Boscaswell

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Boscaswell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Glastonbury Abbey. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 08:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agatha Christie aka "dude"

Nice find! I've read one biography and numerous biographical articles about her but had never heard about the surfing. Who knew? Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a news story in the UK. Some research has been done recently on papers of hers, I think, and this came out of it. Actually, I added something on the Article about it at almost precisely the same time as another editor and deleted my edit as his was more complete [tho less well written IMO!]. But it is pretty amazing...the Daily Telegraph story in particular - clearly she loved surfing! Boscaswell (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! TomaHawk61 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A dissertation detailing the implementation of bias on Wikipedia

…is here.[1] Some "guilty parties" are named. Boscaswell talk 08:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

that "dissertation" (now here[2]) was written by former editor The Devil's Advocate, who was permanently banned in 2015. Since then, TDA has written a number of pieces (including on Breitbart, one of the few sites so unreliable it is blacklisted here) that seem intended to discredit Wikipedia and editors he dislikes and/or he had conflicts with, similar perhaps to how a disgruntled fired employee seeks retribution against their former employer and co-workers. To his credit, TDA disclosed he has "been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article," so there's that red flag. TDA is a good writer, though one might say a clever writer with a strong POV who does not always adhere to accurate depictions of events here. Note that TDA writes he was "banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site's administrators," rather than because of it; he was banned "for continuing harassment of other editors"[3] after an extensive block history[4]. Clever. Skepticism and scrutiny of TDA's assertions are recommended. soibangla (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Breitbart is not unreliable, it’s just that the left-wing clique which decides what is and what isn’t to be considered an RS has deemed it to be so, since it has the nerve to be right-wing. Only today it posted a story and video in which Hunter Biden's former colleague Tony Bobulinski called Jamie Raskin a liar in a Congressional committee hearing. Well done, Breitbart! There’ll be much, much more calling out of the corrupt clique running DC in the years to come. Look, don’t bother getting all uptight and adding stuff to my talk page. You don’t own it and any more from you will be deleted, as is my right. Boscaswell talk 21:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Liberals are not left-wing, they are right-wing moderates. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

heh soibangla (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Boscaswell, Breitbart is deemed unreliable because it is unreliable. It pushes lies and far-right conspiracy theories. It isn't just biased, its bias is so extreme that it doesn't care about the facts in its efforts to push its extreme agenda. Keep in mind that advocacy of fringe opinions (like yours about Breitbart) is forbidden everywhere at Wikipedia. You need to keep quiet with your dubious opinion, even on your talk page. If you really want to contest the broad consensus against Breitbart, then take it up at WP:RSN. Such noticeboards are the right venue for discussing such things.

Your opinion isn't true or aligned with PAG, and if you really think Breitbart is reliable, then you don't belong here, at least not editing anything related to politics. You are not a newbie. We expect editors to gain the ability to accurately vet sources, and if you still lack that skill, then maybe you should stick to gnomish edits on uncontroversial articles. Make up your mind whether you are going to support our RS policy or not.

BTW, you do not own your talk page, so be careful not to misuse it to push your fringe views contrary to our PAG and RS. If you want to use your talk page for advocacy, then advocate ideas that are backed by RS and PAG. That kind of advocacy is not only not forbidden, it is encouraged. We believe in supporting our PAG, RS, and facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Oliver Anthony

On 22 August 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Oliver Anthony, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. (yes, this is a self-praising post, but hey, I don’t get too much recognition on here. *sniff* 😉 ) Boscaswell talk 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Anthony

On 13 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Anthony, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Rich Men North of Richmond" by Oliver Anthony was the first single to chart at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 with no previous chart history for its artist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Anthony. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oliver Anthony), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

hi

while editing God & Country I happened upon your user page where you assert the Axios claim of "the reality is the southern border is more fortified than it's ever been" is obviously a straight out lie, but Wikipedia says: 'There is a consensus that Axios is generally reliable'". I see others are of like mind.[5]

did you see that Axios provided examples to support its claim? have you and others considered that the current border crisis is due more to an unprecedented surge of migrants rather than a lack of border security? is it possible this surge could be due in part to Republicans hollering "open border!" which draws migrants to the border expecting to just walk in, creating a crisis?[6] and if it's true Trump fortified the most secure border in history, then does that mean Biden removed the fortifications or reduced border patrol officers to enable the surge? I see no evidence he did.

these are just rhetorical questions for you to consider, I'm not expecting a discussion. but it seems to me that the response to the Axios piece is barking up the wrong tree. Axios does not claim there is no border crisis, or that illegal crossings aren't at record highs, which some appear to think it does. Crossings are high despite the border being fortified better than ever. soibangla (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you for real, soibangla?

"…despite the border being fortified better than ever."

Hahahahaha.

Honestly. Boscaswell talk 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

well ok then

good day soibangla (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)