment as agricultural and other labour.", so unless we assume the German military organization was very unusual in its composition the overwhelming majority belonged to a category that after the war had ended was sent to the UK explicitly for the purpose of being used as labor instead of being sent home to their families. That particular point of yours thus seems moot.

• Herbert Hoover wrote in his report: it is also estimated that 3,000,000 prisoners of war are being held in work camps in Russia; 750.000 in France; 400,000 in Britain.

• And obviously terms going as far as Slave labour were often used in the UK to describe the situation.

• After the cataclysm, by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman page 35. [2]

"In Britain, there were some 400,000 German POWs. By Autumn 1944 they were being used for forced labor as a form of "reparations". Repatriation began in September 1946 and continued until the summer of 1948, over threee years after the German surrender. After the war, too, the POWs spent the harsh winter of 1945-1946 in tents in violation of the 1929 geneva convention. The POWs referred to themselves as "slave labour," with some justice."

• The Trial of the Germans By Eugene Davidson[3] p518

Soviet Russia took from German territory and from among the prisoners of war hundreds of thousands, even millions, of forced laborers. Not only Russia made use of such labor. France was given hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war captured by the Americans, and their physical condition became so bad that American Army authorities themselves protested. In England and in the United States, too, German prisoners of war were being put to work long after the surrender.

Can we close this and move on? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to move on, but you are being very selective and presenting as fact what most of the sources you cite do not. You appear to me to be deliberately cherry picking when characterizing the conditions under which the prisoners were held and do not appear to be presenting the mainstream view. The tenor of you argument and implications is in crass opposition to that of some of the sources you cite. --Boson (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indexing Operating Performance et alia

Thank you for noting the pages closely related to Indexing Operating Performance. I had noticed them too and was planning to propose either merger or deletion, depending on the outcome of the AfD. Its starting to look like no consensus, so maybe I'll go ahead and propose the merge on the various pages. Cnilep (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Indexing Operating Performance has been deleted, I've prodded the detail pages. Cnilep (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hi Boson, I've noticed your requirement for references in Special Member State territories and the European Union with regard to the sentence 'which belongs to the European Union on its own'. As I'm not a native speaker, sometimes my English is not as precise as I wish. The status of Gibraltar in the European Union is described in the same article (section 3.8). What I meant is that Gibraltar, unlike other British Overseas Territories, joined the EU (the the ECC) along with the United Kingdom as 'European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible'. That is, Gibraltar, although not a Member State is a part of the European Union (even if some of the rules and procedures of the Union does not apply to it). As you're a native speaker, could you suggest a redaction expressing better what I meant? Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minister-President

You might want to put your comment in the lower section about the Minister-President. Kingjeff (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the comment I think you are, I put it there to reply to the comment immediately before it (mentioning the title of the article that was created a couple of days ago). --Boson (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to summerize the different points? I did show the 2 areas where the arguments are. Kingjeff (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany

You did not notice that Wikiproject Europe has long included Belgium, Bulgaria, the Republic of Macedonia and several other European countries. All of them actually have Wikiprojects. Removing those articles would severely limit the scope of the Project. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Boson (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the page added <ref name="MLD 2.1"/> caused a cite error. I think you used the ref name without connecting it to a full reference that you added at the same time. Could you go back and fix the error? Thanks ClamDip (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Fixed.--Boson (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

EU: four paragraph or five paragraph in the lead?

Boson, is it absolutely necessary to merge the two paragraph in the lead into one as you did? I mean that now it seems less readable to me than before. I liked the previous order! Insilvis (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)insilvis (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change the order; I just removed a paragraph break. Before, the paragraphs were too short, and there were 5 paragraphs, which is in breach of the Manual of Style guideline ("The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs") and would thus be a serious hindrance to obtaining FA status. I think the lede needs some more work (without changing the current content); the introduction should summarize the article, which means adding a little more information, and thus making all the paragraphs longer. That might make it sensible to re-arrange the current content. I don't think it is possible to summarize an article of this size if each paragraph contains only one narrowly-defined topic. --Boson (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you did for this reason. But this rule ("The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs") is idiot!!! The maximum threshold should be posed to five paragraph at least. Insilvis (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three possibilities:

• Attempt to change the guideline by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section).
• Attempt (at Talk:European Union) to get a consensus that there should be an exception to the guideline for European Union and then attempt to get that view accepted in the ensuing FAC debate.
• Follow the suggestions made at Peer Review and then at FAC.

