User talk:Opbeith/Archive pre-block

Welcome
Hi Owen,

I am glad you are active with Wikipedia, and particularly with Srebrenica massacre article.

Welcome Aboard!

Bosniak 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak and Srebenica
Hello. I can take a look at the Srebenica massacre article for you, but keep in mind that the block was due to a legal threat under WP:LEGAL and not anything related to article editing behaviour of Bosniak or anybody else on Balkan topics. Feel free to ask questions about the matter. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

check Srebrenica article
KarlXII who might be a reincarnation of Osli73 and Jitse are deleting the intro to the Srebrenica article. I believe the intro -- the way it was before these latest deletions -- very accurately communicates a clear and comprehensive picture of what actually happened. To stop the Srebrenica article from spinning out of control again, I am writing notes to all the editors who have an interest in the article and asking that you visit the site more often. Thank you. Fairview360 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No
I never said what happened at Srebrenica was justified (whatever it was, since we will never know the truth, as it keeps getting covered up). What I do claim is that the Srebrenica Massacre article is extremely biased and not worthy of being on Wikipedia, but on a personal biased POV page.

The article is outright ignoring the lead-up to Srebrenica (and that is that over 50 Serbian villages were attacked in the area surrounding Srebrenica prior to the incident at Srebrenica and that Srebrenica was a base for Bosniak soldiers) and that this is what led Serbian forces to retaliate. However, the Bosniak soldiers did NOT attempt to weed out Serbian soldiers (as the Serbian soldiers did in Srebrenica) but killed civilians.

What happened in Srebrenica is the following and it is what is ignored: it was an attempt to weed out soldiers and armed supporters of the Alija regime in order to END THE ATTACKS ON NEIGHBOURING SERBIAN VILLAGES and in that case it was successful, the attacks stopped, because the Bosniak base at Srebrenica was stopped. However, one must understand that during this war, soldiers were dressed as normal people, therefore, it was necessary to detain all males in order to question them and determine which are soldiers and which are not. However, during the process of unarming Bosniak males (during which the Dutch forces left, because what they saw was perfectly legal and acceptable) the Bosniaks attacked Serb forces and tried to run away. Now, since it is not reasonable at this point to peacefully attempt to detain the Bosniaks once again, gunfire broke out between the two sides, leading to the deaths of Bosniak males. (And most CERTAINLY not 8000, but 2000, ANOTHER fact which is completely fabricated, but that is another argument related to false reporting with a hidden political agenda.)

THAT is what is ignored. And THAT is why this article is completely POV. I do NOT support war, I do NOT think any killing is justified, so do not attempt to make it seem as if I do. I think that the entire Bosnian war was a direct cause of media bias and direct propaganda enforced by political leaders of the Yugoslav republics and Western political leaders. I am of mixed Slavic ancestry and have NO reason to wish for the deaths of ANY of the Slavic entities in former Yugoslavia. I love my people and I hate anyone who tries to turn them against each other, like THIS ARTICLE AND ITS PERPETRATORS (for whatever messed up reason) ARE TRYING TO DO! I do not want people to walk away from this article thinking "Oh those Bosniaks are evil, the Serbs were just defending themselves" NO. I want people to walk away from this article thinking "Oh both sides committed atrocities and both sides are victims, there is never a good side and a bad side in the war, like the media tries to make us believe".

Don't be a fool.... the wars that broke up Yugoslavia fucked up many future generations of Southern Slavs... I'm just trying to shorten the number of generations. I am not trying to defend what any side did... and I am not trying to lessen what any side did, or make any victim more important than the next... but this article is doing just that....

All sides were guilty, all sides were victims... and this article is hiding that... It's hiding the truth. Stop The Lies 05:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * Thank you for your input. However, it is precisely those who neglect to apply critical judgement to their sources who fail to realize simple truths about this war... which I have stated above. And no, please read more carefully, I did not state that only soldiers were killed. All males were detained, therefore, it is very unlikely that all of them were soldiers, although a large percentage of them (due to the guerilla nature of this war) probably were. My own personal view (which is, as any view of the incident in Srebrenica, subject to fault) was shaped by exactly the process which you prescribe: using my "analytical capabilities to decide which is more credible" etc and doing my best to leave personal passions/bias behind. You must understand that a great part of my dissatisfaction about the article comes from the fact that it is largely based on one source. Yes, it may appear that there are citations, however, the facts were drawn from one source (a movie depicting one side of the story) and then sources were found which support these facts. However, the other side of the story was not depicted in the movie, and thereby, also not depiced in the article. Therefore, sources which support these unstated facts were not found.


 * I did not engage in any revert/edit wars with anyone, I did not try to impose my views on anyone, or try to adjust the article to depict a pro-Serb version of the incident. The great majority of my contributions to Srebrenica can be found on the talk page. Where I openly discussed my take on the article. I find it really sad that someone like yourself, who seems to have a decent noggin on their shoulders, failed to interpret what I said, and came to the conclusion that I was justifying what happened. I despise what happened. I think it was a horrible incident, much like every other incident that occurred in the wars of the breakup of Yugoslavia against innocent Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs.


 * Those people who find it hard to realize that their side was not innocent (and believe me, there are people editing this article believe that) and who are not able to say it's in the past, and it gives me no reason to have anything against you personally because you were not involved (this is also very common unfortunately, another view I will spend a good portion of my life trying to eliminate between the Balkan peoples), and who are not able to see that the wars were begun by self-interested politicians who did NOT have the citizens' best interests in mind... and who as a result, will not be able to enjoy a burek with a Balkan person of a previously 'enemy' ethnicity, have a major problem. And no, I'm sorry, but that is not as acceptable/justifiable as you seem to think it is... And THAT train of thought is what is propelled by this article, and its perpetrators. People who I hold very dear to me were shelled daily in Sarajevo by 'enemy' forces, but I will never hold it against a person of that ethniciy, and I will always be able to enjoy a fresh burek with them.


 * If you want to claim that the balance of responsibilities is not equal, then I have another bone to pick with the specifics of that claim. Firstly, saying the responsibilities are not equal due to the number of soldiers killed would be silly, and that is not what I think you claim. Secondly, saying the responsibilities are not equal due to the number of civilians killed is an equally absurd comparison. The reason being, the numbers of civilians killed on all three sides will never be known, and not even CLOSE, due to reasons that I have stated (inflating/deflating numbers, using bodies of other ethnicities to account for one's own ethnicity count etc.). And thirdly, the war occurred in Croatia and Bosnia, against Croatian/Bosnian Serbs, who were a minority for the most part. Had the war occurred between Croats, Bosnians, and Serbian Serbs in the country of Serbia, this would be different, and the Serbian death count would be bigger (although again, it and other counts would then be adjusted to suit personal/political agendas).


 * MY TAKE on responsibilities is yes, just like yours, and unequal balance, but however, between different players: the Western politicians and the politicians of the Balkans. In short, the Western politicians are more to blame, due to their Yugo-distructive hidden agenda and lets-see-how-we-can-benefit-from-Balkan-ethnic-tension idea (if it had to do with rights of minorities, Herzegovina and RS would be independent entities by now) and the Balkan politicians are less to blame, because they are simply self-interested, money-seeking, own-selfish-agenda-(on a smaller scale than the West)-perpetrating (such as buying that nice yacht and bling bling) with no real purpose in life, but to fuck over their own people. The Bosnians were fucked over by Alija, the Croats were fucked over by Tudjman, and the Serbs were fucked over by Milosevic/Karadjic. I forgot to mention, that they are all morons who could not give you the definition of "politika" if their lives depended on it (This is true to this day).


 * Sigh.... I am terribly sorry about the mile-long reply. I am very interested in this topic (I am of mixed Yugo ethnicity and it can trouble me when people think I have a biased view, people usually tell me I am very open minded when it comes to the topic). Feel free to reply with a simple "STOP LEAVING ME MESSAGES YOU FREAK" or as long of a reply as you want. I feel drained :( lol. Have a good day Stop The Lies 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I have a feeling this will simply be a back and forth game of toss on the topic, since I feel we are both confident in our opinions. You have said that you disagree fundamentaly with what I say, not only partially or slightly, so it's ok, you don't need to reply. I respect your opinion, and your reasoning seems valid and thorough, however, if you disagree that much with what I say, then I see no agreement between us in the future on the issue, unfortunately, and I would rather us spend our wiki-time contributing to articles. And that's ok. But thanks a lot for your time, keep contributing to Wikipedia :) Bye bye for now Stop The Lies 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Massaker von Srebrenica
The hed's the title, pasted right from the article. If you can't get to it via the link, go to the German Wikipedia, click on Weitere Ekzellent Artikeln, and it's right there as a fairly new one. Daniel Case 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want, go to my page and email me. I will print a copy as a PDF and mail it back to you. Daniel Case 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

please comment on content not contributors
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. // Laughing Man 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed your comments since your it was strictly about a contributor in an attempt to discredit there views, as well exposing an editor inappropriately. Let's discuss the content of the articles instead please.  Please refer to the policy link I gave originally, and you will see that your comment is in violation of the policy (specifically two points)
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. // Laughing Man 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste any more time with explaining things to you if you fail to even attempt to understand the policy.  Hopefully a more patient editor can explain things to you because I don't have the time for this nonsense. // Laughing Man 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, Stop Harrassing Opbeith
Laughing man Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I have also posted this courtesy warning at your talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laughing_Man#Courtesy_Warning Bosniak 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Foca rapes
I started an article, so I guess you'd like to write it. --HanzoHattori 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hanzo Hatori, last night I invited you to come and help us with Srebrenica Massacre article, and I still don't see you there. Srebrenica genocide is more important than any other crime in Bosnia. I know that Foca suffered greatly with respect to rapes of women and children (there was recently a judgement for some piece of garbage who raped children and women), but for now, we need to keep an eye on Srebrenica. Bosniak 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My motives
Opbeith,

With regard to your comments on User talk:Jitse Niesen, I'd be happy to explain my motives.


 * "I have just had posts deleted by someone called Laughing Man who claims at his User page to be a member of something called the Counter -Vandalism Unit on the grounds of them being personal attacks."

I don't know anything about User:Laughing Man, but I can tell you that his actions were quite uncontroversial. Article talk pages exist for editors to discuss work on an article. It's perfectly acceptable to delete threads like this, which do absolutely nothing to advance the article.


 * "Bosniak is being wound up again,"

Bosniak appears to be self-winding. I didn't seek out that article; I have no particular interest in the subject. Bosniak took it upon himself to send me this unprovoked message a few days ago. When he sent me that, I hadn't looked at or thought about the Anti-Bosniak sentiment article since November. I only noticed it in November as a spillover from the deletion debate for Bosniakophobia. Bosniak's current message confused me, so I reviewed his recent history to try to understand where this was coming from. In doing that, I stumbled on the Srebrenica massacre article. And I was, frankly, shocked to find such a blatant violation of our biographies of living persons policy with regard to a respected Canadian general.


 * "not to mention myself, and we are being threatened with action by people (laughing Man and Jim Douglas) who give the impression of acting with authority"

I haven't claimed to have any authority whatsoever. Nor have I threatened anyone. I did, however, remind Bosniak on his talk page that his uncil behaviour is not acceptable, and given the numerous warnings on his talk page and his history of blocks, appears to reflect an ongoing pattern.


 * "but in fact seem to have an agenda of their own."

