User talk:Bosoni/Archive 1

Srebrenica article in need of vigilance
KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski have all teamed up to do a major revisionist renovation of the Srebrenica Massacre article. Since they are working in concert, it is easy to make a single user go past their three reverts. It is not clear how administrators will see this. I will hold out as long as I can, but the original editors of this article will need to be vigilant if is not to be lost to nationalist revisionists. All of the above mentioned editors are from the WikiSerbia forum... whatever they call it. 128.253.56.185 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

7000 estimate is antiquated
Bosoni, I just added this to the Srebrenica discussion page.

Based on the information available in 2001 the ICTY Trial Chamber stated it "is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica,Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men."

Based on data available now in 2006, it is clear that the 7,000 estimate is too low.

The ICMP has a very strict accounting for Srebrenica victims and only accepts family testimony backed up with DNA samples. The ICMP list of Srebrenica victims is currently at 7,789. http://www.ic-mp.org/home.php?act=news&n_id=175 The Federal Commission of Missing Persons in 2006 is now over 8000. Their method is also strict requiring at least two independent confirmations. In addition to the approximately 8,300 confirmed by the commission, there are several hundred more under review. I have put in a request with a Harvard researcher to give the latest official numbers with primary source material. I hope to have that soon.

I believe the data now available in 2006 collected by internationally accredited institutions will substantiate that the introduction ought to say "approximately 8,000 killed" not the year 2001 estimate of "7,000 to 8,000". I want to thank Osli for inspiring this additional research and given his professed commitment to a rational approach to writing this article, I rest assured that he too will agree to the "approximately 8,000 killed" in the introduction once all the documentation has been presented. Hmmmm... well on second thought he'll probably go running to Seselj to get the latest "controversy" and do everything he can to sabotage putting a reasonable estimate based on ICMP research in the introduction, but so it goes. Fairview360 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica intro
Bosoni, the challenge with the "up to 8,373" limit is that there are hundreds of names above and beyond that number of people who may have gone missing during the Srebrenica Massacre. Also, given that the 8,373 number includes only those names that have been confirmed by two independent sources, then it stands to reason that there are more. In other words, the number of people killed is probably more than 8,373. Please look at the introduction that includes both the 7,000 to 8,000 estimate and the 8,373 list of names. Fairview360 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosoni, I understand your concern about possible ambiguity misleading the reader to an inaccurately low estimate of those killed, but by including the 8,373 number along with the 7,000 to 8,000, the reader can see that the number killed is most probably at least 8,000. I understand that that is what you want to communicate (about 8,000). Perhaps there is a way to concisely say that the 8,373 number is of those who have been confirmed by two independent sources, that there are hundreds more reported to have gone missing during the Srebrenica Massacre and therefore according to what is known in 2006, a reasonable estimate is over 8,000. But that will take some research and work on writing. We can do it. But at this time, I would really like it if we could all (except our dear vandal Osli) agree on the intro Jitse re-instated 07:06, 16 August 2006. If we do that, then only Osli will be deleting sentences and sooner or later, his behavior, in regards to the intro, can be clearly revealed as that of a vandal. Then we perhaps can get help from admin to stop Osli's vandalism.

Osli's vandalism
Bosoni, Emir Arven, Live Forever, Bosniak, HanzoHattori, Dado, Haris M:

I would like to protect the Srebrenica massacre introduction from any further vandalism by Osli. He repeatedly deletes sentences from the intro that are accurate, true, relevant, and well referenced.

If we can all agree on the text of the intro, then it will become entirely clear to administrators that Osli is a vandal.

Please look at the intro as it stands now. It would be great if we could all leave it as it is now or quickly come to an introduction that we all can agree to. Currently, it explains in stark terms what happened. That is why Osli wants to delete the sentences. Make the truth less clear in the beginning, so that he can then throw in his “Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!” propaganda and potentially confuse some of the readers.

Please all take a look at the intro. Let’s all come to an agreed upon intro and let it stand. Then if Osli continues to delete sentences from the intro it will clearly be vandalism and if he continues, perhaps he can be banned. Then we can concentrate on the article and let our own differences of opinion be a source for constructive conversation and continuing improvement of the article.

What do you think?

Bosniak's reply
Of course we can cooperate Adrien. You can also visit my blog http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com and in the comments leave me your email address so I can contact you. Of course, I will not publish your comment, so your email will stay private. Please keep an eye on Wikipedia's Srebrenica Massacre article.

Cheers!

Hi Adrien!
For Adrien: Hi friend, I got your email and I replied to it. But, and this is very important, I cancelled my internet service provider today and currently I am in process of switching to another one; new connection should be established in few days. Currently, I am sitting on my balcony overlooking downtown Vancouver and use free (*open*) wireless connection! It's pretty fast though. I will add your email to my MSN contact list, so I can catch you online. Cheers!

Update: Also my previous email is not working, because of internet service change - but I added you to my MSN; I'll give you my other email when I catch you online. Cheers again!