--Boson (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Boson, thank you for checking the Göltzschtalbrücke article and providing very helpful feedback for me to know how to improve the article towards a B-class article, I get that sort of detailed information way too little. To bump the article to the next level, I think I may have to spend some time at the Mylau Stadtarchiv next time I'm in the neighborhood. Anyway, thanks again, appreciate your effort and help! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Boson you are right when you say that in the Italian name "De" is written with capital letter like Alcide De Gasperi, but this is true in 98% of cases: there is a small percentage of family names written with a small "d" like de' Medici. The small "d" suggest a cognome of noble origins, especially when it is followed by an apostrophe. (When the "D" of "De" is written in capital letter it is never followed by the apostrophe) ----Insilvis (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rating updates requested

Thank you! Marrante (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your comment regarding AmE or BrE spelling. Having grown up reading both, though primarily US, and since we write about them and they about us, but don't change their spelling, including when US contributors or UK contributors are published in newspapers, etc. of the opposite persuasion, my personal policy has always been to just write the way I write, regardless of the topic – and most of my articles here are about German-related topics. I don't normally change things to US when I see them (unless I'm planning on contributing a lot and there isn't much there to begin with, but this is just for my own convenience because it's like speaking with a British accent for me. Most actors don't bother trying because it sounds terrible when you mess up. I'd probably stop writing at Wikipedia if it were required of me, frankly. I mean, I try to speak with as best a German accent when speaking German, but I never try to speak English with a British accent, even while speaking with people who are doing so, whether as native speakers or as a foreign language. Just my two cents (US) ;-> Marrante (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just thought I'd mention it since my spellchecker, being set to UK English, picked it up. It's only a problem if different editors use different varieties of English in the same article; so WP:RETAIN says subsequent editors should use the same variety as the first major contributor - unless the topic has strong national ties. So, in this case, you get to set the variety of English.--Boson (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

EU audit opinion

Thank you for the message and the links. How would you summarize the opinion? Take it you are in agreement that the report/opinion warrants inclusion on both the EU Budget and the main EU page.BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Although concerns about the EU accounts should probably be mentioned somewhere, I am not sure if one specific detail of one specific 242-page report merits this weight. On the other hand, a longer text is probably necessary in order to present the accounting issues in a neutral way. Allegations related to illegality need particularly careful research, and very great care needs to be taken not to misrepresent auditors' reports by drawing ones own conclusions. I do not currently have the time to do the necessary research. Neutrality may require discussion of the history of accounting problems and any developments over time. I would regard the auditors' report as a primary source; it should be backed up by secondary sources that provide a competent, neutral analysis. --Boson (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In accounting circles the 'one specific detail' of the auditor's opinion is indeed regarded as the key detail of the audit report. You say in your talk that expansion is required, yet my edit is accused of being 'not what it says', the page is updated with a not in citation marker, and I am delivered a 3RR warning. Please can there be arbitration by a qualified person. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boson, thanks for the time you have taken to pass on your experience and explain things, and your encouragement to make lengthier edits/set up new pages. While I disagree with your analogy and a couple of other points, I agree that this whole area needs fuller coverage - do you think separate articles on each year's audit report, back to 1994, would be good? Will be using discussion pages more, especially where there are disagreements. However edits involving improvement of an article via brief summary and citation of the official audit report and audit opinion, not in any way controversial, are being reverted without any attempt to discuss or reach a consensus, either without explanation or with the incorrect statement not in citation/not what it says. (And it's a bit odd that my improvements to an article on an obscure baroque opera are also being reverted by the same person (Arthur Rubin) who for some reason does not want the audit opinion to be referenced - what is that about?) Thanks again, and as you say if only there were more time, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my initial attempt to add a new section to the talk page - when I went to Discussion and clicked on 'Click here to start a new topic' my entry once complete appeared on the main page not the discussion page - is this a linking error, can it be clarified, or did I misunderstand something? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to work OK for me. I can only guess that you had two windows open or something like that. Next time, when the edit box comes up, you could check that the title is OK (Talk: . . .).--Boson (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Member states of the European Union

