User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 11

this FAC
Hey AnonEMouse, thanks again for your careful screening of the above article. I was wondering if you had a nymore comments to give, or perhaps a support if you feel they are addressed? If not, please air your concerns so I can address them as soon as possible. Thank you SGGH speak! 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I responded there - I edit less on weekends. Many fixed, some not, other issues. I think that as long as Raoul sees that you are addressing concerns, he will leave it up until you either address them all, or we hit some kind of impasse. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed those sources that were questionable, and would appreciate your final comments, unless you have more? :) SGGH speak! 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Amy
Tyra Banks ref
 * topic is the Bunny ranch
 * 1 paragraph mentions amy - she isnt the primary subject her comments appear to be about the industry and the pieces about her are unverified.

NY Times ref
 * topic is bunnyranch
 * Amy is mentioned only briefly in passing.

MSNBC ref
 * topic is Bunny Ranch
 * only 30 second converstion with crosby

HBO ref
 * Catthouse special
 * inside look at Bunny ranch, amy is shown but isnt the subject of the show

Reno Gazette ref
 * Subject- Bunny Ranch burns down

What you've presented to me is fives sources about the Bunny Ranch where they mention Air Force Amy but she isnt the subject of those articles. From this I dont see anything that would warrant an article about Amy. WP:N says that is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. these refs arent significant coverage of Amy, they are of Bunny Ranch though. That said there is enough for a paragraph in the Bunny Ranch article, whats needed is an article where Amy is the primary subject not where she works.

The best comparison I can offer is you've got enough for an article about a trucking company there isnt any reason for an article on one of its drivers. Gnangarra 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War
Your diligence in working on the above article reminds me of Sandy Georgia, who is diligence personified. So I thought I would award you this barnstar!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 16:44, May 1, 2007

Thank you! :)
Thank you, Mousey! :) You know, it's always nice to receive messages (well, unless they are in the "why did you delete/remove/etc type!"), but there's some people who have a gift of instantly making me go "awww" when I read them... and you are among them, in a very special spot. It keeps amazing me what a great editor and admin you've become, and the way you continue to improve yourself every day; but what I love the most about you, is that inside of you, you remain the same Mousey I met long, long ago :) Love you, and thanks for making me smile! -  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Anon, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Here is the section where people say that the shorter version is clearer and describes what's currently done, if that's what you meant. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a link like that was what I meant. From that section:


