User talk:Mondeo

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Mondeo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-)[edit]

Hey there,

Just wanted to say hi, and I appreciate your contributions over at the Srebrenica Massacre page (hell of an article to choose to get involved with! ;-)

Actually it would be great to have some neutral involvement over there, as IMHO the page has some serious issues with pro-Bosniak bias... Of course, the Bosniak editors think I'm an extreme Serbian nationalist! (Although I'm not Serbian, for starters... I just don't think ANY article, however 'sensitive' a topic, shouldn't be dealt with in an even-handed and factual way.)

Anyway I'm not trying to bad-mouth the others over there, I don't have anything personal against them in any case, and I'm sure you will come to your own views. But I'll probably be a bit more inclined to contribute over there if you're around. As it is, I find the atmosphere toxic and can't really take more than a week or so of editing before I need several months' break :-)

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Personally I don't have any view on this event or the article, I am not from these countries and have no special relation to any country in the region. I am a social scientist and interested in getting the facts straight and presenting facts in a neutral frame. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is pretty much my stance -- although I do have some knowledge of the 'revisionist' claims, I'm not fighting for the article to be an exercise in them. I just object to the overtly anti-Serb tone (and often inaccurate information) contained in the article. Will be great to have your input.

PS, I just responded to your post re the final paragraph on the talk page -- namely, what did you object to/ feel uncertain about vis-a-vis that text? (Reply on the talk page) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Horseshoe curve (transportation), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assumed that common knowledge could be added without source. Anyway, I have added references to reliable sources in the linked article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; how else would anyone know you're not just making stuff up? If it was "common knowledge", we wouldn't really need it in an encyclopedia, would we? Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on Srebrenica massacre[edit]

Hello!

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with another editor on the Srebrenica massacre article. Wikipedia's official policy WP:3RR prohibits an editor to make more than three reverts on any one article in a 24-hour period. So far, you have made three reverts today. I warned the other editor involved in this dispute to discuss proposed changes instead of edit warring so it's only fair that I warn you as well.

Thanks!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You have seen the changes and as you probaly understand I did not want an unacceptable change remain. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I demand apology from you[edit]

Mondeo, at least 200 children of his age or around his age were killed. And you call murders of 200 victims "a few"? Shame on yourself. You're the one making personal attacks and defending your friend Johnathanmills, who invited you here. I demand apology for calling murders of 200 children who were roughly his age "a few". Shame on yourself. And by the way, my mother is from Srebrenica, although we lived in Macedonia. So stop insulting people of Srebrenica and the victims of genocide. YardFly56 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "few" is relative to the overall number of persons killed, not the absolute number. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not about feelings. In any case I have not attacked anybody personally (please be specific if you believe I am really have attacked somebody). Jonathanmills is not my friend and he did not invite me over, but he did welcome me - I think that is a nice and friendly thing to do. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hi Mondeo,

Just wanted to say hi, and let you know I really appreciate your contributions over at the Srebrenica massacre page (and not just because we usually agree! -- I think you are a thoughtful, balanced and constructive editor).

I'm getting a bit burnt out by it at the moment -- my enthusiasm has always waxed and waned -- but I'm a bit loath to leave it entirely (not permanently, but for a time I mean) given that the article really needs a lot of work, and the (IMO) highly questionable contributions and attitudes of most of the editors.

How are you finding it? Do you now get what I meant about it being a 'toxic atmosphere'? ;-)

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(PS, if you'd prefer to communicate 'off-line' -- ie, via email, so not in public view -- let me know your email address and I'll get in touch. I'd rather not give you mine as I fear I might get hate mail from anyone who happened to see it written here!)

Unfortunately, some editors are not very constructive and some of the discussions on the talk page seems futile - particularly when editors don't relate to arguments (avoiding an open debate/reasoning), but simply repeat the same old statements.

Agreed! Incidentally, I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to draw you onto 'my side' of the debate or anything. I just respect your contributions. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are facing much the same problems as I am (mainly in the Bosnian mujahideen article) with User:Kruško Mortale. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you here in finding a Wiki process to deal with this.Osli73 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Hi again, just now noticed that you are of Swedish ancestry (among other things). Hej!Osli73 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Osli. I will see that develops, and if we are not able to find a solution I may need assistance. Besta hälsningar, Mondeo (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

np[edit]

The camp articles deserve more attention than they currently get, I'm glad to have helped. As for the Salon source, its the only one I could find mentioning that statement. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Camp articles need to be better structured and updated with latest information, and language need to be polished a bit. Salon.com is quite OK, actually Guardian mentioned it too, but it is basically the same report by Vulliamy. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mondeo, can you please elaborate on the question I have posed at the Omarska talk discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trnopolje[edit]

Nothing was sourced before my edit, I tried finding the figures stated in the official documents instead having to start from scratch but failed to find them, anyway this version is much more informative and includes quotes with everything sourced. PRODUCER (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive contribution. Please see your own talk page for my response. Best, Mondeo (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mondeo, Please Assume Good Faith[edit]

Hi Mondeo. Please stop accusing and demanding other editors to to side with or support your point of view. You have done enough damage, in concert with your associates, at Srebrenica massacre article. You prevented the article to be renamed to its proper historic name - Srebrenica Genocide. Of course you have agenda and your agenda is not irrelevant. It's quite relevant, because you - in concert with others - accuse other editors of misconduct, while at the same time you quote vague wikipedia standards to justify your pre-conceived conclussions. Best regards, hope we can find common ground, and common ground can only be based on facts, not on individual points of view. Srebrenica Genocide is a fact, not something anybody can question. The courts have spoken. Bosniak (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bosniak, I again ask you to please focus on content, not contributor. If you disagree with WP policy, please discuss in the appropriate forum. If you disagree with me on specific edits, please discuss on talk page for that article. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bosniak[edit]

You may be interested to know that a report concerning User:Bosniak has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak (block requested for resumed personal attacks). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]