Can I ask you to assume good faith, please? I've been utterly straightforward about my motives. This assumption that I have some hidden agenda is insulting and untrue, but more importantly, it's completely unconstructive. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Describing saying that the massacre at Srebrenica didn't happen as a "critical view"
I'm sure this is simply a miscommunication, but you still appear to misunderstand my motives and my comments. Here are MacKenzie's words:


 * What happened next is only debatable in scale. The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety.

"Only debatable in scale." MacKenzie does not dispute the basic facts: Men and boys of fighting age were singled out and slaughtered. It was a horrendous crime.


 * It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves.

MacKenzie personally defines "genocide" in a very specific and limited sense. If I can extrapolate a definition from what he said in that article, I would say his definition would be something like a systematic and premeditated effort to exterminate an entire ethnic group. In this sense, The Holocaust was obviously an attempted genocide, as is the Darfur conflict. The word "genocide" is not a legal term, nor does it mean precisely the same thing to all observers, nor does the United Nations have the exclusive authority to define the term. Honorable men of good will can disagree about whether the term applies to a particular situation. And MacKenzie, as a 30-year veteran who served on eight separate peacekeeping mission, and as the UNPROFOR commander in Sarajevo for six months in 1992, is certainly entitled to express his informed opinion.


 * Evidence given at The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred. That figure includes "up to" 5,000 who have been classified as missing. More than 2,000 bodies have been recovered in and around Srebrenica, and they include victims of the three years of intense fighting in the area. The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed.

As I've said, MacKenzie has the right to take a narrower view of the term "genocide", and he is arguing that the body count includes men who are missing, and men who were killed in battle over a period of three years. I want to be very clear here: I am not making a case for MacKenzie's statements.  I am simply saying that he is not an uninformed and ignorant commentator. Given all of that, I believe it's legitimate to classify MacKenzie's views of the event as "Critical views". It is not legitimate to call him a "Denier".

Regarding those rape allegations...there's nothing new there, and including them can only be interpreted as an attempt to smear his reputation in order to call into question his comments about Srebrenica. No legal charges were filed last October; a county prosecutor in Sarajevo told an AFP reporter that he was "investigating" those old allegations. He declined to provide details, including the number of women allegedly involved. MacKenzie hasn't been charged with any crime, and it's a violation of Wikipedia's very strict WP:BLP standards to continue to insert those allegations into the article like this. And, to be honest, my opinion is that Bosniak has taken those prosecutor's comments in October and used them as simply the latest justification for including the rape allegation. He's been attempting to insert that comment into the article, with limited success, since at least last August.

I'd like to ask you to have a word with "Bosniak" about his behaviour in that article. It's not in my interest to push to have him blocked again, but his actions are making it very difficult for me. He continues to ignore legitimate concerns on the article talk page, instead preferring to just come back to the article every 24 hours or so and indiscriminately revert all changes back to the most recent version he agrees with -- while accusing legitimate editors of being either "Serb provocateurs" or "vandals". In doing this, he has repeatedly reverted spelling and grammatical corrections and most recently, a new link added by User:Elaragirl. He takes the position that this is his article to defend, and he will protect it from all attackers. That approach is frowned on here. The thing is, I'm not an attacker; I'm simply trying, in a very limited way, to adhere to some core Wikipedia policies. I have no interest in rewriting that article; in fact, I would have never noticed it if Bosniak hadn't forced it to my attention this week. I don't suppose it would surprise me if most people who edit that article have a partisan POV, either pro-Bosnian or pro-Serb. Do I really need to point out that Bosniak, in particular, carries his POV around with him, not only in his choice of user name, but in the soapbox that is his user page? The (sad, perhaps) reality is that most of us in North America give very little thought to a war that ended a decade ago. I don't intend for that to sound callous; it's a simple fact. It's logical to expect that most of the people who continue to have a strong and passionate interest in the subject are from the former Yugoslavia. And very few of those people -- Serbs, Croats, or Bosniaks -- are likely to have anything approaching a neutral point of view.

I respect the fact that you think I'm a racist and a genocide denier and God only knows what else, but you're still prepared at some level to discuss my concerns and not get into a pointless edit war. Please, for everyone's sake, can you find a way to explain to Bosniak that he needs to moderate his behaviour? He's really got to stop labeling every edit he disagrees with as "vandalism", and he's got to stop the indiscriminate mass reverts. There's no point in me trying to make these points to him anymore -- he's not listening to me at all. He's even maintaining the pretense that he doesn't read his talk page. Maybe you can explain to him that it's in his interest to relax, assume good faith, and believe that most editors are sincerely trying to improve the article. Anyway, thanks for reading all of this...I hope it helps. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I have to presume that you're speaking as an innocent but you're wanting me to go over ground I've already covered, in a way that suggests you are either skimming over the issues or ignoring them, so I'll be brief.

(1) You say " The word "genocide" is not a legal term, nor does it mean precisely the same thing to all observers, nor does the United Nations have the authority to define the term." This is simply not true and you haven't done your homework. It's easy enough to check, at the very minimum by going to the Wikipedia article on genocide. And the point has been covered umpteen times on the Discussion page where I and others have quoted the relevant legal wording and sources.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948. Look it up. But I'll give you the key wording of Articles I and II:

"Article I

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The convention's definition of genocide is in fact narrower than it might be, in that it confines itself simply to a definition that is limited to the physical aspects of genocide but what's key is "in whole or in part". That is the wording that Raphael Lemkin was determined it should have and which the UN General Assembly adopted.

So this is a treaty forming part of the body of international law. Please don't tell me it is not legal.

(2) The problem has been prosecuting genocide. Article III defines the acts that shall be punishable under the convention. Intent has to be shown. In the case of genocide many of the witnesses and the evidence will simply have been removed. (The evidence at Srebrenica has been hard to assemble because of the deliberate disturbance of the mass graves and subsequent reburials. Perhaps you don't accept that happened, but the work of the International Commission for Missing Persons has gone a long way towards remedying that). The criminals also need to be caught - the matter might have been put further beyond argument had Milosevic's trial been completed and Mladic and Karadzic brought to justice.

Nevertheless the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have both found charges of genocide proven before them. In the Krstić case the proven intent to destroy approximately 40,000 Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the grounds on which intent to achieve destruction “in part” was found proven and the perpetration of genocide at Srebrenica confirmed. I suggest you consult the original Krstic Judgment and the findings of the Appeals Chamber http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf - paras 539-599 (summed up in 597-599) http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.pdf - paras 5-58 The Krajisnik Judgment looks at the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia - http://www.un.org/icty/krajisnik/trialc/judgement/kra-jud060927e.pdf

(2) Section II Para. of the Appeal Court's findings confirm that at that date "... between 7,000 – 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were systematically murdered."

(3) You may have been entitled to plead ignorance about the legal definition of genocide and the number of the dead at Srebrenica. MacKenzie is not.

(4) I don't always agree with the way Bosniak goes about things but basically he is fighting to preserve respect for established fact in the face of generally malevolent attempts to obscure the reality of what happened. He is also acting from personal distress. I am not going to side with ignorance or ill-intent against him on this issue. I'm pretty sure that part of the reason for so many destructive interventions at the article is to wear down the will of the people fighting to defend the established truth. It certainly does take its toll and other people have given up in exhaustion and discouragement. But I'm glad to know that thanks to the determination of people like Bosniak the deniers, apologists, revisionists and ignorant won't be allowed to get their way.

I don't know whether you're a member of the concert party or an innocent outsider but the outcome is the same. That may sound harsh. In most things I'm not as intransigent as this. But on the one hand I have been through this game so many times before and on the other this is too serious an issue to beat around the bush. If you're not aware of the basic status of "genocide" as a crime in international law you shouldn't be making changes to parts of a text dealing with the subject. --Opbeith 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Opbeith, I think I understand your position now in regards to "genocide denial". I followed up on Talk:Srebrenica massacre.

With regards to Bosniak, I see that User:Jitse Niesen has sent him a gentle reminder to stop the blind reverts and personal attacks. I hope it helps. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Milan Lukic
I thought so! But I wasn't too sure. Lukic is the one frequently seen in photographs wearing a Serbian blue police uniform, usually the presentation costume. Living in the UK, we are not so well informed; I'll see what I can do to help once you do revise it, thanks for enlisting my help Opbeith. Regards. Evlekis 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers killed in Srebrenica
Opbeith, I took the time to read through your long and very well written comment regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations on the Srebrenica talk page. They are/were one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article. Another such issue is the numbers killed. Most agree that it is unclear exactly how many were killed in the massacre(s). The ICTY, in its judgement against Krstic, writes as much, concluding that between 7-8000 were killed and most likely >7500. Today, the article reads "at least 8300", but that is based on the total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for. Do you agree?Osli73 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you raise issues that you ask me to respond to without ever bothering to deal with points that I have raised and in particular you ignore some information I posted at the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page specifically relating to a topic that appeared to be of considerable concern to you previously.

I posted the information about the ICTY's position on copyright after investigating the issue when you made a fuss about possible "plagiarism" and copyright infringement if quotes from ICTY judgments were used. You might have investigated the matter yourself but for whatever reason did not, you preferred simply to raise controversy.

Now in your post to my User Talk page you mention having read what you call my "very well written comment" regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations and then without challenging the point I was making about the legitimacy of mentioning the allegations you sum them up as "one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article".

You move on to interrogate me over the issue of the number of victims. As usual, the apparent reasonableness of some of the points you raise is belied by the way you carry them forward. You seem to be calling the figure of 8300 into question "as it refers to total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for". You are implying that those "killed in fighting" on the march and those "not accounted for" should not be counted towards the Federal Commission for Missing Persons's list of 8373 names of the dead and missing of Srebrenica.

The majority of those in the column led by members of the 28th Division that set out for Tuzla rather than rely on the protection of Dutchbat at Potocari were unarmed civilians who anticipated the fate that befell those who remained in the enclave. Even the 28th Division soldiers were carrying fairly basic weaponry. The column was ambushed by a well-armed military force as part of an action that was part of an operation with genocidal intent. So the description "killed in fighting" does not

You are obviously aware there was a deliberate and carefully planned plan to conceal the evidence of the massacre by excavating the mass graves, mixing the bodies and reburying elsewhere. The missing not "just not accounted for". They are those whose identities and fate have not been confirmed. You don't factor in your thoughts on the underestimation of numbers that might arise because some of those who died for one reason or another, including the extermination of their families and friends, had no-one to report their disappearance to the authorities making lists and counts.