 * Agree: Crum375, SlimVirgin, ElinorD, David Gerard, Starblind, Tom Harrison, WAS 4.250
 * Don't: Kla'quot, Black Falcon, badlydrawnjeff, AnonEMouse, Miss Mondegreen, nae'blis
 * About one statement from each, minimal back-and-forth, just a statement of where each stands. Kla'quot offered a compromise, that got minimal response, and isn't what you're writing. I know you're more experienced than I am, but can you really read that and call it agreement? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You forgot Andrew Lenahan in support of the shorter. But as you know, these things are never done by numbers. The editors who want the longer version include some with very little experience, and some who have attitudes toward BLPs that I'd say are directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I counted him, he's Starblind. Note that the longer version is also the one that was there before the one that came up, so we're talking about making a change to the spirit and letter of the policy here. I'd rather not cast stones at specific editors ... especially since I suspect if you look at it hard enough, I will be among the stone targets! Instead, can we actually try to reach consensus? By that, I mean something most people can at least live with. Instead, what we have is a revert war, something we as admins really shouldn't be doing, what with "serving as an example" and all. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you, by the way. I'm losing track of what we're talking about, to be honest. The sentence is "After deletion of a BLP, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation." That is demonstrably true; it's what currently happens; and it's been happening since I started editing two and a half years ago, so there really is no problem with it. When it comes to admin actions, the policy should describe the best practice of experienced admins, and that's what it does. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for that! :-) See, what I'm worried about is that it's too short. All it says is that any admin may choose to protect any deleted biography, it says nothing about not every one needing it, that the protection should be temporary, that other people may have the same name, that another admin may choose to unprotect later. Sure, you all say on the talk page that all that is obvious, but it's not, and it's getting written in to a very important policy. Sure, I know that currently experienced admins protect some BLPs, but that's not what it says, it says any admin may protect all of them. I'm darn sure that in just a few months when the talk page is archived, some enthusiastic new admin will absolutely permanently protect each and every single deleted BLP, forever, and when anyone objects will wrap himself in this sentence like a flag. The longer one, which points to WP:SALT is not that much longer, and doesn't prevent experienced admins from protecting those BLPs that need it, it merely prevents inexperienced admins from protecting all of them that don't. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If any new admin starting protecting pages for no reason, whether a deleted BLP or anything else, someone would put him right. Long explanations of when to do this, but not that, aren't helpful in policies. They end up not being read, for one thing. The more succinct the guidance is the better, as a rule, and then it leaves admins some room for common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See, by putting that sentence there, it's no longer "no reason". It's a very good reason, "it says so in policy", and, frankly, even the arbcom would uphold that if the text survived a few months. Note that I'm not asking for much, just a note that WP:BLP does not override the much more reasonable discussion at WP:SALT. Without that note, BLP is a policy and SALT isn't, so BLP certainly does override it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy can't be governed by a guideline. The sentence explains what admins currently do and may do. As I said, this has been happening since I started editing here. It's supported by experienced admins on the page. It's succinct and clear. I can't say anything else about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, it's weird - you respond on my talk page, but don't do so until I copy my response from my talk page to your talk page. I'll keep doing it if you insist, but if there were just one place we could both write to, that would save my copying-pasting muscles a lot of work. :-)
 * Anyway, that's the entire problem. Just a few posts above you write that if someone actually followed that text as written, they would be "put right"! Surely you're not favoring adding incorrect information because it's shorter? If it's wrong, it's not at all clear. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF and the Gere/Crawford issue
As you probably know I am trying to make a change in the BLP policy to make sure that editors like FNMF cannot abuse the BLP policy to remove relevant and well-sourced material on grounds of "sensitivity". I appreciate your comments on my proposed changed to the policy. The latest proposal is at the bottom of this section:. Thank you for your help. Sparkzilla 02:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help because i do not know what to do
I do not know where to start because last 30hrs i have analyze a lot around wikipedia but anyway...I'm chose you because you are aware from past about problems with this user (or those users) (you will see below) and gonna to try to explain what is problem.

I'm registered since 2005 and was all time engaged with absolutely non politics related articles. First topic where i started to be from one or another side politics engaged is here where i start mainly to protect page from onesided and subjective opinion from unregistered user behind ip address ranges 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 and mainly ip address. I tried to provide good reliable source that ip address 85.158.32.142 (or range 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255) does not like.   Actually reverting was so escalated that lead to situtation where i as first has requested 3RR and later ip address above did same. WP:AN3RR Finally article is protected (because was difficult to block another side because of dynamical ip) and i was blocked for 31hrs because of Edit warring Uhhh...It is short history.I regret my decision to be engaged in that article because did not know that some people could be such a fanatic in they blindness. Now problems again start with that ip address because he start to accuse me that i'm sock puppet of some users like  then he change mind and chose.    I have deleted it because he as unregistered user clearly vandalized my page with putting sockpuppet template. I would like to request you to check his request (i'm of course not sockpuppet) and warn him for his behaviour and tell him to stop vandalise my own page He posted it on: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ivan_Kricancic  Now come my analysis to find out who is famous user behind ip range 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 and mainly ip address 85.158.32.142 and i have found this: Requests_for_comment/Emir_Arven Requests_for_checkuser/Case/85.158.32.6 It seems that Emir_Arven have a long history with fight against Ivan Kricancic and Osli73 After problems escalates he probably choose to change tactics and continue with his problematic and uncivil behaviour behind own dynamical ip address and not really his login.I try to warn and possible talk with user behind ip address without any success. User_talk:85.158.33.167 User_talk:85.158.35.49 What i do not understand is blindness of user where he start to fight everybody who do not think as him, ignoring evidence and providing only own (subjective) opinion without any sources. We are all human and we are here to make the world's best encyclopedia. Why some people do not try to work with other and communicate instead of starting with provocation, disrespect and ridiculous accusation. I hope that someone gonna to clear things out, investigate what is going on and at least warn unregistered user behind ip address

Thanks for your time and for reading about this problem.Graciella (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whew. Charged issue. OK:


