User talk:Jonathanmills

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  // Laughing Man 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NB -- I COPY-AND-PASTED THE FOLLOWING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S PAGE. JUST WANTED THE LINKS :-)

Hello, Jonathanmills! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Tag on Srebrenica massacre

Hello. You have to be much more specific about the reason you add the tag. Which parts of the article are in your opinion unbiased or incorrect? Support your arguments by references to reliable sources. The only source I heard you mentioning is Emperor's Clothes, which is a website edited by three people without credentials. These sources simply do not stack up against UN, Red Cross, BBC, Human Rights Watch, CNN, etc. The other thing you're pointing out is the long discussions on the talk page. That just shows that it is a controversial topic, but most of the time, it's details that are discussed, like whether there are 8000 or 8300 victims. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jitse,

In response to your points, I'll repost my reply to Osli's comments to me, which touch on the issues you've raised.

(Osli wrote) Jonathan, as I see it, it's not for the editors of this article to analyse the nature of the ICTY or any alleged complicity or bias of 'western' media. We should simply summarize and report the prevailing understanding of the event. As I see it, the view presented by the ICTY is accepted by the majority of other sources. as there is a minority (or rather, minorities, since they don't appear to be a coherent block) who dispute various parts of the massacre as presnted by the ICTY/majority, their views should also be presented, thouth, of course, with much less weight/space allocated to them. in both cases, the icty/majority view and the minority view, there is no need to label either of them as "revisionists", "alleged rapist", "fundamentalist", "Nato created" or other. Just say that the ICTY view is the view accepted by the vast majority and that the minority view is, well... a minority view. Since the article currently strays somewhat from the ICTY/majority view, eg with the case of MacKenzie, the Scorpions and the >8300 killed, I agree with you that it is contested. In my opinion, the selection of information presented, the wording and conclusions drawn also means that in some cases the article is POV. Regards Osli73 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(I replied) I basically agree with you on this. I put up the tag because it was calling dissenting views 'revisionist', as well as the other points you've mentioned, and was clearly not NPOV. I think the reason I got perhaps a bit off the topic vis-a-vis the Western media etc was to try and argue that it wasn't fair to tar the dissenting views as inherently false. Not to mention that it is against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. I will join you later on some of the specifics of the debate, but for right now I have to go to work... :-( Cheers Jonathanmills 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(To which Osli replied): Jonathan, I agree completely that the type of 'labelling' and 'tarring' by association which appears in this article, of which the "revisionist" label is an example of, is not NPOV and should be removed. As I wrote in my reply to you (above), I do believe that the article in its present form deserves a "POV" and/or "Contested" tag. However, as you will see from the Talk page, I am now hoping, proposing, even, to get a fresh start with the article. As these types of tags are seen by many as a provocation I think that we should put them on hold until we see what kind of response the "A Fresh Start" initiative will get. Regards Osli73 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can give a further reply to your points in a little while, Jitse, just in the interest of discussion, (have to get back

to work right now -- incidentally, I tend to do this at work because my computer at home sucks!) but in terms of

a resolution, as you can see, I'm not expecting the article to read like an Emperors Clothes article! :-) Just to make it

more neutral POV, and also some of the factual questions appear to be dubious (eg, that 8300 doesn't even appear to be the

finding of the ICTY...?) But I will join the discussion in specifics, rather than just adding a tag. Cheers.

Jonathanmills 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, I'm happy with your answer, which makes more sense to me than what you wrote on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. So you don't need to reply more to me. I think the tag is a bit overdone, but I don't have a big problem with it if there is some movement towards resolving the issues.

We'll probably meet again on the talk page of the article. See you, Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative View

Do you also consider this "alternative view" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Holocaust_denial ? How about this Jonathanmills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide ? Bosniak 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider killing several thousand military-age men in the midst of a brutal civil war as on a par with the killing of

millions of people outside of a civil-war context? I don't.

Jonathanmills 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is rude to talk about victims of genocide as they're toys. First, children were also killed in Srebrenica, even babes, not just military men, also many women, some of them were raped. And this is not about the numbers, it is about specific intention to exterminate population, it is called dolus specialis. The plan was to exterminate population killing males because they are reproductive force in a population. Also, this happened in 1995. in the heart of civilized Europe. Second, it was not civil war, the intenrational courtes found it was an international conflict. Genocide is verified by two courtes, and it is the first genocide which has courte validation. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I talk about victims of genocide like they're toys? Jonathanmills 13:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the above sentence. This whole sentence: Do you consider killing several thousand military-age men in the midst of a brutal civil war as on a par with the killing of millions of people outside of a civil-war context? I don't. is full of misery. Several thousand man?! Can you understand what you have said? They didn't plan to kill "just" several thousand, they decided to destroy them all in very "subtile" manner by killing all males (you said military-age men) in just few days. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, man, I'm *not* saying killing several thousand is somehow OK -- I was just saying, in response to Bosniak's original comment (which stemmed from the discussion on calling views which questioned the scale/nature etc of the massacre 'revisionism', which clearly refers back to the Holocaust) that I think it's drawing an extremely long bow to compare the two (the Srebrenica massacre and the Holocaust).