I'd also argue that it would be legitimate to expand the number of victims of the Massacre to include those who committed suicide or died as a result of the inhumane conditions they endured in the context of the fall of Srebrenica, since these deaths were directly attributable to the genocidal project of imposing conditions that would made the survival of the Bosniaks of Srebrenica impossible. --Opbeith 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lukić
Not a problem about writing on the user page. Let's face it, it looks like a heap of junk anyhow; I wanted it to be different, more encyclopaedic so to speak, to make people stare at it for longer! Besides, it is clear when someone vandalises and what you did was a clear mistake, your edits prove that you are genuine so don't even worry about that! The diacritics and transliterations and slight changes I usually do when there is little else! I'll be happy to go straight to the Lukic page and tidy it as best as possible. In the meantime, my knowledge isn't fantastic where he is concerned, but that is all right because it gives me the insentive to learn a little. Let's be honest, we all like to learn as much as we give back! :) Keep it up! Evlekis 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Foča camp
(copied from my talk page) For the record, I deleted an article called Foča rape camp that was a redirect to an empty article. The article Foča camp consisted of only "See also" and External Links, making it subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD ("No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and 'see also' sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages."). So, neither Mike 7 nor I deleted an article about a Bosnian camp, we deleted redirects and empty pages per the criteria set forth in WP:CSD. Please remember to assume good faith and be civil when addressing these kinds of concerns. I'm more than happy to help editors contribute to the project, but I'm much more likely to address concerns that aren't attacks. --  Merope  14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied in more detail on my talk page, but the article has been restored to HH's userspace at User:HanzoHattori/Foča camp. --  Merope  15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Problematic tone
Hello. Your tone toward other users seems needlessly hostile and confrontational. Please aim at greater moderation and civil expression. Thx. El_C 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Milan Lukić again
Hello again Opbeith. I have cleaned the page a little on Milan Lukić, mostly by adding the diacritics. Feel free to go over it as you wish. It will need work done on it though, as it is, it looks like it comes straight out of a Bosniak political broadcast or CNN report and anyone who reads it is left to think that "Milan and his boys" carried out hate crimes for no readily apparent reason against unsuspecting souls which couldn't be further from the facts. Finding sources will not be a problem. I don't wish to change the statements on the page but I would eventually like to install paragraphs inbetween the events so that it is clear precisely which event led to which; like a game of tennis - you serve, I return, you hit, I hit and so on. Just out of plain curiousity, do you originate from the Balkans? If not, how did you become interested in our affairs? Evlekis 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit difficult, I'll grant you. I doubt the Milan Lukic page is the correct one in which to give a chronologocial version of events which led to his actions, but it does seem to give a full account of the joint Global Elite & Bosnian saga (ie. what the agressor did to me, but me? I'm just plain innocent). My objective is to be fair, and even though I don't condone atrocities, people who carry out such acts for political purposes shouldn't be described in the same manner as one who murders for his own reasons (the common criminal). The truth is that in this world, every nation and every movement within each nation is guilty of having people who have commited evil at regular intervals, as and when it has been necessary for them. Now even though I don't personally like the idea of any form of international court, least of all, the Hague building which humiliates people from the Balkans; I don't ignore the fact taht it exists and that events inside it take place, and when of course, someone is sentenced, I do acknolwedge it. As for the linksm, Amnesty International is a rather delicate source, in that they have at some point critisised everyone and everything of having done everything incorrectly. By this I mean that through Amnesty, it is easy to find examples of the events not mentioned in Lukic's article, that is those which would upset the Bosnian/Global Elite standing. I've known Amnesty Int. to attack the UK and the US administration, who perpetually decline to repsond to the allegations made against them, yet when the wind blows in their direction, they are the first to site Amnesty as proof that what they claim is true. By the way, how did you become interested in Balkan affairs? Evlekis 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding NPOV
Opbeith, Regards Osli73 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I categorized edits to make the discussion more organized
 * 2) I suggest that you take charge of setting out the arguments of Group no. 1 in greater detail in section (b). I will then refer to those arguments in the text in section (a).

Hey
I'll be brief. If the International Court of Justice determines in 6 hours time that a genocide did in fact occur throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995 (regardless of whether Serbia and Montenegro are found directly responsible), then great efforts will have to be undertaken to improve the current Bosnian genocide article and prevent the inevitable wave of deniers and revisionists from utalizing it to their own ends. I believe that this responsibility will rest largely on those few of us who have defended the Srebrenica massacre article from similar assaults in the past. That is all. Live Forever 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the findings of the ICJ with respect to proving genocide in Bosnia as a whole, genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was proved in Krstic. Whether or not the ICJ finds genocide proven in the case before it, unless the judgment specifically refutes the Krstic judgment and finds that genocide did not occur at Srebrenica the ICTY's finding stands. --Opbeith 09:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
My apologies if my recent edits seemed arbitrary. The density of the article is frustrating to me, however. I always picture a school child trying to learn about this event, then turning away b/c the article is too involved.

Everyone seems to agree that sub-articles would be a good idea, but no one seems willing to take up the (admittedly gargantuan) task of actually doing it. Would you be willing to work with me on this?

Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a response to your query on the discussion page. Cheers, Djma12 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article
Opbeith,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uppen_balkan
Hi Opbeith,

I replied to Upenn_balkan's question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#question

All the best,

Bosniak 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith
Hi Opbeith,

My internet is still not connected. I am writing from the library. They were supposed to connect new phone line on Monday - they didn't do it. Now, they said they would do it on Saturday but would charge me $150. Oh man, they are insane, big headache. I was able to catch wireless connection yesterday for about 5-10 minutes and today for about 20 minutes. Few moments ago I updated my blog, you can check it out, there are two important documents from Milosevic trial http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com. I can't check my inspiron account from library, as the email is delivered to outlook, but will try to catch wireless connection and check your email. I am having a big headache with a local phone company who simply forgot to connect everything properly. And my DSL internet connection can't work without it so... big headache. All the best. Bosniak 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
The block was made on March 13th and the edits he was blocked for were all made by his account. --Jersey Devil 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? He made legitimate edits. Why was he banned? This is just ridicolous. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbia's Darkest Pages Hidden from Genocide Court
In a majorfront-page lead article for IHT, Marlise Simons reports on how the failure of the International Court of Justice to seek crucial documents from Belgrade may have decisively affected its judgement in the lawsuit brought against Serbia by Bosnia-Herzegovina

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2259 Please comment.

Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Momir Nikolic
Hi Owen,

I started this article - Momir Nikolic - because I thought it's relevant to the Srebrenica massacre. You may check it out. Bosniak 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries
I was not referring to you on Talk:Bosnian Genocide. I just happened to notice the page move by MaGioZal as I was checking his recent contribution history, after logging his recent block on Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. In all honesty, I have not followed the article for a while, as I am "semi-inactive" right now because my workload. Best regards, -- Asterion talk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp
The second paragraph of your comment at Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp, which suggests that I lack an understanding of the subject matter and am disruptively pursuing another editor, has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. The deletion question should be settled on the basis of the relevant deletion policies, and not the state of mind of the nominator. May I suggest that you remove this paragraph and instead bring up the matter in a more appropriate venue, such as my talk page, WP:RFC, WP:ANI, or WP:RfAr? —Psychonaut 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak
Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, still alive? :) I'm looking forward to your response to my comment on the Bosnian genocide article talk page, for I feel we really need to move that article forward. Live Forever 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's alright, I perfectly understand. I will try to start making changes in the near future, so we'll see how it goes. I didn't know about the plans for the Srebrenica massacre article, but I'd be glad to help out with that as well. Live Forever 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Opbeith
Do you have any other form of contact (IM, e-mail, whatever) outside Wikipedia? I didn’t want to talk about some questions here anymore.--MaGioZal 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The exact problem with MaGioZal is that he expresses such a hard sentiment against the Serbs. For example, he has quite often called users "Chetniks" (a word muttered only by Croatian and Bosniak nationalists, and only those who have really a large stereotype towards the Serbs) just because of their Serbian ethnicity.
 * For example, let me quote one comment written by MaGioZal: "EQUALLY GUILTY?. JUST LOOK INTO ICTY AND SEE THAT MOST OF THE CRIMINALS WERE THE SERBS UNDER THE COMMAND OF BUTCHERS ARKAN, MLADIC AND MILOSEVIC. SO SHUT UP, YOU IDIOT CHETNIK'''!"
 * Do you see now what I meant? It's quite sad, I really feel sorry for MaGioZal to tell the truth - for after meeting so many people like this in former Yugoslavia, you no longer know whether to despise or feel sorry for them. ;( Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the best of us refrains from using intemperate expressions when pushed beyond patience. --Opbeith 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well my friend, show me a single post like that written by you or me... or any normal user. Please, just one. :S The problem is this kind behavior is strictly not allowed in Wikipedia. And this is not the first time MaGioZal expressed it.
 * The problem is he constantly uses such wording. Also note that "Sorry, I was off-temper" cannot always be an excuse for me to curse your mother. If MaGioZal is all the time pushed beyond patience by meager things - including absolutely non-sense things (like me, I have absolutely no idea how I pissed him off by placing that one Ottoman was of Serbian origin - or that very fact is that annoyed him?) - he should not edit the Wikipedia. For such a psychologically unstable person could (although I'd dare not call MaGioZal that; if you ask me personally, I think he just simply hates Serbs), as seen, can only further damage our already enough jeopardized community... *sigh* Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to develop an awareness of the effect we have on our fellow-beings. --Opbeith 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I'm afraid MaGioZal will hardly develop... --PaxEquilibrium 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good example
MaGioZal had supported a Greater Serbian nationalist and criminal, just because he opposed the general opinion of Serbs!

Let me quote: "HolyRomanEmperor, like Estavitsi, God of Justice, Panonian and many other Serb nationalists, simply does not swallow the fact that Djukanovic was successful in separtaing Montenegro from Serbia, letting Serbia alone during Kosovo War and after that bringing independence and separating the Serbs from the Adriatic Sea." (here he even calls me a Serb nationalist!)

So this criminal, that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Croats and Bosnian Muslims, and for the theft and destruction of countless millions of Euro (he was, but in the meantime stopped being a "GreaterSerb nationalist"), is actually supported by MaGioZal - for being against the Serbs???

So I suppose, that if Radovan Karadzic came and annexed Republika Srpska to a unitary Bosnia and Herzegovina, and started to spit at the Serbs calling himself "Bosnian Orthodox" (and found a Bosnian Orthodox Church), MaGioZal would support him just because he's against the Serbs?

This is undeniable evidence, and you can clearly see it yourself... or are you going to say that MaGioZal was frustrated here too? Perhaps he was frustrated too when he called User:Laughing Man a Chetnik? --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

calm down, Chetniks, I've just kept the link to the Serb Orthodox Church He wrote this after changing "Serbian" at one historical person to "Bosnian". There was absolutely no reason for him to get frustrated that time, except by the very fact that that dude was an ethnic Serb (sic!). The "Chetniks" was directed against several people, including me.

There are numerous other examples. I just don't understand why doesn't he answer me directly, instead of avoiding (he could at least apologize)... --PaxEquilibrium 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

God grant us the gift to see ourselves as others see us. --Opbeith 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand - especially the summary "Academy of Sciences and Arts". What are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I get it, it's a prank on my account. ;( And a very naughty one. --PaxEquilibrium 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier; I was away for few days. Anyway, I cant see your email, since i have not authenticated mine. I can tell you now that I do not know much more about the case than what I have written in the article (as far as I know the court has sill not made a preliminary judgment on jurisdiction in that case, and I also don't know what team is leading the case - Van der Kroef has a lot of info on other case) --Harac (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Foca Camp
I deleted it because HanzoHattori was a banned user, in accordance with CSD G5. However, there's an unban discussion on him right now, so here's what I'll do. If he is unbanned, i'll restore it. If he remains banned, I can move it to your userspace, so long as you promise to work on it and ideally move it into the article space. Wizardman 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Opbeith
Thank you from the additional arguments at the omarska discussion page, i am not so familiar with wikipedia and I dont know how we can make it anymore clearer that the article should be renamed to concentration camp, is Mondeo an admin of some sort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.156.102 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello 94.157.156.102

As far as I know Mondeo is an independent editor who follows a conservative agenda. I can't say more than that at the moment but the combination of a lack of a real familiarity with the subject, a reluctance to accommodate an assessment of events that reflects the changing consensus (or determined efforts to move backward) and a reliance on trying to impose a conveniently rigid interpretation of Wikipedia rules seems to align him with other editors who have followed a more overt revisionist path. However he may just be someone who is by nature fussy and inconsistent.