 * 1) I edited your request to make the links a bit easier to follow. I believe I didn't change any of their meanings, but you may want to make sure.
 * 2) the article is semi-protected, meaning the IP won't be able to edit it, for the next week, so will be free of that conflict for at least that long.
 * 3) the admin blocking you did have a point, you seemed to descend into blind revert-warring rather than any attempt at discussion or compromise. You really should try to reason with people, fighting just makes both sides lose.
 * 4) the actual issue seems to be that you disagreee about a few numbers, and want to add a paragraph that the UN was investigating Izetbegovic, and the other person doesn't. Is the former not something you can agree on? Ask for a citable source for the other person's numbers, then write one short sentence that there's a controversy, and list them all. Is the latter that important, considering the man is dead, and the investigation was dropped with no findings?
 * 5) I don't think you're a sock puppet of Ivan Kricancic. You have different article interests, different writing styles, and yoou've been editing since 2005 so if the IP does make such a formal accusation on WP:SSP, feel free to refer it to me. I wrote as much on User_talk:Srikeit and Requests for checkuser/Case/Ivan Kricancic
 * 6) We can't block a wide range of fluctuating IPs forever, that would be likely to hit most users of a country. So again, as a couple of points above, do try to reach a compromise you can both live with rather than edit warring. That will just make you both "lose". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply.Let's try to reply to you by each number: Izetbegovic was one of the suspects who was under investigation...The fact he died means all investigations are stopped she said. Second thing about article is reverting number of Arab volunteers (number with sources) without providing any source.
 * 1) You did not change point of my meanings.Thanks for fixing links
 * 2) I know that it is protected and it will be better if it stay longer time protected
 * 3) I know but if it is article about politic then people are mostly blind and animosity inside people often show real face of the people
 * 4) Sure former is something where i agree with you and everybody else and i'm gonna to ask them for citable source but i think if they have citable source then will be probably mention in article. Man is dead and it is true but the investigation was not dropped because of no finding but because of his dead. Please see what said Ms Hartmann about it:

What amazing me is how people can go so far without first investigate by themself some facts about me. I'm always open for talking, discussion but what we need is to show reliable sources to each others in future. At least i will always try to find sources (as i did in past) in any of my future editing.Especially for potential susceptible articles.Graciella (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus etc.
In a sense you are correct about adminship, but mostly only in theory. In practice, admins generally represent longer term, experienced editors who have gained the trust of the community; thus, their views tend to be weighed more heavily. Regarding adminship, yes, you are an admin; in fact, I supported your nomination. As far as I know, though, you're the only admin who wishes to change the current policy. The other editors attempting to do so (Badlydrawnjeff, Black Falcon, Clayoquot) are, I believe, not admins. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't support changing the policy. Check what it looked like just a few days ago before this nonsense started, none of this stuff was there, it's being put in without any consensus. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When the contentious issue is the level of detail in guidance, rather than the substance of the guidance, the opinions of less experienced editors should, if anything, count more. Experienced admins are not the audience for the passage in question. Kla'quot 04:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for block
Hi there! User:24.46.115.246 has been reverting/removing info from several pages related to the The Dog House radio show and the Chinese restaurant prank call, apparently to remove any information related to the incident. Maybe a temp block is in order? Thanks for looking! CredoFromStart 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the disputed edit, and gave an official warning in the edit summary and on User talk:24.46.115.246. Notice that 24... did make a comment on his talk page about the sentence belonging in a different place in the article, so maybe we can get a discussion going rather than an edit war and reach some kind of agreement. By the way, it would probably be good if you also tried to discuss the issue rather than just slap templates on. Templates are really intended for blatant vandalism, test edits, kids fooling around, that sort of thing, they don't help reach agreement on actual disputes as much as actual conversation. That said, as I wrote, if he keeps edit warring without discussion, I will block him and/or semi-protect the article.
 * Side comment - can you clean up that article a bit? Stuff like "We played their music and you decided ... Well, that's a big NO" really isn't the tone we want from a neutral encyclopedia article. We should be unbiased, and not that talkative. It's even better to be boring and stuffy, than seem like an ad for the show. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. I honestly know almost nothing about the subject of the article itself - just found it on random article and I heard on the radio about the removed materials. I'll try to wiki it up a bit though - you're right about it needing more work. Thanks for the hints on the templates - I'm still learning the ropes on how and when those things are useful (plus I was pretty vandal-grouchy yesterday!) CredoFromStart 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Graciella
Well, I am sure he is the one. Let me explain. When he was earlier blocked by yourself Rts_freak he introduced himself as an ethnic Bosnian and changed his writing style. Now, I think that he borrowed an account from his friend or someone he knows just in the last week, in order to fabricate speculations. He told you that he gave a source, but he didn't tell you that he removed earlier part of the article which contained more complete information. He pretends to be a nice but just look at his edits in AI article. Just look at this example, when I found that this user was him, he made this change: trying to hide his suggestion. Now (this is very important) compare this two edits, by Ivan and by Graciella: In the same project page Ivan wrote: This is one of the IPs I'm talking about in the above section. and few days after that Graciella made exactly the same edit:. They are very familiar with Wiki project pages, they immidiately acted the same way (with a slightly changed style) so this is very good reason to chech the last week contribution and compare IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.34.117 (talk • contribs) 09:57, May 3, 2007