You may be interested in Talk:Member State of the European Union#Requested move 3 TopoChecker (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

EU and democracy

Thank you for pointing that out, i will try to do that Mermaidlegs (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)mermaidlegsMermaidlegs (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany FAR

I have nominated Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

EU lingua franca

Do you think this reference would be enough? http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/12/08/2003339612

Luca Italy —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

No, I think that would probably be evidence that some people think that English is emerging (but is not fully accepted) as a lingua franca within EU institutions (not within the EU as a whole). --Boson (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

EU languages

Thanks for getting the page references for the EU language stats. I had looked myself but seem to have missed what was staring me in the face. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bzgl. Anfrage:

Ja, bin ich! Herr Kent, 25.04.2011, 12:55 —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Normal Form

In response to you comment on my talk page: I see your point and this was exactly why i asked, as was in doubt whether my reference was, what was requested. The reason why i added it, is because the Database System Concepts book use the same definition, as the one credited to Zaniolo, with a footnote stating:

... The original definition of 3NF was in terms of transitive dependencies. The definition we use us equivalent but easier to understand - Abraham Silberschatz, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan, Database System Concepts (5th edition), p. 276

I added it to confirm that the definition was also used by Silberschatz et al. The book, however, does not contain a reference to the origin of this definition. --mgarde (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It states (simplified):

Each attribute A in $\beta \rightarrow \alpha$ is contained in a candidate key for R,

where R is a relation schema and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are subsets of R

--mgarde (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Future enlargement IP problem

Hi, sorry to bother but there is a problem with an IP editing the Future enlargement of the European Union article. I really don't have the time or energy to deal with it and as you can tell from my immediate responses to the IP I have an incredibly short temper on Wikipedia now (which is why I'm staying away). I'd be grateful though if you could watch it and give a more polite explanation to the IP. Thanks a lot.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Principles for translators

Wikipedia is full of poor translations. That is why I emphasized these two principles and supported them with examples (the Dutch one was in the article Wikipedia:Translation already before my editions). I'm afraid that after your editions the guidance to translators is much less effective. Please revert your editions and leave these two principles and the supporting information. The examples are truly important and can help translators understand how they can write more understandably.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your additions, but, rather than simply revert them, I attempted to retain as much of them as I felt could be justified and might be of some help to anyone who was not already a competetent translator and thus aware of the relevant issues. In particular, I don't think a discussion on "reader-responsible" or "writer-responsible" languages is appropriate here. Feel free to restore the Dutch example, though I think an example is unnecessary and this particular example is not a very good one. If you want to restore any more, please first establish consensus on the talk page. I do not think this is the right place for a discussion of translation theory, or for (one person's) advice on English style, some of which has previously been discussed in a more appropriate venue and rejected. If you think WP:Translation should offer advice on English style , this could perhaps be done by providing links to appropriate places on Wikipedia where such advice is more appropriate. Consensus on recommendations regarding English style should, in my opinion, be sought elsewhere (such as WT:MOS). --Boson (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand you better now. To make the remaining recommendations more effective, I've added a link to WP:MoS and highlighted the key sentences. I hope it's ok now.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The link to WP:MOS is fine with me. I should, perhaps, point out, though, that – although issues of style are frequently discussed on the talk page there - the general consensus (as I understand it), is not to give advice on actual English style, as opposed to Wikipedia "house style" (spelling, formatting, punctuation, etc.). In particular, advice of the type "Never use the passive where you can use the active." has, in the past, been rejected.

I can live with the boldface text, but Wikipedia house style prefers italics for emphasis. MOS:BOLD states "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. --Boson (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Voivodship etc.