Image:Bosnian children.jpg
There is noting on Flickr to suggest that this image is CC licenced. --Peta 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you stick the email permission on the image talk page please.--Peta 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply to Adrien's post on Bosniak Talk page
Yes Bosoni! Hi! Few days ago, I sent you my new email address and it bounced! I will re-send it again! Hope it doesn't bounce. Cheers! Check your email.

Bosnians is a correct translation of the term Bosanci and it is most used in english language to descibe people comming from BiH. This includes all people and not exclusevly Bosniaks (who are constituent ethnic group within Bosnia per the constitution). Creating an article Bosanci serves only to conceal the issue and it is very deceptive. --Dado 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of flogging the issue on Bosnians I'd suggest you to pay attention to more burning issues such as edit wars on Republika Srpska --Dado 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dado. --HRE 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bosoni, I see you have taken up Bosniak's torch on the Srebrenica massacre article. I do not question that the massacre happened or that some 7-8000 persons were killed. In many ways I believe that the article is very good, in that it provides a good presentation of the topic. However, I feel that in certain places it has chosen to present only one of the interpretations of the events, typically the Bosniak one (when Wikipedia says "Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."

I felt this was the case with regards to three sections in particular:
 * Introduction: it quoted the figure 8,300 killed when the sources talked about an estimated 7-8,000 killed and missing.
 * Struggle for Srebrenica: this section failed to present the significance of Serb casualties during this period as a motive for 'revenge' in 1995.
 * Serb casualties around Srebrenica: this section only presented one of several studies into the number of Serb casualties in the region. I have not been able to find the actual report but the pressrelease talks of some 500-600 killed, soldiers and civilians. I felt that it was important to add the other estimates which have been made. For this, I used a ICTY press briefing which specifically discussed the various estimates over Serb casualties. I also provided sources, both from the NIOD report and former Unprofor commander MacKenzie on how the losses in 1992-93 were a factor in the 1995 massacre. I also provided a link to an article in the Journal of Conflict Studies outlining the Sarajevo governments slander campaign against MacKenzie.

Bosniak was completely unable (or unwilling) to discuss the topic in a civil and rational way, instead he called all of the sources I supplied (ICTY, NIOD, etc) "discredited Serb lies" and similar. I realize this is a touchy subject for a Bosniak, however, I hope that you and I will be able to have a more constructive and polite interaction than was possible with Bosniak.

Salut Osli73 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree
With Dado on the Bosnians issue subject. --HRE 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jezici
Druga dva jezika su Montenegrin i Bunjevac. Prema tome, da bismo ovo napisali tačno treba da piše ili "Serbo-Croatian" ili "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Bunjevac". Međutim nemam vremena da sada raspravljam o tome, stavi koju god mapu želiš, ali bih ti savetovao da na njoj pišu svih 5 varijanti. I ja ne podržavam "Serb politics in Bosnia", već "Serb people in Bosnia", što nema veze jedno sa drugim. "Evil and injustice" je uvek na strani onih koji svoju volju žele da nametnu narodu. Pa sad ti razmisli koji su ti. :) PANONIAN   (talk)  13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bosnian_girl_raped_by_serbs.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bosnian_girl_raped_by_serbs.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Bosnian_girl_raped_by_serbs.jpeg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Bosnian_girl_raped_by_serbs.jpeg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. In particular, I'd like to see some proof that the image is in fact licensed under a CC license, because I'm finding it hard to believe that a press bureau like AP would do that. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bro
hey adrien,

how is everything going man, hope to catch you on msn sometimes. :) Bosniak 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Afro-americans.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Afro-americans.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakur image
How come the shakur image was not free? It's been on the shakur article for over a year now?...please don't say you hate shakur? :O:O..Bosoni

I will return it 4 now. Peace Bosoni

If you want to remove the picture of pac which has by the way been on wikipedia for a long time, you will have to find a good substitute. Bosoni


 * No, unfortunatelly, it's not free. Accoding to the text on Image:2pac_Shakur_25.jpg, the image is a copyrighted image used under a fair use claim, to illustrate the article on Tupac Shakur. No, I don't hate Shakur. I don't know anything about him, actually. I'll take the time to read his article sometime.


 * Please, revert to the free-images-only collage. We shouldn't be doing derivative works of non-free image. Let me know if you need any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Abu can not invent policy, the collage is fine. Dionyseus 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosoni, I am a longtime editor of the African American page and I wanted to let you know that I think the collage is a great addition. I have an idea on how to expand on it, and since you are the one who originally placed it there, I wanted to discuss it with you and see what you think. I would like to add more prominant AA's to the collage in addition to the ones already there and place it in the "Who is African American" subset of the article, essentially to illustrate the diverse appearances of African Americans due to varying degrees of mixture within the black population of the United States, which is what that section of the article deals with. I was wondering how you created the collage and how I might add some more faces to it and expand the size. I could use a little help with that if you are willing. Thanks for your contribution to the article. User:dynamicknowledge24

Help!
This user, User:Abu badali, keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Thank you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)