 * Graciella is familiar with the process, but she's been editing since 2005 (longer than I have!). Given that, the fact that she once wrote the same sentence that Ivan Kricancic did is not conclusive. But in any case, that isn't really the issue, is it? It's a content dispute. So, let me give you the same advice I gave Graciella - discuss and reach a compromise. Look at it this way: even let's pretend that you are both die-hard POV warriors, each with a dozen sock puppet accounts. Say we block one or both of you indefinitely. A week or a month later, you'll come back as another user and resume the same war, with just enough differences that it's not immediately obvious. Does that get anywhere? Surely not. Instead, reach a compromise. Where you disagree, each of you cite a reliable source, and "write the controversy". Something like this "Experienced journalist Mrs. Qwerty of ABCD news organization reported that 5000 people were involved,[3] while highly respected Professor Ghjkl of EFGH university wrote that 30000 people were involved.[4]". There. That gets both of your points of view across, in a way that both sides can hopefully live with, and actually makes the article more comprehensive. Then you can both go off and find something else to edit, rather than keeping writing about how the other person should be blocked all the time. That's what the Wikipedia is for, after all, writing articles, not trying to get other people blocked all the time. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not fall into love with me Emir:) Ok seriously. It is clearly to me that you start to be obsessed with some people. And it looks to me that you can't stand up that there are more people who does not think like you and who tried to provide complete sources (not only speculations without any sources like you did all times). Try to communicate, try to provide sources behind your editing instead of showing disrespect because i'm start to thinking that it is only what you know. Anyway one things come in my mind from your post above is: He told you that he gave a source, but he didn't tell you that he removed earlier part of the article which contained more complete information. Can you please explain to me how is more complete informations without any sources (because you never provided any sources in article about A.Izetbegovic) more complete than informations with sources.Interesting? I will be glad to continue talking and discuss with you on my discussion page or wherever you want. Of course only condition is that you start to show respect to me. ThanksGraciella (talk) 14:32, 03 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me AnonEMouse for bother you again and taking your time but Emir simple continue with accuse everybody who does not agree with him.He gonna to start again with someone else who does not think as he again.Please take a look 7th Muslim Brigade and he have again found another sockpuppet :) Методије It looks to me that it will be very difficult to cooperate with this guy in future even if he decide to discuss with me Graciella (talk) 18:41, 03 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh. Hold on there Graciella. Don't try to cure all the problems in the world at once. As far as I understand from the logs, you've never edited that article, and neither that editor, nor the alleged sock master is you - right? One thing at a time, please. Can you try to solve the first problem before going to look for new ones?--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure.It have nothing to do with me but just would to show you that he continue with simple same tactic as before. Reverting, accusing and stay away from any blocking because of dynamical ip address and give trouble to other registered member (same thing happend to me in well known article). It is not right in my opinion to be hidden behind dynamical ip address and accusing other people. And how to talk with him when he simple ignore to talk and instead of talking start with accusing. I'm still waiting on his next steps.At least i have give to be open for discussion.Still nothing.Graciella (talk) 19:05, 03 May 2007 (UTC)