Wikipedia is increasingly used for reference by translators and other people. Because of this, I believe that we should switch to more practical translation of administrative units (e.g. "Provinces of Poland" instead of "Voivodships of Poland"). Thanks to this, more practical, understandable translation would become more common in real life. Where should I start this discussion in your opinion?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the best place would be the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles). It might also be useful to enquire first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. I am sure the subject will have been discussed many times at great length. I found the following:

• Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 7#Geography consensus (Voivodeship)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland/Archive2# Vote on Województwa / Voivodeship / Province

Discussions about naming conventions for Eastern Europe can get rather heated, so one has to tread carefully, especially since they are the subject of discretionary sanctions.--Boson (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks for these tips. It's a pity that I wasn't aware of the voting in 2006, but it's good to know that there are more people thinking like me and my friends. Anyway, I suppose that such problems could be resolved globally. Nihil novi rightly noted that he "really would rather use, in English, the one expression 'province' instead of 'wilaya,' 'marz,' 'voblast,' 'khaet,' 'sheng,' 'eparchia,' 'ostan,' 'khoueng,' 'faritany,' 'aimag,' 'tinh' —or 'województwo' (aka 'voivod(e)ship'). And since the other terms are in fact translated into English as "province," then why should 'województwo' not be also? Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)" (he wrote it during a long discussion on my talk page, spanning the sections "Preferably" and Some references that support "province" for "województwo"). I would be very grateful if you could suggest a suitable place for a global discussion about translation of local administrative units in Wikipedia.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask, but tactically, I think you should probably raise the issue at WikiProject Poland first, though I suspect the general feeling there might be more in favour of the Polish word. It would probably be diplomatic to ask about previous discussions. If the project members have already reached a consensus after difficult discussions and the matter is raised every six months by people who haven't followed the discussions, people might not be very happy. So I would definitely recommend searching the talk page archives first. There was actually a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions, which seems appropriate, but I don't think it is active any more. The parent project WP:WikiProject Geography or WP:Wikiproject Countries might be appropriate, in which case it would probably be best to become a project member, introduce yourself and ask for advice there. Ultimately, your proposal would mean changing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and/or the pages it links to (for Poland Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)); so any proposal that affects more than one country should probably be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). It will probably mean a lot of work. For, instance, if you want to standardize on use of "province" instead of "voivod(e)ship", changing consensus is just the first step. Then someone will have to change all affected articles, categories, templates, etc. This might mean something in the order of 100,000 changes (I haven't checked); so you may need to think about what bots need to run, what manual checking is necessary, how to coordinate the effort, etc.--Boson (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks for all your tips. I realize that the switch would be difficult and would require bots.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch

Thanks for your addition to the Rupert Murdoch article. Span (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you should go for it on the Murdoch article. I support your bold edits. Murdoch's page got nearly a million hits in the last week and yet almost no editors seem to be working on it. If you are in the loop with Murdoch news I think you are well placed to lead on this if you wish. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Unfortunately I will be busy with something else till Friday.--Boson (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent overhaul. Cheers Span (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreement with Span, good work, and I as well apologize for the confusion earlier! I looked at the edits you've added to the entry overall, its good to know you're looking over the page. Happy editing, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(Also please forgive me for indiscriminately hacking out your earlier contributions. In all honesty it was a knee jerk reaction and I didn't read the addition in any great details. I'd completely trust your judgment on how to properly expand the section, now that I understand better what happened. Best, Sloggerbum (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Machine translation

Hello there. Since you replied to the discussion about machine translations on Wikipedia talk:Translation I thought you might also be interested in the discussion about machine translation at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. It's essentially a debate about whether the related guideline at WP:NONENG needs amendment, with specific reference to the machine translation of direct quotations, rather than entire articles. Regards. Rubywine . talk 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V - Machine translation

Hello Boson,

This is an invitation to revisit Talk:WP:V#Machine translation. I realise that you posted quite recently in the RfC, but not in direct response to the current proposal. Your views on it would be much appreciated, whatever they may be.

Many thanks. Rubywine . talk 16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

EP article intro

Hi, can you take a glance at the talk page there please. Thanks.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, do you happen to know what the title of the Article 134 amendment is? Its tacked onto the Council Decision so it doesn't seem to have a name of its own. Also, on the Protocol amendment on transitional measures; does that come under simplified revision procedure or what?- _J.Logan`^t: 22:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help with that. --Boson (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Testing

I wonder if Sinebot works on my own talk page.

Apparently not.