Personally as long as the fact that Omarska is unambiguously identified as a concentration camp right from the start I'm not over-concerned about changing the title from Omarska camp, though I'd be quite OK with the change. The most important thing is for the reality to be clearly and permanently established in a prominent position in the article. Time and energy is limited (a possible reason why some editors stir up controversy trying to revise articles when the issues have been resolved in the real world) so I'd rather spend more time challenging the substance of the less prominent amendments. But at the same time I'm not keen to give in to the constant efforts to chip away at the recognition of what actually happened.

For all his/their alleged respect for Wikipedia the activities of Mondeo and his allies tend to promote misinformation if not disinformation. The important thing is to make sure that they know that the truth is verifiable! Opbeith (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello 94.157.156.102

You should try to set yourself up with a Wikipedia identity, as it makes your comments easily identifiable and IP number identities do tend to be looked on with suspicion.

If you're not used to Wikipdia, I'm afraid you have to develop a bit of a thick skin, particularly as a Bosniak. I'm British but I get thrown in with what Jonathanmills calls "the Bosnian nationalist claque" because I object to being told that the truth about what happened doesn't matter in Wikipedia only what's verifiable, when the people trying to impose that principle on me are using their version of verifiability to challenge the truth. Th truth exists even if Wikipedia only allows a substitute.

Fortunately the really aggressive Serb lobby has become relatively quiet since the ICJ ruling.

The most important thing is to keep your cool, don't let yourself get too wound up by provocation, deliberate or otherwise, and just be persistent when you know what you're saying is right.

Re: Foca camp
I went and restored User:HanzoHattori/Foča camp, which I assume is what you were looking for, so that you can put it in your userspace and continue working on it. Wizardman 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

camps
I thought you might be interested to know that I went ahead and completely revised "the camp" section of the Trnopolje camp article to a point where its much more informative and sourced, I've also gone ahead and made a template for the camps of the Bosnian war Template:Bosnian War Camps. PRODUCER (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
Hi Opbeith. Please stop speculating about my (or other editors') agenda. Even if I had the agenda you seem to assume (which I of course do not have), it would be irrelevant. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, if your editing followed a straightforward pattern I'd have no reason to think you might have an agenda. But I don't see good faith in the way you engage in dialogue with other editors including myself - I don't see good faith in the way you demand evidence and ignore it when provided, I don't see good faith in the way you seek to increase ambiguity and reduce the clarity and precision of the article and I don't see good faith in the way you slant your interpretation of Wikipedia conventions and guidelines to suit your argument. And when you appear to be steering the content of the article in a particular direction, that certainly is not irrelevant.

However much I disagree with other editors I begin by assuming that my fellow editor wishes to engage in fair discussion. I don't insist that the other editor should have the same views as me, just that they should play fair and act reasonably. Except where misrepresentation or manipulation is blatant, It's only after I observe a pattern of response that's inconsistent with a fair and honest exchange of views that I conclude that my assumption of good faith is inappropriate.

I believe that your interventions at the Omarska camp article, taken in conjunction also with our exchange of views on Nazi concentration camps last year at the Trnopolje camp article, provides me with adequate grounds for questioning your good faith. Do you seriously consider that the standard of your interventions at the Omarska camp article is appropriate for someone of the academic standing you lay claim to at your User page? Opbeith (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let us please focus on content, not on contributors. I am asking you politely: please do not question my motives. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained the basis of my concern. You haven't given me any reason why I and others should not be hesitant about the way in which you seek to guide the article.  Your interventions are not constructive. Opbeith (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
That was a month ago. Apparently I told you I agreed with you and had returned the external link to Vilina Vlas. See also that talk page, which I just now updated. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

re:Hasan Nuhanović
You're welcome. Easy to fix. I would like to add some categories there, any tips? --Vejvančický (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, Opbeith. The story of that man is awful and very interesting... It is so hard to even imagine such a horror people were facing there, in my old good Europe, a few years ago. I'm not an expert in this area, but I feel that the article needs a lot of independent and reliable sources for further expansion and verification. Your version is precise and correct and I admire your abilities to work on a controversial topic. I've added some informations about the progress of the case and also the inline citations (derived from reliable sources, of course). I'd also like to nominate this article as a DYK for the main page. Do you agree? --Vejvančický (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Opbeith - it's me again. Thanks for your comments in the e-mail and here on Wikipedia. I prefer to communicate here - everything is transparent and I can express my opinions without fear at the talk pages. Personally I think that he will lost this case. The conflicts in Rwanda and Bosnia were maybe the greatest failures of the Western society in 1990s. I remember both wars from that time - I was a young "radical" and I was shocked by the indifference of international organizations. Especially the United Nations have failed greatly, in my opinion. Nuhanović is an admirable person, he tries to point this out, but I'm afraid, that the only people who care about it are the miserable and affected Bosniaks. The World forgets old conflicts, the guilty aren't punished, and new injustices quickly push aside the older. But this is just my point of view. As for the article, I believe that the circumstances of the Bosnian war are the subject of many disputes and controversy. Yesterdays I watched some related videos on YouTube and it is forbidden to comment or rate there! Therefore I searched for really reliable references very carefully. I've added a lot of material for further expansion and verified the most important passages with inline citations. The article has still a lot of room for improvement, of course. However, the current informations in the article are correct and well referenced, I insist on it, and I'm able to discuss it. The DYK nomination is not so important, but the DYK section on the main page is intended for new interesting and well-referenced articles. I often use it as a "check point" for my articles (many people can fix errors and my imperfect grammar). I think Hasan Nuhanović is a perfect candidate, it is an interesting and notable subject omitted by this (otherwise very detailed) project. However, if you are still doubtful, I don't want to bother you. I'll watch the further progress. Have a great day, Opbeith. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opbeith, thanks for improving Hasan Nuhanovic article. Bosniak (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hasan Nuhanović
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Hi again. For info on the url problem see the additional DYK rules, specifically D3. For conversion of bare urls (web addresses without further details) to proper formats see: Citation templates. I did notify Vejvančický as well. Manxruler (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns for the wording of the DYK nomination. You should take these problems up at the Hasan Nuhanović nomination at DYK, that way many more people will be able to look at issues and try to find a good solution. Manxruler (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The massacre vs genocide side of the hook is also something it would be best if you discussed over at DYK, I'm merely an individual reviewer. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Best of luck. Manxruler (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuhanovic - DYK problem
Hello Opbeith. I can't find anything ...so badly wrong... with my hook (or clip): ... that Hasan Nuhanović was involved in the first civil court action brought by the survivors of the Srebrenica massacre against the Dutch state? We can change involved for responsible, but both is correct and non-controversial. He brought the case to the court together with the family of Rizo Mustafić - and thus was involved in the first civil court action brought by the survivors of the Srebrenica massacre. I'm not sure with massacre/genocide formulation, but the article here is named Srebrenica massacre and therefore I included this term. User:Manxruler pointed out merely the bad formatting of citations (Template:cite web), which is easy to fix. As for my "co-authorship": I've found a new article on a very interesting topic with only one reference, moreover written by the subject of the article. I decided to find out more and I expanded the article with many useful citations from various independent sources - the version and my work on it is here, you can compare. I've spent a lot of time on it, but this is not so important, as you said. I don't want to boast with your work, absolutely. We are a collaborative project and we create articles together. It was not in my intention to inform falsely on that case, I just wanted to bring it to the light here on Wikipedia. I acted in good faith, believe me. I also apologize for not informing you - it was my mistake, I admit. I can remove the hook from DYK nominations, if you want. Have a good day... ...and assume my good faith, Opbeith. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for all that mess, Opbeith. Perhaps I should avoid such controversial topics in future, especially when I have very little experience and knowledge in that area. However, the Manxruler's message was related to the bad formatting of citations, not to the content of the hook. I still think that the facts in my hook are correct, but it is possible to change the wording, of course. No need to be upset over this. Just ask me and I'll try to clarify or answer whatever. I'll fix the citations according to Wiki standards, do you agree? --Vejvančický (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Opbeith/Bosnian American Library of Chicago
Your userfied article is at the above link. Good luck with this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hasan Nuhanović
Congratulations Opbeith, and thanks for all your excellent and careful work on it. I've deleted the DYK note from my talk, it was your work, after all. Keep up the good work. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On 4 August, Hasan Nuhanović had about 2000 views. Very nice, Opbeith :) --Vejvančický (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work Opbeith. Excellent. Opbeith is a man of honor, credibility, and intelligence. I cannot say anything but the best about Opbeith. Excellent work on Hasan Nuhanovic's article.Bosniak (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bratunac deletion discussion
I was very interested to read your post, with its mention of Zaklopaca. You may be familiar with the Facebook group Learn from History: Remember the Bosnian Genocide? Zaklopaca comes up here:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:tGBzUcLXFhgJ:www.facebook.com/posted.php%3Fid%3D2228285972+Zaklopaca+massacre&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

You're right, it's one of many -- Bosniak, Croat and Serb -- that should be in Wikipedia. But the profound sense of grievance on all sides makes articles about the atrocities very difficult to do.

Just thinking out loud really. And acknowledging the scrupulous honesty of your post. Writegeist (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Srebenica
I was just trying to make the article use one variant of English as it is messy and unprofessional using a mixture of variants. Also the article is of very good quality and I was just trying to improve it further. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll keep an eye out on the article for POV pushers. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RDC
Hello Opbeith,

I thank you for contacting me about the issue. After many years of researching this area of interest, I have learned not to blindly follow anyone's words when it comes to the Yugoslav conflict. A conflict that the world thinks was started because of nationalism, while the nationalism itself was caused by the economic downward spiral largely caused by Western involvement. More than a decade after the conflicts, the people are continuing the war through different means, all thinking they have the real truth. While, in fact, anything at all can be fabricated, it's just a matter of who has more media power. When you say that some organization has been audited and approved by the ICTY, my question is whether the ICTY is the holy Bible of Wikipedia? A tribunal established on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter: "the Security Council can take measures to maintain or restore international peace and security" and it is debatable whether a tribunal could be considered a measure to achieve this. The ICTY is simply one source, just like in the case of Kosovo the UNSCR 1244 is just another source, or else Kosovo would be called a province on Wikipedia. RDC is furthermore financed by organizations such as the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs, U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, Swiss Embassy in Sarajevo, Balkan Trust for Democracy, Swedish Helsinki Committee, which all have their own interests in Bosnia. If one of the financiers was, for example, a Russian or Chinese organization, I could see that being an independent research centre. However, like many non-government organizations in the Balkans, whoever gives the money, hears the music they want.