May 8

 * Unfortunately sage continue.As i expected he continue with reverting sourced articles, ignore to take part into discussion page and he ignore my calls for talking everywhere and simple continue with his old and tested tactics: revert, ignore everything and then probably accusing.I would like to request you to help in this case. ThanksGraciella (talk) 19:30, 08 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to lie, I suppose you are mature person. I gave you the comment in the discussion. I included your (Hartman) source as well, and provided two more very reliable sources. One is about Banja Luka courte which proves that the accusation was constructed by Serb courte who requested investigation by ICTY to quote in Serbian: On je rekao da se među tih 300 osoba nalazi više Bošnjaka nego Hrvata, kao i da Alija Izetbegović, čija je optužnica prosleđena u Hag, zauzima centralno mesto među bošnjačkim optuženicima.

I also presented Predrag Matvejevic analysis (he is not Bosniak, but Italian, Croatian author). He wrote: the number of Arab volonteers who came to help Bosnian Muslims, was much smaller than the number presented by the Serb and Croat propaganda. Also I restored information about Bernard-Levy description that you removed as well as Mladen Ivanic petition that you removed. So please, don't remove sourced information per WP:RS. And finally I included Hartmann source because it is reliable per WP:RS. 85.158.35.14 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only person who lie is You! You ignore official ICTY sources confirmed by Hartmann :She added to answer the second part of the question that Izetbegovic was one of the suspects under investigation as part of the current investigations, but the fact that he had died meant that all legal proceedings against him were dropped. Asked to confirm that up until he died he was under investigation, Hartmann replied that this was the case.You ignore information that numbers of El-Mudzahid was between 2000 - 6000 is well sourced Citation:Intelligence services of the Nordic-Polish SFOR (previously IFOR) sector alerted the U.S. of their presence in 1992 while the number of mujahideen operating in Bosnia alone continued to grow from a few hundred to around 6,000 in 1995.So please assistention needed here. Graciella (talk) 19:50, 03 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please no personal attacks. As I said I included Hartmann source. Let me repeat once again. I included Hartmann source. And again: I included Hartmann source. Regarding Arabs: First, the number of Arabs is not the subject of the article. In the first source it says: (in intro of the article) information was given by anon source. It is not relaible source per WP:RS. Regarding second source it is a Serb lobby site, and the exact number was never confirmed by ICTY. As you know Arabs are mentioned in the article upon their arrival not in 1995 nor 1996 nor etc. And I will be gled to discuss with you in Arab volunteers related article about the numbers etc because I have exact sources. 85.158.35.14 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When you call me lair (please do not lie) then it is not personal attack but otherwise well.Hmmm... You did not included Hartmann sources. Your editing first start with onesided sources from Bosnia site Islam thinking.Then you remove 3 sources including oficial statemnt from UN site

Graciella (talk) 20:52, 03 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not true:here. So you didn't tell the truth. Because I included it and wrote that in summary. The other sources are per WP:RS.85.158.33.128 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I can see you two are talking! :-). Give me a minute to dig through the diffs, please, but let me start by saying how refreshing it is that you are not merely revert warring, but actually discussing. This is a very good sign. It may not seem that way at first, but it is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see. Am I correct that this diff shows the versions in contention? If so, it looks like the following differences exist:

1 - the El-Mudžahid numbering.
 * Graciella prefers: between 2,000 and 6,000 volunteers
 * 85 prefers: around 500 volunteers ... According to Predrag Matvejević, one of the most notable Italian and Croatian modern prosaist, who analyzed the situation, the number of Arab volonteers who came to help Bosnian Muslims, was much smaller than the number presented by the Serb and Croat propaganda.
 * My suggestion - write the controversy; don't focus on how wonderful the sources are, this isn't about them:
 * There was also a squad of Arab volunteers from Muslim countries (the El-Mudžahid) ... a major political liability. The number of the El-Mudžahid volunteers is still disputed, from around 500 to between 2,000 and 6,000.
 * Of course we want to use one way to cite references, but that's a technicality.