ENGVAR issue

Hi, I became aware of this because a sock of a blocked user removed the tag. While I am personally in favour of writing all Europe-related articles consistently in British English (or maybe in some mixture of British English and EU English), I can find nothing to this effect in WP:ENGVAR, and I am not aware of any consensus to do so. Therefore I think you should be more careful with this tag. Hans Adler 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Feel free to remove the tag as you think fit. I had not considered use of the template as implying that British English should be used for all European topics (or that a formal decision as to consensus was required). However, I did think that the use of the word "town" in the European/British sense had been established in the original article (in 2006). Several years later, it was changed without discussion (or edit summary) by an IP editor, and was later changed back. I think this use of the word "town" establishes non-US usage. Apart from the use of the word "town", I don't think there were any particular issues of European/American usage. I started a discussion on the talk page, and everybody held their peace.--Boson (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine then. I was just going by your edit summary, but based on this explanation I see no reason to remove the template. Hans Adler 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your translation of List of tunnels in Germany. Really appreciate it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm calling it a day for now. A couple of general points:

• I have mostly translated "bei" as "at", though this may need changing to "near" in many cases, perhaps depending on how close the places are.
• I have mostly capitalized "Tunnel" for individual tunnels. Some may need lowercase, where the word "tunnel" is not part of the proper name. But that requires some thought.

I wanted to get it all into some sort of English before anyone complains about foreign language content.

Since I made a copy of the article, I may have inadvertently clobbered some changes made in parallel, for which I apologise. I have fixed any I noticed.

--Boson (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I am awarding you this Barnstar of European Merit because I have seen you do minor changes to some of the articles that I improve significantly and I appreciate that very much. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Boson by – Plarem (User talk contribs) on 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Your comment at the WT:EN

Hello Boson. I've moved your question concerning the diacritics to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Diacritics_on_the_English_Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind, feel free to join the discussion. Thanks for the interesting idea. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannenberg Memorial

Many thanks for reviewing and correcting the article on the Tannenberg Memorial which I have been doing a little work on. I'm pleased to see you have awarded it a classification above stub class. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Marcel Gleffe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcel Gleffe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Gleffe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

. . . for the fix on the Euro article. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification of DRN submission

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Supranational union

Hi there I noticed the changes you reversed on the supranational union article. I would like to point out that supranational union is not necessarily a confederation, as a supranational federation can exist too. I have again edited the article to correct this inaccuracy and hope that you agree with the slightly revised introduction.  Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acamdc88 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You will note that I did not merely revert your original change. I do not think your new changes are correct, either.

1. Linking to Nation implies that that part of the word "supranational" refers to the (any) meaning of nation in the linked article. However, this article is about "unions" between sovereign states (nation states, if you will), as is made clear by the reference to the European Union and other statements that specifically refer to treaties between sovereign states.
2. Because supranational unions are between sovereign states (as persons in international law), federations (which I understand to be sovereign states with legal personality in international law) are excluded by definition.

Personally, I do not like the use of the word "confederation", either, because so-called supranational unions like the EU are sui generis organizations that are neither confederations nor federations. However, I fnd the term "confederation" tolerable, in the sense that something that fulfils the criteria of a confederation but goes beyond that can be considered a confederation.

Perhaps I am overlooking a wider use of the word "federation". Can you name a federation that could be considered a supranational union within the meaning of this topic? I would not, for instance, call the USA or Germany "supranational unions", precisely because they are federations (also known as "federal states")--Boson (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Health and the European Union

Category:Health and the European Union, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Karl.brown (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Willy Brandt School article / Translation

Hey Boson,

thanks again for your useful advice on the German portal. I started the translation today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt_School_of_Public_Policy Maybe you can have a look at the articel, as I am not sure, if I got the template thing for German sources right. Also, I did not manage to get the Brandt School logo into the infobox. Last but not least, I was wondering, how to connect the two articles on the same thing, so that the language version (e.g. German and English) show up on the left side.

Take care!