As far as Bratunac is concerned, I can agree that there isn't sufficient evidence to show that what is written in the article really happened, and there are also significant references that show that it didn't happen, which is why I changed my vote. As far as your "This user condemns and opposes Srebrenica Genocide denial" template is concerned, once again I have to say that you should take all statements concerning the Balkans conflict from the West with a bit more reservation. The only way to economically control the newly formed Republics is to keep them at each other's throats. The social and political impact of economic restructuring in Yugoslavia has been carefully erased from our collective understanding. Opinion-makers instead dogmatically present cultural, ethnic, and religious divisions as the sole cause of war and devastation. In reality, they are the consequence of a much deeper process of economic and political fracturing. Such false consciousness not only masks the truth, it also prevents us from acknowledging precise historical occurrences. Ultimately, it distorts the true sources of social conflict. When applied to the former Yugoslavia, it obscures the historical foundations of South Slavic unity, solidarity and identity in what constituted a multiethnic society. -- Cin é ma C 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In no way did I mean to insult you or your intelligence. You received my recommendations based on my personal opinion, but you've also twisted my words into something I didn't mean to say. You can't assume what I'm implying, and what I really was implying is that it's always important to question things you personally believe in a bit more. For example, the Bratunac massacre may have not happened and I acknowledge this, even though the sources presenting their claim of this aren't much trusted by myself personally. Whether Srebrenica was a "genocide" or not is relative, it certainly was a massacre, but there have been much larger massacres which have never been classified as "genocides"... it's more of a political thing - whether it's convenient to classify a "massacre" a "genocide" as well. But if you prefer calling it a genocide, I do not condemn you, that's up to you. Maybe I would be upset if I was a Serb, but I really couldn't care less if you consider it a genocide or not :) Thanks for the long reply. -- Cin é ma C 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Cinéma: "A conflict that the world thinks was started because of nationalism, while the nationalism itself was caused by the economic downward spiral largely caused by Western involvement.". This looks like reiteration of the arguments promoted by Michel Chossudovsky (see e.g. Dismantling Yugoslavia; Colonizing Bosnia. IMHO, it's clear that the root of all (economic) evil was Yugoslav (not Western) policy failure, and in the first place socialism, albeit Yugoslavian socialism was much more competitive and efficient than the Soviet variant. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the Yugoslav economy was as robust as Cinema C argues, but I don't think the IMF can be excused of all blame as you seem to suggest, Miacek. Opbeith (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about, now bear with me here, Serbs refuse to take blame for their own actions --- refuse to be held accountable. Everything is blamed on those Croats, Slovenians, Bosnians, Albanians, Gypsys, Muslims, the WEST, America, etc etc. Remember that over the internet it is hard to take your posts serious when you make sensational claims that the WEST was the intervening variable bringing about the dissolution of Jugoslavia. FACT: Serbs were the majority at 30%. FACT: Serbs had the most power in the union. FACT: Slobodan the butcher Milosevic moved up in power by facistic tactics (threats & force) and he tried to further incorporate his power after presidency. It's no surprise that no one was happy. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.184 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN, I restored the deleted comment now I know who you are. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, your comment made me smile...thank you for that, work today was hectic. I do have Kosova2008 or Ari  but I rarely use that account, since I never make changes I don't sign in --- I do apologize if you were offended.  SILER_KILLER/SPAIN
 * yeah this me....if you want reply to my talk page Ari d'Kosova (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, you won't OUT COOL me. haha. Join me in WP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Rex is a sockpuppet, according to one of administrators, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex_Dominator#Block .Bosniak (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Prijedor Genocide
Opbeith, you once told me that in one of ICTY judgements, judges stated that what happened in/and around Prijedor fulfills elements of genocide. Do you still have the contents of exact statement judges used? I couldn't find it. I would like to add it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omarska_camp#The_Judgment_of_the_ICJ (obviously, distortionist use judgment of ICJ to say how there was no genocide in/and around Prijedor, but ICTY already ruled that concentration camps around Prijedor fulfill elements of genocide.) Bosniak (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

– xeno talk 15:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592
Just a heads up, these two edits you recently made were added to an AN/I archive, not the board itself. I've removed them and I wanted to notify you in case you wanted to re-post them elsewhere. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Harish Gaonkar
Article does not say 1)His current position, 2) He has a Ph.D. (from where etc.). Thanks for updating. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Understood. Is he Harish Gaonkar or Honnaya Goankr? --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem lies on how wiki rules are setup and the other reasons
The other articles that I have marked (Mallika Chopra, S. F. Kapoor, ...) are on the way of deleting. Not all fingers are the same - so we differ. Thanks any way. I will continue to flag for deletion as it is felt appropriately. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Black sitcom
Would you like to add to the article? I just gave it a bit of a restart with one source and two sentences. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Please note all wikipedia articles must meet WP:N or WP:GNG or relevant guidelines like WP:ORG. if there exists no evidence of third party coverage it's not notable. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no chance of ever achieving perfection or absolute consistency. Rules are there to facilitate the communication of knowledge, not to frustrate it.  I'm not sure whether rigour-seeking perfectionists have any idea how much enthusiasm and commitment they deter and destroy.  Why not concentrate on the things that are important? Opbeith (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover everything. just because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL are insufficient reasons for keeping an article. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, m'lud. Opbeith (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, i kinda like John Calvin, but the preaching becomes tiresome, better to proselytize with humor. the reformers becoming as bad as the unreformed is an old story Bable Tower, A.S. Byatt
 * can you blame the nerds they have no personality? in my experience the notability precedes coverage (existence precedes essence). it's just a matter of finding the references. Pohick2 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Savonarola?, more like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. you should be happy having won Chris Agee --we just have to defend one article at a time, the facts do trump the wiki-lawyering (for the moment), the quality of the wiki improves (even if in a dysfunctional manner). i'm surprised that Slowking (Pokémon) doesn't have its own article, maybe that should be my sockpuppet Pohick2 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * actually after my colloquy with Moonriddengirl, i'm beginning to agree with you. Pohick2 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well Kevin blanked his own talk page?! i wouldn't waste too much time debating him, i've seen the rhetorical scissors before: either OR, synthesis; or cruft, trivial, copyright vio. a wonder anything gets written.  clearly stating policy normally quiets them, maybe that Maureen and her RfC  can provide some adult supervision Pohick2 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * have pity on the omnipotent nerd, the Steve Jobs reality distortion field is real. i wish we could "Coach" editors to channel their energy to productive edits. Pohick2 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed, but if we had some leadership who said: hey deletionists, let's work on the obvious cruft and stop arguing about anything near the line, it's more fun; hey inclusionists, let's work on the snowball keeps and not waste time arguing about anything near the line, it's more fun -- boy would quality and productivity increase. Pohick2 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Agee
Hello Owen, it's nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the useful and relevant links mentioned at Pohick's talk page. I've included them in the external links section.

Sometimes, I'm a bit concerned about some decisions here on Wikipedia, but when I disagree, I'm trying to ask using solid arguments instead of irony and bitterness. Usually that works. I see this project as a real world encyclopedia, not only English world business. As for this AfD, it is easier to copy and paste a part of a guideline or policy than making complicated and thankless searching for sources or considering the real importance of the subject without bias. Additionally, there was no consensus to delete this article (in my opinion), and that was the most surprising thing for me. However, I don't want to start any accusing or biting, as I can see here every day that egos of people hidden behind the screens of their computers are much bigger than in real life. Everybody wants to be right; nobody wants to be wrong. And that's really laughable for me. I'm here to help to keep this project strong. Keep up the good work, Owen. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree with you, however even if Sausage exists, the way to win duels is coldly and efficiently. emotion can cloud the ability to riposte. that contemporary poetry review link is the winning reference. Pohick2 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, certainly, but it's not a question of duels. The deleter sends out lists of articles that he proposes to delete unless they're edited into shape (as he sees it).  I presume that most editors would only come on htis list by chance, like I did myself, so would have no idea that an article they hadn't visited recently was up for the chop.  Nor would most people have the time to tackle more than one or two on the list, however worth saving they seem.  And finally when he decides to delete, the updated article isn't assessed and nor is the wording of the comments adequately examined.  These deletions might almost be described as abritrary.  Some may survive, with luck, others won't.  But certainly Chris Agee should. (I'm answering here to avoid jumping around, but I'll carry on with more answers at your Talk Pages.)  Opbeith (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding more to Agee's article, Owen. Actually, my intention was to get the article back, and it was my good luck that I met you and Pohick. As always, you are better informed than I am in Bosnia related subjects. Again, thanks for this improvement. Have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well i came across the article as a part of the BLP contest. i thought that being in the anthology conferred notability, (apparently not to this admin) so i stopped looking for refs.  but now the BLP folks are following up with challenges to referenced BLP.  i find they seem to looking for reasons to delete.  this admin is better than most (damning with faint praise?) Pohick2 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the references—I like to use Reflinks, a handy tool that checks your source websites and fills in reference info for you.  fetch  comms  ☛ 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Massacre box
I reverted your edit as it broke the infobox and I have failed to get it to work.--Charles (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles. I hadn't noticed the outcome, I just noticed that something odd happened while I was revising my text in the Explanation box (I haven't a clue what). I'll make another cautious attempt at it. Opbeith (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bratunac
Hi, i reverted your edits of Bratunac/Bratunać. Bratunac is correct. --Smooth O (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Richard the Pilgrim
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Richard the Pilgrim, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0207.shtml http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=8834944 http://www.mail-archive.com/celt-saints@yahoogroups.com/msg00437.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Richard the Pilgrim and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Richard the Pilgrim, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Richard the Pilgrim with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Richard the Pilgrim. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Richard the Pilgrim saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jerome Potts (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Blackman
Why did you redirect to the Esher and Walton Parliamentary Constituency? This proposal was made in the discussion of a recent politically nuanced proposal for deletion. The conclusion was that the article be kept in its own right. Political activity and candidacy in the forthcoming election is of secondary importance to Blackman's legal and in particular human rights-related activities. Opbeith (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It appeared to me that under our guidelines the person is not notable, and political candidates are redirected to the nearest appropriate page. The sources used in the article are largely not appropriate for notability purposes; we do not use Wikipedia as a source, and we do not use primary sources as a guide to notability. Some of the sources I checked were not used appropriately - for example, the statement "Lionel Blackman is a leading UK human rights lawyer", was cited to this source which only says: "Lionel Blackman is a solicitor-advocate and senior partner of a practice specialising in criminal litigation." And that source was a press release and so of dubious value when assessing notability. The most legitimate claim I could see was "In 1999 he was the first solicitor to lead and win a case in the House of Lord", which is appropriately sourced: . However, the nearest criteria on such matters is: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - WP:ANYBIO. And the footnote to explain that is: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I didn't see that. Essentially what I saw was an article on a solictor, and though this person had done some good work in his field, it wasn't clear enough where he was meeting our inclusion criteria. Does that help?  SilkTork  *YES! 11:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lionel Blackman
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lionel Blackman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Lionel Blackman (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith

I see User:SilkTork has nominated this page again for AfD. I have added my piece, and I did mention your name - I hope you don't mind? Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal prosecutions
I am currently researching the 300 pages file of Borislav Herak with aim to summarize it accurately in a paragraph for the "List of Bosnian Genocide Prosecutions" article, so that will take some time. What I would do in Srebrenica article is cut all the background and just quote the appeals judgment (you could copy that part from the "List" article), and then make a reference to the "List" article. I could do that my self but I haven't been to the S.genocide article for a while, so I don't know the policy for such redrafts. I remember it as a chaotic place. --Harac (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
I think that Bosnian Genocide article should have paragraphs on historical background, military operations, territorial aspirations etc, but I also see that PBS narrowing down the article to his legalistic view. However, I think that Armenian Genocide is quite a good model and sooner or latter more info will be added.