2 - 3 - ICTY investigation - A representative of the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY, Hartmann, made the following statement:''She added to answer the second part of the question that Izetbegovic was one of the suspects under investigation as part of the current investigations, but the fact that he had died meant that all legal proceedings against him were dropped. Asked to confirm that up until he died he was under investigation, Hartmann replied that this was the case''.
 * Graciella prefers :Croatian forces and Bosniak forces
 * 85 prefers: Croatian and Bosniak forces
 * My suggestion: Croatian and Bosniak forces. It's shorter.
 * Graciella prefers: ICTY investigation for war crimes Although he was never charged with war crimes for his role during the Bosnian war, following his death, the ICTY acknowledged that he had been under investigation for possible war crimes but that the investigation had been terminated when he died.
 * 85 prefers: Controversy	Many aspects of Izetbegović's life remain strongly disputed between all three sides in the Bosnian War. Mladen Ivanić, president of Republika Srpska government and other Serb politicians and institutions twice petitioned the ICTY to indict him on charges of violations of the customs of war and other issues. According to them ICTY was unfair to Serbs and Croats, because ICTY accused and convicted hundreds of Serbs and Croats, but not a single Bosniak politician. No indictment was issued, although according to Florence Hartmann the investigation was started. It should be noted that just after the war, Serb local courte from Banja Luka then controlled by genocide suspect and fugitive Radovan Karadžić, accused Izetbegović, but droped the case due to the lack of evidence. It was seen as political pressure.
 * My suggestion: "Controversy" is too broad if all this section will have in it is the ICTY investigation. Presumably most of his career is controversial. I think "ICTY investigation" or "War crimes investigation" is a more specific section. Keep all the sources; sources are good. Don't write anything that's controversial, slanted, and not sourced, specifically the Serb local courts business. So:
 * War crimes investigation Mladen Ivanić, president of Republika Srpska government and other Serb politicians and institutions twice petitioned the ICTY to indict him on war crimes and other charges. An ICTY investigation of Izetbegovic was started, but terminated when he died.

4 - 85 prefers: French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy in his documentary called Bosna! portrayed Izetbegović as the Bosnian De Gaulle, humble and brave man defending his people attacked by two aggressors, Serbs and Croats, president in impossible situation.
 * My suggestion: Write with less puffery, and only if you can provide a source that says so. If you can find a specific reliable source that says Levy portrays him as De Gaulle, cite the source. If not, just write:
 * French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy described Izetbegović's wartime career in a favorable documentary called Bosna!.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you. I will try to adjust it. 85.158.33.128 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is nice that all part agree.Wonder oh wonder.I have also started with adjusting.Let's hope that we will not make fight again Graciella (talk) 21:11, 03 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew it but it is hard to believe.He start to play games again with editing .I tried to copied exactly as you wrote but he revert again and making as he thinks that it should be.I would suggest you to protect page and to make self edits.Graciella (talk) 21:25, 03 May 2007 (UTC)

your cxomment on the Cole page
You might want to state your thoughts here, where this dispute has continued for weeks. I personally agree with you that it is since 9/11 that Cole has really gotten a lot of attention. I don't see the need to delete the whole section, but your thoughts might add some perspective to the discussion. csloat 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you got the emphasis of my comment. I don't see those two sentences as a big deal. The difference in content is minor. I don't think the game is worth the candle. (aha! I knew I could find another tired old phrase if I worked at it hard enough.) So if a mediator really wants to mediate, that's great, but since my personal feeling is that it is not worth it, I don't think my coming in and writing that will help, it might even offend the mediator, who has, after all, devoted a fair amount of good faith effort to the issue. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