Jakenite (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see someone else got there first with the interwiki links. I have replied on the article talk page concerning the logo and added the translation template. I have left the version parameter empty, but if you want to add it when you have finished translation, it tells you how to obtain the version id in the template documentation at {{Translated page}}.--Boson (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSPN

Just a brief note of thanks for your sensible and patient continuation of the topic at MOSPN. You have expressed things very well. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Expropriation of the Princes in the Weimar Republic

Can I just say, what you've done to this article is nothing short of incredible. This was an article that has been on my to-do list for a very long time, and every time I've tried to tidy it I couldn't figure out where to even start such a daunting task and ended up giving up before even starting. I'm immensely grateful to you for your work here, if you ever need any help with something (block of everyone who has ever disagreed with you? replace the main page with "Boson is awesome"? you name it) feel free to ask. Thank you so very much--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Of course, most of the credit should go to the editors of the German article. --Boson (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Metrication of British Transport (vote)

Hi. You have been involved in editing MoBT in the last few weeks. There is a vote going on about what to do with the ERTMS section. If you wish to cast an opinion, the vote runs until Monday. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email [email protected] your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancillary copyright, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bill, FDP and CDU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:CAPS

Your comments on province were quite helpful, thanks. Would you mind also commenting underneath on Foo Dynasty? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please create an article about the Messezentrum in Nuremberg? Tonsofsobs (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

>Perhaps you could team up with someone like In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) to do the impartial study. --Boson (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)<

Aren't you someone like In ictu oculi? Out of interest, now that it's over, what's your view on Talk:Dominik Halmosi? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I like to think I am incomparable.

I should of, course, have written

"Perhaps you could team up with someone, like In ictu oculi, to do the impartial study"

or, better still,

"Perhaps you could team up with someone who does not share your fundamental opposition to diacritics (e.g. In ictu oculi) to do the impartial study."

I should also have added something about having someone with an understanding of statistics on the team.

As regards the other talk page, I have far too many other things that I should be doing, without spending time on things that have already been decided. --Boson (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, precisely why I decline the recommendation. Alles Gute. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at [email protected] and, second, email [email protected] along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hi Boson, thanks for the comments and I've replied on the Feedback Response Guidelines talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Le Traité de Versailles

My apologies, monsieur, I have looked over my editing history but I do not recall ever making any contribution to this page, although my history says that I have. Specifically, I have apparently edited at:

• 15:15, 10 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . ( 29)‎ . . m Treaty of Versailles ‎ (→‎France)
• 15:11, 10 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . ( 1)‎ . . m Treaty of Versailles ‎
• 15:09, 10 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . ( 8)‎ . . m Treaty of Versailles ‎

One fact that I may have you know is that the 10th of October is a Wednesday and I was teaching Biology at the listed times. My best guess as to what happened would be my irresponsibility on neglecting to log out of my account and that a foolhardy student went in and changed the article Le Traité de Versailles under my name. Personally, I would never pen disinformation especially on such a historical document important to my country. I apologize for any and all of the inconveniences this has caused you and that may it not happen again.

Parronax (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC) M. Pierre Arronax

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article to which you have contributed

A few days ago I was informed that the article Metrication of British transport was being considered for deletion. As you have made at least one contribution to this article or to its Talk page, you might like to contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport. I have sent this note to everybody whose name was thrown up by the "Contributions" facility of the article and of its Talk Page (apart from those who have already contributed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 2012-07-07

Belatedly added unsigned to enable archiving.--Boson (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Hallstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assessor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen E. Burgio

I do confess that it was perhaps silly of me to mark it as reveiwed as a quick google search for his name does not come up with any suitable references in my opinion. I think we shall leave the article for a day, if it is the same state then I may tag it for deletion. Thanks for the heads up. Mikeo34 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

Regarding your comment at WT:Civility, that "If a block truly comes as a surprise, something has already gone seriously wrong" I would provide the example of User:Drmies, an excellent admin and user in good standing with more than 120,000 edits, who was civility blocked by another good admin who was just trying to follow existing policy. If a warning had been issued, the situation would have been resolved almost immediately. Instead, two admins and two other editors were blocked, leading to a number of retirements. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

European Ombudsman

Hi Boson, Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Yes, I think indeed you can tick it off for now. I would of course like to see more external links pointing to other sources than our website but I am afraid I don't know of many. Anne Christensen (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Permanent Representatives of Germany to NATO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niels Hansen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Boson (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! But instead of "in case it is needed by bot", it currently is needed by the bot. Apteva (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancillary copyright for press publishers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundesrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)