I am not good english speaker, so I usually only upload images, or write few shorter articles. I am not so good in the discussions, too. However, I you need my help in editing or something else, dont hesistate to call me. Svako dobro! --Mladifilozof (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Eve Troutt Powell
thanks for the added work. apparently, being an assistant prof is a Prod me sign. as i noted on her talk page WP:PROF specifically includes MacArthur as a sign of notability, hence wrongly Proded. some say that repelling a Prod or Speedy is a sign the system is working, however, as i go through the MacArthur list, i find some people that have been previously Speedy'd i.e. the system failed. i chalk up another one for the wall of shame. Pohick2 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * no problem, i'll be your meatpuppet anytime. cheers. Pohick2 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * don't get mad, get even. in the duel the cold heart defeats the passionate. the story about the OED and William Chester Minor is instructive: in the end wiki is the work of the  monomaniacs. Pohick2 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * it's interesting that we have the reflexive buy-in into an adversary system: AfD, Prod, watchlist and edit-war. It's unclear if it's better than a Socratic method, or Inquisitorial system. Pohick2 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the edit wars are so nasty, because the stakes are so small, check out the der spiegel article on german wikipedia . i wish the arguments were over substance, but they on the defense of ignorant snap judgments. Pohick2 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, a fundamental lack of debate club skills, and discipline - how to frame an argument, make a case and win or lose. it is mirrored from larger society. instead we have petulant children, (live political issue or intellectual dispute). i never liked debate club, it was too sophistic, but hope it's a small solace in your ongoing disputes. Pohick2 (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Have another look at Skelani
The Skelani page has been modified to provide two button clicks to access a list of maps. It uses the coordinates that come from f-rain with some editing. This is via the °N, °W function.

Of course f-rain would go to a nice contour map with only one button click.

There used to be a page about f-rain which explained its advantages, but someone who disliked it deleted it instead of explain why.

If f-rain shows closed railways, then so does MSN ; is that Bill Gates who owns $1b of a major US railroad?

Can someone prove direct coordinates to the MSN map that f-rain does?

Tabletop (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * well, bill gates owns indirectly BNSF through Berkshire Hathaway, where he is on the board, not a Billion though. Pohick2 (talk)

Skelani MSN Map
Have figured out how to access the MSN Map with one button push. This is as conventient as f-rain. The MSN contours are not as good, but more township names are shown.

See Skelani.


 * MSN Map for Skelani

Tabletop (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

re:Belated congrats
Hello Owen, and thanks for your kind message. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Best regards :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Systematic Killings = Genocide

 * Systematic killing of human beings is what separates genocide from a massacre. A massacre of 2000 Tutsis who sought shelter in a Church has been qualified as genocide http://www.kens5.com/news/world/106446413.html . They were killed systematically based solely on their identity. That's genocide. Same happened in Srebrenica but the number of victims was far greater. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

UltraStream
Just wanted to say thankyou for your contribution to the votes for deletion page for Ultrastream ([here]). Everyone is so quick to use wikipedia byelaws to delete and purge my article, nobody has stopped to think about the fact someone gave up their personal information and data as a gift to Wikipedia on that page, and that the data might be useful to any number of people. Still, this is one day the bureaucrats will win; the information will soon be purged forever. But not before you took a moment to appreciate it. For that I thank you. Jsecure (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Msrasnw/Claire Jowitt
Dear Opbeith, These things are a bit awkward. I think to get the article back to the main space we need more evidence of notability and I am not sure adding more details of her work will help - I have tried this in the past without success. Cut down articles with just cited notable things seems to work best. Best wishes in anycase (Msrasnw (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Lewis Mackenzie
Hello, Thank you for writing such a detailed post, regarding our recent exchange on the Lewis Mackenzie page. I should clarify that I was not previously aware of User:UrbanVillager's activities on Wikipedia and that I was not attempting to take a side in an existing content dispute. I still think that the disputed wording is somewhat skewed, although I'd like to do a bit more research on the matter before suggesting something different. I should add that I have no particular opinion regarding Lewis Mackenzie. I read his syndicated articles at the time of the Kosovo War, and I can remember thinking that they seemed to emanate from a certain bias. (This is not to say that I believe he was wrong to oppose the war; I would question his motivations, but not necessarily his conclusions.) On the other hand, he's also spoken about President Izetbegovic in favourable terms, and I don't think it's fair to label him simply as a propagandist for one side in a larger conflict. I don't have an especially strong opinion about his views on other matters. CJCurrie (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Mackenzie's participation in the film was probably not disinterested, though I still believe the wording is skewed (not necessarily wrong, but skewed). I'll refrain from further comment until I actually see the film. CJCurrie (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tynewydd
Thanks for the comments. I'm glad you found the Llandow article of interest, it was one of my first. I'll see what other info I may have on Tynewydd over the holidays. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that creating an article for Tynewydd Colliery, seperate from Tynewydd is vital. I started a List of collieries in the Rhondda Valleys which needs some serious love and attention; but I agree that major collieries, especially those which saw tragic accidents, deserve their own articles. The annoying thing is my father recently acquired an A3 print of the rescue attempt which was taken out of a Victorian journal which he gave to the Rhondda Library services before I could capture the image. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD comments
Please keep your arguments at AfD to the subject in question and to our policies and guidelines related to inclusion criteria that help consensus to be reached. Please assume good faith and refrain from accusing others of wasting time by nominating articles – it is not condusive to constructive discussion. It may be helpful for you to review Articles for deletion. Regards, wjemather bigissue 20:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try to consider the meaning of the word "constructive". Opbeith (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Afd vote
At Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations you discussed the Chinese impact on Tonga. That is not what the Afd is discussing. Any reason behind this? connection? Outback the koala (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject was raised by TM. In fact there is an article People's Republic of China – Tonga relations which touches on competition between Beijing and Taiwan for a Pacific Island zone of influence and Falun Gong visits, but not a problematic debt that I think New Zealand ended up sorting out. I commented "in line" so to speak after appending my Keep vote below.Opbeith (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your second comment now, thank you for clarifying. :) Outback the koala (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nedzmin Kozlo
You may be right that the way wikipedia works tend to naturally favor the english-speaking countries. Alas, there's not any way around that unless we find more bilingual editors and encourage them to become active. As for my deletion of a few of the volleyball bios, they were done since they happened to fall at the end of the Unreferenced BLP backlog (Feb 09 or earlier); I didn't send out to attack them, and did see a couple where sources existed online.

I'm sympathetic on both points. On the one hand, requiring certain types of sources can knock out people from countries that don't naturally get referenced in such a manner. On the other hand though, leaving an unsourced biography around can cause disaster; it's happened before and it will probably happen again. I'm trying to crack down on the second, as are many others. Unfortunately, some that apply to both get caught up in the storm, and unless they're referenced it would be hard to convince others to keep them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories
No worries - happy to be of help. I'm just enjoying a little Smetana before dinner. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, considering it's The Buttered Bride, there may be more than a little dairy product involved. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

HRW
Opbeith, it was the finding of hrw that "the international community also bears responsibility for the worst crime in Europe since World War Two. After promising protection to the inhabitants of Srebrenica, the United Nations and NATO allowed the “safe area” to fall. That responsibility is compounded by the continuing failure to bring to justice Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the two men indicted as the principal architects of the Srebrenica genocide. The Dutch United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) battalion based in Srebrenica failed to take the military action necessary to save the town. Robust NATO air strikes that could have stopped the Serb onslaught were never authorized, despite repeated requests from Dutch peacekeepers on the ground." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/07/10/legacy-srebrenica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.163.223 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 24.82.163.223, whoever you may be, that's a very succinct summary, and the date of the HRW report - July 2005 - highlights the continuing failure of the international community to persuade Serbia to help bring Mladic to justice - the EU facilitates Serbia's access to membership even as Serge Brammertz, ICTY Prosecutor, repeats that he has no reason to believe that Mladic is anywhere else than inside Serbia. Opbeith (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hello Owen, I'm glad you've managed to fix the titles, it is quite simple :) Happy New Year to you too! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD comment
FWIW: I was impressed by the way you expressed those sentiments, an insightful and well wrought comment. cygnis insignis 16:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, obviously, but there is also every chance someone passing by will suddenly 'get it'. Thanks for taking the time to make those points ;-) cygnis insignis 17:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your integrity
I ran across a comment you made in an AfD discussion and dropped by your talk page. That led me to the talk page of the Srebinica massacre (genocide). All I can say is that I must praise you for your dedication to the truth, your patience with those who see things differently, your skill at marshalling the facts and your insistence that horrific crimes be called by their true names. So, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work and encourage you not to get too frustrated with Wikipedia's foibles. The project needs people like you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cullen's message. Keep up the good work, Owen :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. I try to remind myself to be positive and not such an impatient misery as I incline to be, and what helps me overcome my impatience is coming into contact with all the other decent people working conscientiously and constructively like yourselves. Opbeith (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the John Monk AfD debate yesterday and agree with what you tried to achieve, though, as an American, I lack your detailed knowledge of the MBE selection process. We have plenty of room for porn stars and fictional anime and video game characters, but not for MBEs, it seems.  If you decide to tackle the notability guidelines in this regard, please inform me. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Paulo Pires
I've begun adding sources. I think it can and will be a "keeper", as long as there are apparent steps being made to address the nominator's concern.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your assistance in expanding and sourcing the now kept article. I agree that systemic bias is beginning to run rampant on en.Wikipedia with an influx of newer editors not understanding that a topic can be notable even if only outside the English-speaking world. The only thing that we can do is address issues when they arise. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, Simon Wiesenthal, John Philpot Curran and others: All that is necessary for systemic bias to prosper is for good editors to do nothing. Time now to think up a decent DYK. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bihać
Bihać, with diacritic, is correct. --Smooth O (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like a rule in writing? There is no rule, but most of surnames in serbo-croatian speaking countries ends with -ić, and maybe that confuses you with place names. --Smooth O (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bihac is beautiful city on river Una located in North-West part of republic. City I was born in. Thank you all for supporting development of multicultural and democratic society in Bosnia and Herzegovina! AL CDN BIH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.106.246 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

24.86.106.246, I'm afraid I only know Bihać from that melancholy film about the railway line last year, but I have friends with close links to Bihać and I know how attached they feel to their city, too! (I know what a beautiful river the Una is from the clips at the Neretva site - http://neretva-riverinperil.blogspot.com/p/intro-uvod.html (in the left hand side-bar)). The world has a duty to support the development of a multicultural and democratic society in BiH, because it knows what ultimately happened when people tried to change that last time round (nineteenth anniversary of the Bikavac fire today). Opbeith (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigrid Rausing Trust
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sigrid Rausing Trust, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/About-SR-Trust.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RAINBO


A tag has been placed on RAINBO requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Cind. amuse  16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, who cares. If me starting an article gives someone the pleasure of deleting it instantaneously I'll have brought a ray of sunshine into someone's life. Opbeith (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rainbo (disambiguation)


The article Rainbo (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that "rainbo" is a common alternative spelling of rainbow: a disambiguation page is not needed here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Borkificator (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation page created because a redirect already existed for Rainbo to Rainbow. Opbeith (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

hi Opbeith (re Srebrenica)
Hi Opbeith,

First of all, apologies if any of my comments at the SM talk page were needlessly personal and/or confrontational. As you are probably aware, I've given up participating on that page anyway, so it isn't likely to be a continuing issue.

I'm actually writing to ask you for your opinion on some of the issues. You appear to be well-versed in the factual ins and outs of the events at Srebrenica. I only got interested in it from reading articles more or less from the 'revisionist' side, which is probably why you take my opinions to be leaning towards revisionism (which is possibly fair enough, as far as it goes, but I certainly don't see myself as someone who is wedded to any one set of facts).