meditation
i need a third party opinion i think that on the runescape page there should be a guilds list but this other guy doesnt think so what do you think Elderleo 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, but I don't know much about RuneScape, so don't know if Guilds are a minor detail or the heart of the whole thing. Maybe you could ask on Talk:RuneScape? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Amy
Hi, you restored this, despite an afd closure as delete. I was going to redelete it as a recreation, and tell you to go to DRV. But, given the afd was borderline, I decided against jumping in with the admin tools, so instead I've referredthe matter to DRV for debate. You might like to contribute.--Docg 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scourge (Transformers)
You're talking to the wrong guy about that, but it never hurts to remember or be reminded to be polite. So I will. . . see that you do too. --The Matrix Prime 15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What? No offense, but I don't recall ever editing, writing about, or ever reading the article on Scourge (Transformers) - what are you referring to, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Russel Wallace FAC
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for FA. Your feedback would be very welcome, and I want to thank you for all the comments you have already made, which have greatly improved the article.Rusty Cashman 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nina Mercedez
Can you take a look at Articles for deletion/Nina Mercedez when you get a chance? I know you've got some familiarity with pornographic bios, and there's a claim that the current article is essentially a G4 reposting of the old one (it is partially a repost, which suggests a tenditious editor, but there's also a lot of new info in there). Not entirely sure how to proceed, so I thought I'd drop you a line. -- nae'blis 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Happy Tony's Day
Thank you! Man, let me tell you, that was a total surprise. That Sharon, really has a way of brightening someones day. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvelous Mousey
Wonderful Mousey, I've been thinking all day about the thousand things I wish to tell you, and I sincerely don't know where to begin. I do know, however, that I've learned one thing in the last months, and that is, not opening my heart in talk pages. For that reason, I reserve everything I wish to tell you for a long, really long email that'll be sitting on your mailbox in minutes. I do want to say, loudly, that you are a wonderful, incredible and marvelous person, and that the light that stems from your soul is a beacon of beauty. I don't wanna go on like this, right now. I'll see you at your mailbox, my Mousey. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson chronology of performances‎
I get that the link leads to a filmography, but imo, the filmography links in the main Jenna Jameson article should be sufficient (or should be duplicated here). Another concern is why choose excalibur? It doesn't exist in the main article. Why not IAFD or actiondvd or any of a few hundred others? Ok, I'll grant you that excalibur has a classier look to it than most other video sellers, but if we start adding video sellers here, we will eventually be forced to add all of them... Valrith 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Olybrius 01.jpg
--Andrij.Dunatov 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

William Goebel
Thank you for your comments regarding my nomination of William Goebel for featured article. While I think your categorization of the article as "a mess" is a bit extreme, you brought up several valid points that I have attempted to address. I hope you will consider supporting the article as edited, or at least offer more feedback on what else needs to be done. Acdixon 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, improving the article is the idea. I'll return, give me a bit of time. Sorry about the mess comment, I guess it was strong; I was mainly struck by the lead's concentrating on his voice, height, and lack of sex life, meanwhile leaving out items of lesser importance such as why he was a controversial politician, what party he was from, or how or why he was shot. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Email!
Sweet Mousey, you do have mail now :) Please let me know whether it got through. Love you,  P h a e d r i e l  - 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization
I've done my best to address your remaining concerns. Please let us know if they are satisfied. Thanks for all the help! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be some cheese in it for you...
...if you could take at look at Robert Benchley and drop some notes in the peer review. You've been awfully helpful in the past, so if you have some spare time, I'd appreciate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

QZ RfC
Thank you for the 95% endorsement on the RfC, and I've responded there to your comment about the other 5%, which I hope will clarify the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sedan hatchback comparison
thanks for attention. i think i can take enough time(weeks probably) to find reference. I still beleive something wrong, in wiping talk page, where i asked visitors to contribute. however, forget.

and tell me when is election, and dont call anybody babies for your own safety.

my technical suggestion:
 * a reference button(like bold, internal link etc.) in edit page. im fed up to writing ref and /ref
 * easy guide(that catches eye) to find reference to a new user. in perticular case i alone need not toil to find references. with title like: "if you doubt a sentence, its easy to find reference in 3 steps". which will make any visitor research little and improve verifiability. these days vandals are educated and their mantra is verifiability. this will make me like people need not toil much. Racky pt 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