I'm sorry if that offends you (clearly it does), but you're getting me wrong if you think that I was saying 'so what' in regards to the Srebrenica victims. Jonathanmills 14:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan (discuss first, edit second)

Hi Jonathan, I have noticed that you deleted rather large chunks of Srebrenica Genocide article. I've reverted those edits, because you haven't discussed any of them. I was expected to discuss each and every edit I made; to avoid grievances with respect to double standard, I would appreciate if you discuss all your edits before you made revisions. It is only fair that you do that, because I had to do it, and everybody else had to do it. Bosniak 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan

Hi Jonathan, I am glad we have so many interests in common. I just read your response here. Canada is a beautiful place indeed (tip: come for the Celebration of Fire in Vancouver, as the international firework competition on the open sea is "must sea" event). On another note, I'have noticed 360 degrees improvement in your edits, because you are not playing revisionist tricks. In fact, you have gone a long way with Srebrenica topic, and I am proud of you for finally accepting two separate rulings of the international courts. I am proud of your for being intelligent enought to understand that Srebrenica genocide denial is is not only morally wrong, but it's also factually wrong. I've been studying the case of Srebrenica for 3 years now. Things are more complex than they seem. Revisionists and genocide deniers simplify case of genocide by simply saying that this was 'Western/NATO conspiracy against Serbs and Serbia' etc. Or, in some cases they use discredited sources and present somebody elses opinions as facts (for eg Gen Lewis MacKenzie has never been in Srebrenica, yet he portrays himself as expert who can deny genocide as 'he' sees fit). Or, some revisionists claim that Srebrenica victims were soldiers, and since some of them were soldiers - all of them were soldiers. And this argument does not even count as an opinion; it's a worthless example of denial. In other words and with respect to Srebrenica genocide; a POW, a surrendered soldiers were clearly non-combatants at the time of the deaths (they were transported to execution sites and mass executed with hands tied). Anywyas, if you have any questions about Srebrenica - do not hesitate to ask me. People are sometimes confused, and if I can help them understand things a little bit more - hey, I'll be happy! With respect to the Liberal Party - you might study their policies more closely, they are very progressive on many fronts (so you might drop Conservatives from the ballot on your next voting election, just a thought). Again, I am glad we can have you as an editor which will stand up against vandalism of Srebrenica massacre article, especially when people come and claim that only 2,000 died... Cheers. Bosniak 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Response...

Hi Jonathan. I also stay away from Conservative Party. During last federal elections they won minority government, and as soon as they formed slight majority, they started ruining our freedoms and progress we made in the last decate with Liberal government. For example, they attempted to increase legal age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. Of course, gay groups and other reasonable adults stood against it, because sexual freedom and enjoyment is a human right for both adults and young teens to enjoy among themselves read faq's by DOJ. Our Liberal MPs were able to block Conservative attempts from succeeding., as this is extremely important human freedom/need. Another thing Conservatives tried to do is to limit our freedoms of speech, travel, etc, citing various security issues; they even started secretly wire taping private Canadian phones, all in the name of security; they even copied Bush's patriot act and started damaging human freedoms even more. Pretty much, they have been trying to ruin all progressive things Canadians enjoyed with Liberal government, for example, they even tried to worsen drug problem in communities by refusing to fund safe injection sites for these homeless drug users roaming streets of Vancouver. They were also against stem cell research, which could lead to cures of terminal illnesses. I am glad you are my fellow liberal; no matter what country we are coming from, if you are liberal = the chances are, you are reasonable human being. Bosniak 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re

I think, the information I placed in Srebrenica massacre article is very important and valuable because it explains the context of the war in Eastern Bosnia. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, some editors do cite sources as confirmation for things they don't actually say. So, actual reading of sources is always useful.

I don't think I could point you to more useful sources which are not in Serbian, sorry :( Perhaps some, but not directly related to Srebrenica, you could get from [1]. Nikola 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

think again

Jonathan, you need really to learn how wiki works. Anything you ever write on wikipedia is part of public record and can be tracked. So, if you want to have confidential conversation with Osli, you need to have it outside of wikipedia.