Anyway, to cut to the chase, I wondered if you'd respond to some of the specific charges the revisionists make, just for the purposes of my education. I did make a similar request some time ago and you replied that you were too busy (although you did give me some information to go on, which I appreciated -- can't remember if I thanked you or not at the time, but if I didn't, apologies). Again, I won't take any offence or ill-will if you are too busy or simply can't be bothered discussing the issue with me, but I thought I'd ask.

I guess one thing which comes to mind as a repeated revisionist charge is the claim that of the 8000-odd missing persons listed from Srebrenica, some 3000 ended up on the voting rolls for the following elections (forgive me if I'm misquoting, but I'm assuming you'll know the charge I'm referring to). What do you make of that? Is it completely false/ been debunked/ of dubious provenance/ etc? Is there a website (or information source) you could point me to which details and rebuts the familiar revisionist claims ?

Anyway, there are some other points raised by the revisionists I am interested to know your views on, but like I say, I realise you may be unable or unwilling to discuss them with me, so I won't list them all right now. Also, I'm not in any rush for a reply, so any time you did feel like getting back to me would be fine (and much appreciated).

Well, cheers anyway. Jonathanmills (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, that would be helpful. As for my disclaimers, you can take them at face value or not, but you needn't worry as I'm not planning to start editing the page again (apart from possibly the odd talk-page contribution ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Opbeith, I really appreciate you taking the time to find that info for me. As I've said before, I won't be troubling you on the actual article page, but I may get back to you sometime for some further information of the sort you've just supplied (ie rebuttal of revisionist claims) -- and of course you can feel free to ignore me if and when I do! Thanks again Jonathanmills (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RAINBO
I felt, as I said, that the subject was inherently notable. It is also true that the speedy nomibation was posted only some 4 or 5 minutes after you posted the article, which clearly did not allow you time to polish the article, which I see you have now done. I do not think that at present there is any way of inserting the female symbol, although to be fair I cannot find the male one either.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lewis MacKenzie and Boris Malagurski
Hello,

Please stop adding biased information about Boris Malagurski on Lewis MacKenzie's web page. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia prides itself on NPOV, and if you have an opinion on someone, feel free to express it on Facebook, on a blog, or somewhere else - not on an encyclopedia. This is not a tool for anyone's propaganda, only state facts, not opinions. From what I can see, MacKenzie did appear in those films by Boris Malagurski, but whether you think Malagurski is this or that is outside the realm of Wikipedia. Therefore, if there is a credible source accusing Malagurski of being a nationalist, it has to be listed WHO accused Malagurski of being a nationalist, that can't be simply stated like that. In any case, that type of information about Malagurski is not appropriate for the MacKenzie article. Remember, no original research!

Happy editing,

--UrbanVillager (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard rubbish. Opbeith (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Smetana redux
In which case I probably shouldn't tell you that I saw a rare local performance of The Medium tonight; needless to say, it was well done indeed. In fact, I'd have no beef with it if the company in question were to stake its reputation on such performances. Grade A-One, it was. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look for something online, but I know from some of the reading that I've done that he wrote it in response to a seance that he attended with friends, who were trying to contact their dead daughter. Maybe I'll add a bit, too, if there's nothing online - I'm not sure when, but I'll try and get to it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, his point (as I recall) was that he wanted to examine in greater depth what happens when a person like Mme. Flora is confronted with an incident that she cannot a.) understand and b.) fit into her conception of the world as it should be. Personally, I read it as a story about the questioning of faith (in this case, "faith" in the natural order of things)...it's a subject to which he returned from time to time.  (See Goya, for instance.)  So it's a bit of a psychological play.


 * I recognize this is far more than you bargained for, and I do apologize, but Menotti is one of my personal favorites. So any chance I get to spread the gospel, I take. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen an excerpt from a 1977 CBC Television transmission of the piece with Maureen Forrester in the title role; it appears to have been released on DVD, and Netflix advertises its availability. I can't think of a better place to start to get to know it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrmm...never knew that about Netflix. Not that I use them, so I don't know much about them in the first place.  But I'll keep it in mind.


 * Here's an excerpt from YouTube...I wish there was some of Forrester singing the last scene, but there doesn't appear to be. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not art so much as fiction, I'd say. She's not really an artist, but she is a weaver of fiction...and that's what has been shaken, her certainty that the tales she tells are fictional.  Very powerful.  Glad you liked it...I wish there was something more substantial to show you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine. That's what I love about this place - the little random tangents one finds onesself going down.  Not that I know much about the pre-Colombian period myself, mind - most of the archaeological sites that have been discovered are a good deal further west than I.  Closest we come is a collection of early petroglyphs in southwestern Virginia that I'd love to see, were they not (as I understand) generally inaccessible.  The place is called Painted Mountain, funnily enough...I intend to write an article about it someday.  (Of course...) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Encouragement
Hello, I appreciate your comment, and it is very nice to hear from you again. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read your kind words on another talk page. Thank you, and wish you all the best.  The Mi ke •Leave me a message! 04:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your message
Whoa, I think I put the wrong tag on. I probably meant to put a wikify tag on it; it needs section headers and other such things. Let me go retag it now; I may be able to do it myself in a little while, but I've got another unrelated matter to attend to first, and that will be my reminder. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... you can probably zoom the text out in your browser to achieve the effect. If that doesn't work, I'm not too great with computers, but the people at the help desk would probably be able to figure out what's going on.  Sorry I don't know more.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for the warm reception and your kind words on my talk page

regards

abhishek singh (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian Genocide archiving
Explain what Wwoods has done: see WP:Archiving. There are two processes used to archive a page. One involves moving a talk page to an archive, the other involves cut and pasting from a talk page to an archive. When this page was first archived, I chose the cut and past method that also moves the history of the page into the archive. This has the advantage that when there are heated discussion on the talk page people can easily check that the wording in the archive is an accurate reflection of what has been said. What Wwoods has done is unwind that process (of archiving through moving by merging the histories of the archives into the talk page) and alter the method to a cut and past, so that the page archiving can be automated using a bot.

I have no particular issue with the alteration in archiving methods, but I do have an issued with Wwoods doing it without gaining consent on the talk page first. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Risto Perisić


A tag has been placed on Risto Perisić requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WWGB (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens after standard -ly adverbs
WP:HYPHEN states: "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy)." Your personal taste does not trump the MoS. You seem to have jumped into the fray with both feet without taking the time to read and understand the discussion that took place on my talk page and those of Lloyd Wood and Walter Görlitz. I will revert your changes to the Karl Otto Götz article. You would be well advised to find WP articles that need improvement rather than changing them just to accommodate your personal likes. Even if you have trouble recognizing words that end in -ly as adverbs, it is not correct to assume that most or all readers have that difficulty, and that is why nearly all style guides on punctuation and WP's own Manual of Style indicate that hyphens should not be used in these cases. Chris the speller  yack  20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to get through to you on this issue. Again, the MoS says "A hyphen is not used". It is hard to see how you can take that at other than face value. The article in question is not owned by you, and you don't get to ignore the MoS just because you like a certain style or because you don't understand how the MoS came to that conclusion. Read the Compound modifier article and its external references. Nearly all style guides on punctuation instruct writers not to use hyphens in these cases. I don't know of any respected source that recommends otherwise. Walter finally came to see that he was wrong and undid nearly 90 reversions. I have spent a lot of time making these corrections and others; how do you think an editor feels when he has to waste time making the same corrections again and again and making the same point again and again to editors who don't read and understand the discussions where the matter has already been decided? He probably feels that he could have improved many more articles if he had not met so much interference. Feel free to improve Wikipedia articles, but don't count changing articles to suit your own tastes as improvements. Chris the speller   yack  23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I buy the notion that anyone but you sees a difference between "randomly generated" and "randomly-generated", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and work with you. May I suggest that you change the phrasing or add a few words, perhaps in a footnote, to clarify that? If you want to avoid drive-by fixes by other editors, provide some indication that you have considered that it may look like an error to them; how about randomly-generated, which wards off most bots and semiautomatic editing tools and provides a warning to manual editors, perhaps followed by an HTML comment to see the talk page. Having the hyphens in "automatically-created", "loosely-associated" and "clearly-defined" weakens your case, such as it is, for "randomly-", and gives the impression that the exception has become the rule on that page. People will think that it was edited by someone who does not know how to hyphenate. Chris the speller   yack  14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Janáček's Madman etc.
Hi Owen, and thanks for your kind words. Wikipedia is my hobby and an important part of my life, but I can't be infuriated through a computer screen.. You know, real life is full of duties and responsibilities much more important than this project. This year I'm starting with reconstruction of my house, I have a lot of work in my vineyard and elsewhere and I don't want to waste my time with nonsensical fights with ridiculous internet nicknames. I'm trying to avoid conflicts and I rather focus on writing about my favorite subjects. Janáček is one of them, I used to live for years a few meters from his grave and I work for a company whose founder was a good friend with the composer back in the 1880's. I feel it is my duty - :) - to leave a message to the world about this great artist and his works. The Wandering Madman is a diabolically demanding work, rarely performed outside of the Czech Republic (as well as other Janáček's choral compositions). The Tagore's story about the endless human searching is inspiring and fascinating, you can listen to a very good interpertation here. My article originally included the word "uprooted", hovewer, later I noticed it is not a part of the inscription on Janáček's gravestone. The phrase was shortened because there was not enough space on the gravestone, see a detailed image here. The words "jenž byl vyvrácen" ("uprooted") are missing and the whole phrase thus makes a little sense. It is quite strange, but that's how it is. In any case, I appreciate your help. Have a good Sunday, Owen. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was a good idea to add [sic] to the phrase, it should help us to avoid confusion. Thanks for that. When I was writing the article, I read parts of The Gardener on Gutenberg Project, and I was impressed by the wisdom and modesty of Tagore's poems. Amazing how one can discover something new every day :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Intervention
Thanks for that. I knew that, of course, but somehow I got it wrong --Damiens .rf  18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna Letenská
Hi Owen. Today I started this article and I would like to ask you for your help. Would you mind to take a look at it and perhaps make the necessary grammar corrections? The section "World War II" is particularly important to me, and I would like the know whether my explanation of the events is clear for an uninformed English reader. Thank you ... and, please, don't bother with that article if you have more important things to do :) Best regards. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you many times for your time and help. You can't imagine how much I appreciate it. I think Heydrich (as the Deputy Reich-Protector) resided in Prague, it was not just a "visit". V+W is an established and well known shortcut in my country, it means Voskovec and Werich (two famous comedians of the interwar period). Letenská performed in one of their plays, she played a mayor. I linked the letters to their names intentionally, but it would be probably better to redirect the shortcut to Osvobozené divadlo. I fixed the formatting of the Spanish reference, it was a trivial problem :) Thanks for translating and citing Vávra's comment, it is an important addition to the article. He was allegedly the only person (together with Miloš Havel) who knew about the forthcoming arrest of Letenská. Otakar Vávra is probably the last living eyewitness of the events. I'm not sure with the arrangement of footnotes/references, it is the style I use here on Wikipedia. I hope it isn't too confusing. The German blow that came after the assassination of Heydrich was one of the darkest moments in the history of my country. However, I think it would be naive to think that people learned from the terrible events of the past. Killing and violence is a part of human nature, however terrifying and sad it is. I want to leave a message about the unclear concept of justice and humanity to the world. The reality differs from our noble wishes. Letenská was a young and innocent person, and she paid dearly for her help. She paid with her life. Similarly as another important filmmaker of the interwar period, Jan Sviták. Where is the justice, where is the truth? It isn't important. Everything is forgotten and people are dead. We can start a new part of the story, set in Rwanda, in former Yugoslavia or elsewhere .... Thank you again for help, Owen. I'm sorry to bother you with my stupid philosophies. I wish you a beautiful Sunday. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your clarifying of Heydrich's location is elegant and correct. Letenská hosted in a performance of Osvobozené divadlo (Těžká Barbora), and she played a mayor. It is just a small detail. Thanks for all your help, Owen. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with Letenská's engagement in Osvobozené divadlo was caused by my sloppy and careless translation. I used the completely incorrect word "host". Thank you for noticing that. I attempted to clarify the matter again, I hope it is clear now. As for the letter "á" in her name, see "á", acute accent or Czech_alphabet. It is a prolonged vowel. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uff, thank you, Owen. Sometimes I'm a bit retarded. Btw, "host" in Czech means exactly "guest". This was the main reason of the confusion I guess. Thanks for your patience. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Owen. It seems to be a good and helpful source, it is an independent information written in English. I think we can add it to the article. However, the content differs in detail from what I read about her. First of all, they have wrong date of her death, Letenská was shot on 24 October, 1942 (at least according to all reliable Czech sources). I can't find no mention of her being a patient of dr. Lyčka, though it is quite possible. It could help to explain the connection between Lyčkas and Letenská. The sentence "She spent the nights in a Nazi cell – and the days as a comedian in the film studios..." is contradictory to my description - according to Motl, she was allowed to remain at large and Nazis watched her carefully in order to find out whether she is connected with other people "involved" in the assassination. She was arrested and imprisoned after the completion of the film. That's all I can say now. Did you find any other discrepancies?