optional: go through deleted talk page there in that article to see how sedan is not orrange.Racky pt 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i would be thankful if you could post wikitext of deleted article in my talk page(making new section). regards Racky pt 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks pal. but you did not give a damn to my technical suggestions. but i did it, its easy! also i learnt ref button is below edit box, this you could have told. anyways, good day. Racky pt 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My first AfD
Hi, AnonEMouse. I'm-- ahem-- not very experience in starting AfDs myself. I've just put this one up, because I believe it to be a hoax. I'm not sure I've done it correctly-- and should I have speedied it instead? The editor added more of what I believe to be hoax information at two other articles. Any feedback would be appreciated. Dekkappai 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, welcome to the dark side! You know Epbr123 has worked on saving a few articles? Maybe you can persuade some bartender to get you a free beer... :-)
 * It's not a speedy candidate level hoax to me - the "achievements" and movie titles are a bit far out, but so is much of the genre, and the lack of Google hits are indicative, but not proof. It is an obvious enough hoax to me to the extent that I'm going to join you in arguing to delete it, but it's not a speedy candidate as "nonsense". All the sentences are at least legible, and make sense. :-) It should go in the classic 5 days.
 * You missed the step (in WP:AFD) about adding it to today's AFD list. That's necessary, otherwise most people who frequent WP:AFD won't see it, and it's quite likely no closing admin will close and delete it. You could also drop a note about it on the creator's user talk page, in case he doesn't check his watch list. That's merely polite, and gives him more of an opportunity to defend the article. Finally, in the AFD itself, you could provide links to the edits adding information to other actresses' pages. That's evidence. :-) I'll do all that tomorrow if you don't, but for now I'll give you the opportunity to do it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Free beer? Sign me up!... I've just notified the editor, and I'll get to the other step next. Thanks again for the help. Dekkappai 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Old joke... #8 here for example. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Reminds me of the old couple who went to the doctor for an AIDS test. They believed they were in a high-risk group because they had sex annually... Dekkappai 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff arbitration
In your comment on a proposal made by Doc glasgow on the Requests for arbitration page, you referred to my comments on the same proposal. This is just a note to inform you that I've changed my mind and replaced my earlier comments completely, so you may wish to remove or alter the reference in your own comment. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to expand your comments a bit. As is, while they explain how you feel about the WP:BLP policy, they don't actually specify whether or not you think Arbcom should take this case!
 * Personally, I agree with most things that Thatcher writes, and would be happy to get a general statement from the arbcom on this, except for one key point - I'm not sufficiently confident that arbcom won't issue (in my opinion) unjustified sanctions in this particular case, given that Fred Bauder and FloNight at least have strongly implied they would like to. That's kind of an important point. It's like asking a US Supreme Court of presidential appointees to rule on a specific closely contested presidential election... I'd be happy to trust them in setting general rules, I'm just worried about the specific sanctions to be handed down on a case where they have already expressed bias. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I no longer have a firm opinion whether they should take this case or not, only on the scope of the case should they take it. I don't think sanctions of any kind would be likely to arise from the case at present, although I foresee guidance, and the possibility of warnings and an admonishment or two. I seriously doubt that Jeff's persistence in renominating cases on deletion review until he gets his way would be regarded warmly. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you stop adding to the myth, Tony? At no point do I show "persistence in renominating cases."  In this particular dispute, I listed a DRV twice - once to review the out of process closure in the second AfD, and once in a good faith attempt to avoid RfC and ArbCom.  Be honest and accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Persistence in listing a deleted article for deletion review twice and trying to get arbitration committee to order people to discuss it again. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jennifer Capriati mugshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jennifer Capriati mugshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Day Change
So you know, I just went back and saw what you had done with my little archived record on Phaedriel's page, and I have to say for someone who doesnt know me, you got me amazingly right. I even had an essay about Dickinson's views published in my college newspaper. Well, this is of really no consequence in the long run, but for the record, I appreciate it greatly. - M  ask?  22:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) I'm glad. You're right, I don't know you at all the way that Phaedriel, presumably, does (does she know everyone?) but I did read your user page. Thank you very much. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To the cutest Mouse in the Universe

 * Wow, thanks! After AKMask's nice comment, my day is now complete, and couldn't be ruined by two arbcom cases and an RFC. Bring on the vandals! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your kind message. Epbr123 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New image of Jenna Jameson
I found a new image of her today that I think you might like; it has porn star stamped all over it :-) Regards --Rosenzweig 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do like! I put it in as the lead. By the way, I don't actually own the article, so you could have done that too. :-)

Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg was deleted
However a Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29 was initiated should you be interested. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody reverted change you requested
Sorry to bother you with minor nonsense. At Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization you said "Some SEOs; online forums and blogs - WP:WEASEL. Surely some SEO forums and blogs are more prominent than others - you list the top 4 search engines, can you list the top 4 SEO forums or companies?" I had added four names with sources, but then User:Michael Martinez removed that material, twice.  He was previously blocked for 3RR, and I am a member of the Harmonious editing club so I am not going to do any more reverts. Do you see a way out? Jehochman Talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)