More important, think again about who appears reasonable to you. You are now seeing Nikola as reasonable reliable user. Nikola supports Radovan Karadzic. I believe you do know who Karadzic is. After making it very clear that he gives no credibility to ICTY, Nikola posed this rhetorical question at 17:07 on 24 February 2007: "What is wrong with Karadzic's character and record other than things ICTY accuses him of?".

Nikola also support Slobodan Milosevic. Nikola again and again add link that say this: "Slobodan Milosevic fought for the freedom of the Serbian people." Do you really think that is true and want to work with editor who support this?? Milosevic kill our own people. I could be Serb and say this. I could be Yugoslav from any part of former Yugoslavia and say this.

Here again Nikola say he want to add positive link about Milosevic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratko_Mladi%C4%87&oldid=32075960

Hi mate, first of all, you mind signing your name? It would be helpful to know who I'm talking to.

Anyway, in response to your points -- a) I am/ was aware that Osli's page is readable by anyone, but I don't feel I have anything to hide. I guess some of it may have sounded a bit that way upon reflection, but I specifically didn't want it to be some secret thing. I think my comment that 'if you mention it to one Bosniak editor, they will inform the rest' was more in response to the point of whether Osli could work productively with them (or vice versa).

As for Nikola, well, I don't think the questions he raises are unreasonable ones, actually. The Western media clearly has lied about Milosevic, so I am sceptical about accepting what they say about him as truth -- this is not saying whether he is or is not in fact guilty of what he has been accused of; just a point about what sources to accept.

The other thing is, I believe quite strongly that someone's personal views shouldn't disqualify them from editing Wikipedia -- it's about what they write, and whether it conforms to accuracy and NPOV. I thought Nikola would be a good editor to have on board because quite clearly some of the facts have been distorted (perhaps unintentionally) by the existing bunch of editors (I noticed this myself when I was doing some editing on the article). So even if you guys are on the 'right' side and Nikola on the 'wrong' one, we are trying to write the best possible Wikipedia article here, not fight some moral battle. Cheers Jonathanmills 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

You stated that you "have absolutely *nothing* against Bosniaks (I don't know any, anyway), and I'm certainly no supporter of genocide!" I am very glad that you made that statement. I am also not supporter of genocide, but at times when individual Serb nationalists offend Srebrenica victims, I also throw offence back at them and exchange words of pain. But, hard words aside, genocide is a terrible thing... and not just genocide, but also mass scale killings, massacres, human rights violations (take a look at what's going on in Pakistan), etc. It's horrible. I think that good percentage of this world still follows primitive innate animal instict "kill for survival"... Well, for human being to be called human being we need to start think differently. Instead of "kill for survival", how about "negotiate for survival" and "compromise for survival", etc. There is a long way for humanity to go, a long way for people to accept that we are all human. Bosniak 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

assistance with the article Bosnian Mujahideen

Hi Jonathan, I'm having a problem with the editors The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy who have repeatedly deleted an article which I edit called Bosnian Mujahideen (see edit history here [2]). He has also deleted links to the article on other articles. [3][4][5][6]He seems to be basing his deletion of the article on two sets of arguments:

1. that the term Bosnian Mujahideen does not exist. In fact the term is used by published (research and books) experts.[7]. I admit though that there are other terms often used, such as El Mujahid, El Mujaheed or just Mujahideen (spelled in various forms).
2. claims the article is based on "false info/original research"[8] or "propaganda attempt or original research if you wish, based on unverified sources per WP:RS"[9]. As you will see from the references used in the article it is quite thoroughly sourced from what must be judged to be neutral and/or reliable sources.
3. states that "there is already particular article"[10] This refers to an article called 7th Muslim Brigade, which The Dragon of Bosnia is an editor of. Not only do I find this article to be blatantly POV and lacking in verifiable sources it also does not cover the Bosnian Mujahideen.

I would very muc appreciate your assistance on this matter. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to your message on my Talk page

Hi, hope you had a nice break. Yes, I've sort of 'given up' on the Srebrenica massacre article. The problem wasn't the general content as such, but the presentation of details was full of WP:POV and WP:OR.

I'm now focusing on the article Bosnian mujahideen which I wrote. Had to ask admin to protect the article to stop certain (Bosniak) editors from repeatedly deleting/blanking it on spurious grounds. Have now, after a lenght arbitration process, I think, finally found ground for keeping the article. It was just unprotected earlier today and will now, together with other editors, start working on expanding the article. You're welcome to join if you're interested. Also working on keeping a correct and POV presentation of the Bosnian mujahideen phenomenon in the other articles where it appears. The main challenge here is finding good NPOV / reliable sources.

Also spending quite some time working on the Bosnian genocide article, where, basically, one side (incl. me) argues that the term refers to the Srebrenica massacre and that there is a controversy over the issue while the other side claims (very much the same as for the Srebrenica massacre article) claims that it refers to a wider genocide against Muslims in Bosnia during the war. The main challenge here is interpreting legal findings/statements.