 * The testimonies about her last days in Prague differ. Her colleague, actor Antonín Strnad, wrote that Letenská was arrested and shortly after that she was released briefly, only to terminate the contract in the Vinohrady Theatre. Strnad met her in the theatre, in tears. Another actor, František Filipovský, claimed that he was probably the last person who talked to her. He met her in a tram at Wenceslas Square and asked: "Where are you going, Anka?" She replied: "Ah, they summoned me to the Gestapo, again. What can they ask me?" Then she got out of the tram and vanished in the crowd. "I'd never seen her again", claimed Filipovský. The last version tells that Letenská was arrested by German interrogator Heinz Jantur(a?) on 3 September, 1942. She lost a little talisman when getting into a Gestapo car. It was a picture of Czech landscape. German officers allowed her to pick it up, Letenská kissed the picture, got to the car, and vanished forever. According to Strnad, she passed the talisman to her cellmates shortly before her execution. She asked the cellmates to give it to the actors of the theatre, in case they survive. One of the inmates allegedly brought the picture to the theatre after the war. We can include the information in the article, however, it is quite confusing and contradictory. I'm not sure.


 * Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the information is fragmentary, contradictory and incomplete. However, you are right, incomplete information is better than no information. We can add the second para of my previous message to the article, I'll provide missing citations/clarifications. Ask me whatever. According to Filipovský, Letenská told on the tram that she was summoned to another interrogation at Gestapo, and she wasn't sure why. Thanks for the link, unfortunately I ca't watch the film from where I am right now. I'll look at it later. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to find out who was Heinz Jantur and I found a detailed description of our case here. Publisher: The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes. How sloppy was my previous searching! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the Nuhanović's page on several occasions. The case moves slowly ... I doubt that Western courts/governments will acknowledge any significant mistakes on their part. They want to keep their hands "clean". But my mind is simple and naive. All I have is immense sorrow over the death of innocent people, over the murdering of the family of Hasan Nuhanović, over the murdering of innocent Czech women that were shot like cattle in a bunker of Mauthausen. Thank you for leaving this message to the world. We need to know who we are. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not easy to add new and conflicting information to the current structure of the article. There's still a minor discrepancy, the testimony provided by Svatopluk Beneš. It seems that Letenská tried to conceal that she was in contact with Lyčkas before the assassination. However, the new source confirms that with certainty. I hope my new additions aren't too confusing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the article had around 5.500 views during the main page appearance :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Letenská
Thank you again, Owen :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed CJ
Hey, I like your work on Nabeel rajab's page. The funny thing is that I created a page on the same day. Anyway, I have made bigs changes to it, but it still needs more changes. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I learned fast. This means I have some restrictions such as not being able to post pictures. I have left some external links for you to see, they contain pictures and other information provided from Nabeel Rajab.

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed CJ (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it. Is it allowed in Wikipedia to make an article or a sub paragraph that contains a list of videos related to a topic? (e.g. related to 2011 Bahraini uprising) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed CJ (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Pig slaughter
Hello Owen. Recently, I'm involved in an interesting and somewhat heated discussion over the deletion of this article. The debate is clouded by different cultural perspectives of us, Wikipedia editors, but it is not so important. I created two new sections describing the pig slaughter tradition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Would you mind to take a look at it and let me know whether my description is clear or not? You can find the sections under Pig_slaughter and Pig_slaughter. I would appreciate any help. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks many times, absolutely no damage done. Yes, I thought that the arrest will attract your attention. Thanks for your precious time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica article
I would recommend you don't leave messages like that on people's talkpages, particularly as it is unlikely to get people to do what you ask of them. People spend time volunteering here. It is unnecessary to get clearance for edits, particularly minor ones, and it would be simply easier to restore the archive yourself - which is incomplete by the way. You may have noticed i spent time editing the article for references and circular links. Tom B (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful. I tried to restore the archive. Once it is no longer possible to Undo (following subsequent edits) this is difficult, as I found out trying (n.b. other people's time spent on imposed tasks like this is volunteered too, not just your own). The signposted archive you removed was incomplete following a previous contributor's (again unconsulted) decision to institute the uninformative robot archiving system you preferred to the more transparent manual archive. (My comments inspired by immediate reaction to this response removed) Opbeith (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Community Ban
Please check my talk page regarding User:Wuhwuzdat.Hillcountries (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)
I'm watching you talk to Mr. Farmer at Articles for deletion/Paul S Farmer. Whether the gentleman's biography is judged to be notable or not, I hope that he'll walk away feeling good about Wikipedia. Interactions like yours should go a long way. And can you believe we don't actually have this barnstar? I had to make it up! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's kind of you. If I say "I am not worthy", it's not modesty, I'm afraid I'm not quite so universally respectful as you suggest, having spent the morning inveighing against academics!  But yes, new users (excluding admirers of Ratko Mladic) are just me and you a little while back.  I enjoy being provoked by new users into finding interesting information - life's compensation for having no powers of concentration. Opbeith (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then maybe I should have said "especially new ones working on autobiographies". :D In any event, you're being quite collegial with this fellow, and I do appreciate it. The WMF is doing quite a lot of research at the moment about new user experience on Wikipedia, and it's an area that needs a lot of work, it seems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I think this issue of "autobiographies" is quite important. Someone who has direct personal experience isn't necessarily self-promoting when they contribute information in an inappropriate form.  It's not unnatural to feel that information based on your own direct experience is potentially useful to others (particularly on occasions when you see adequately referenced but incorrect material published).  It's genuine abuse that should be discouraged, not a willingness to share.  When you don't know the conventions it's easy enough to do things inappropriately, and it's only time that will show whether there's any abusive intent.  To me PF is an illustration of how a bit of tolerance can allow something genuinely interesting to emerge.


 * And it's a lot easier to know how to contribute when someone shows you (eg you providing PF's book details).  WP advice pages are useful for someone who knows how to find their way around and understand what they say but they're daunting for the novice, particularly when they're being beaten over the head with one.  The practical support (/defence) and encouragement I see people like you and (see above) User:Vejvančický giving isn't just a good example, it's also reassurance that WP isn't just a jungle into which the novice ventures at their own risk. Opbeith (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k Opbeith,
I'll do what you just said.I am going to move the request for a rainfall map of Nigeria to be constructed using contour lines or better, Isohyets to contour lines.Thanks-yours  Netknowle  message me!   02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica tables references
Found them for you, have posted to the bottom of the Srebrenica discussion page. Hope this helps.--Davoloid (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Opbeith
Hello Opbeith,Thank you for your advice,i believe i will find someone who will help me to draw a rainfall information map of Nigeria using contour lines. Netknowle  message me!   05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k Obeith,I love your second option of transfering my request to Geographic information system.I think it will be better.Thanks-yours  Netknowle  message me!   03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Torture in Bahrain
Can you tell me when you've finished your edits as I have just had a big edit conflict while I was trying to move some of the excessively detailed content of the introduction. I'm happy to wait until you've finished, but perhaps you wouldn't mind having a quick check afterwards that my eddits haven't disrupted anything you've been doing. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. We were conflicting earlier, so I went away to leave you to it, but there hadn't been a change in an hour when I went back, had assumed you were done, so made my last fix to the refs. - Salamurai (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide memorial
Hi Owen, I replied at my talk page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik
All of the people Breivik mentioned in xyr manifesto belong in no place at all in Wikipedia except maybe on xyr page (and probably not even there). Basically, that's just Breivik's opinion of another person, and Brevik's opinion is completely undue on, well, everything. This is being discussed at WP:BLPN, and the consensus there is so far unanimous (last I saw) to keep such info off of every single page other than Breivik's. Just because Famous Person X said something about Famous Person Y does not mean we put that information on Y's article--not unless X is somehow an expert on Y. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not Breivik's opinion being reported, this is a subject being discussed in various prominent newspapers such as Dagbladet and the New York Times (NYT does not mention Trifkovic but mentions many of the other names of the Counterjihad movement)Opbeith (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. And this is so 100% wrong that I believe it meets the BLP exemption for crossing 3RR. The consensus at BLPN is 'unanimous so far.  It doesn't matter that this is being reported in the NYT, etc.--it's still completely UNDUE for the Srđa Trifković article.  For example, when the NYT reports that Celebrity X likes the dresses made by Fashion Designer Y, we do not and would not add that information to the article on the Fashion Designer.  It really is that simple.  Unless I here differently there, I will keep reverting this as a clear BLP violation.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To save too much moving backwards and forwards, I've replied to you at the article's talk page. Opbeith (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Spencer
I am trying to build consensus to that effect in Robert Spencer (author article. I do think that the point that Spencer's attempts to address Breivik's quotation of him justifies inclusion of a brief reference in the article. Clearly, others are opposed.  Would you care to comment on the discussion board there?Jemiljan (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Trifković
A consensus has been reached to not include anyone cited in Breivik's manifesto. Please start assuming good faith instead of suggesting those who agree with consensus are "The BLP counterjihadist protection group" Truthsort (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus. I don't question the good faith of all who agree with the point of view which is claimed as a consensus, I simply doubt those who deploy the alleged consensus without dealing adequately with the arguments refuting it. Neither you nor Qwyrxian nor Griswaldo have dealt adequately with the issue of the Dagbladet article, you've simply imposed a point of view. With regard to the discussion in reliable sources of the wider group of Counterjihadists with which Trifkovic is associated you've simply turned your eyes away from the evidence of allegations of influence. You've closed the issue down and now you want to lock it with assertions of a consensus that genuine good faith would discuss and reflect on before enforcing. Opbeith (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported at WP:AN3
Hello Opbeith. Please see WP:AN3. Jayjg has asserted that you are edit warring at Srđa Trifković. You may respond at WP:AN3 if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Srđa Trifković. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oh no, they've blocked you? ... I replied on my talk page, Owen. Stay calm and be patient. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)