Again, it would be nice to have you along in either one of these discussions/articles. CheersOsli73 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberals

Hi Jonathan. Both of us believe in liberal values, but please don't get confused - Ed Herman, Diana Johnstone and similar Srebrenica genocide deniers are not liberals, they are radical (pro-)Serbian ultra-nationalists. There is a difference between liberals and radicals, and you should keep that in mind. Bosniak (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A hidden comment.

A hidden comment: --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you ought to be aware of this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Osli73 as you user id is mentioned "I think Osli created another account Jonathanmills in order to edit Srebrenica massacre" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Srebrenica massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have no intention of blocking anyone right now; the warning above was just a warning. Please consider something like dispute resolution, but 3RR is there for a reason. It's best not to get provoked by being reverted, but rather have other editors who specialise in disputes have a look at the situation, and then take appropriate action. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Balkans arbitration remedy

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hi there,

I'm actually not disagreeing with the warning you left me as such (I was inexcusably abusive, although in my defence it's very out of character for me)... however I just wanted to request that a warning might also be sent to the guy who is on the other side of this, given that he is completely ignoring my rather detailed (and comprehensive, IMHO) reasoning as to why what he's saying is rubbish. (For all I know, you already have, BUT I am just suggesting that deliberately inserting biased and clearly false -- or at least nowhere near encyclopaedia-standard-proven -- information into an article, and refusing to answer the charges I've made, should be against the rules in the same way losing your temper is).

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in a position to identify whether the information is biased, false, or a candy bar, but I have already left a message at User talk:Historičar warning him about the sanctions in the Balkans area. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough! Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Srebrenica massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aramgar (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. I've blocked your account for 24 hours because you were way over 3 revert with editing Srebrenica massacre] and you were warned about such behaviour yesterday. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I wouldn't argue the block was unjustified in that I was clearly violating 3RR, BUT I did make numerous appeals to your man to move to the talk page, or even READ what I had written there, but he just kept doing reverts which he didn't even bother to give reasons for.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jonathanmills (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Actually I'm not requesting an unblock as such (see my comment above) as I was clearly violating 3RR, HOWEVER, rereading my edit war with your man, it's clear he wasn't moving to the talk page to discuss despite my *repeated* requests, nor was he giving any valid reason for his reverts, only mentioning my (admittedly inexcusably uncivil) outbursts of a day or more previously...which by then I had (IMHO) profusely apologised for... In fact, I wondered (and still wonder) if he was deliberately attempting to goad me into violating 3RR, as he would ask questions I had already clearly answered. (Not that the fault was not my own, of course!) Next time (if there is one) I will pursue the dispute via other channels, as I obviously should have done. But I just wanted to make my point -- I don't think my behaviour can really be put in the same category as my opponent's. Again, not actually arguing for an unblock, and apologies for my foolishness.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jonathanmills (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just one final point -- I did get the hint about not abusing the template -- but I find it pretty much outrageous to see that the editor whose behaviour I was describing above, and with whom I was engaged in the revert war -- and who, surely, made as many reverts as me, on as many occasions, ie yesterday and today -- has apparently not been blocked!! I would actually genuinely request a review based on that, or is consistency of judgement not relevant? (Not actually wanting that to sound as angry or sarcastic as it probably does; I'm genuinely asking the question). Kind regards

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would have blocked user:Historičar if (s)he had been previously warned about WP:3RR as you have been only yesarday. But the warning was placed on his/her page in the same minute that (s)he made their last revert, so a block was not appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to email you some further advice but you have no email set :-( --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- that's fine, then. Thanks a lot for that clarification, Philip. I'd be happy for you to email me, but I'd kind of rather NOT have my address up, considering the sort of controversial, emotional topics I edit on, if you take my meaning, so hopefully I can deliver it to you after I've been unblocked.

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentient is not a scientific term

Thank you for your notification. It is true that there is no disagreement that most mammal can feel pain and emotion, including distress. There is no disagreement that animal are intelligent in varying degree, though none are known to be as smart as human. All of the above is a separate matter from animal being sentient. Anyway, it doesn't quite matter what you or I think about it. The source of the edit was from an advocacy site rather than reliable sources (i.e. media and academia). When you make such an extraordinary claim that "everyone agree" that animal is sentient, it require quite extraordinarily solid source. Vapour (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the term "sentient" is a very western specific term. I, a Japanese, for one, couldn't come up with an appropriate translation in my language and I had to check a dictionary for a similar word and found a Buddhist term which is somewhat similar. Only problem is that Buddhism regard every living being to have a certain degree of self awareness, which is not confirmed by science. There are only few animal which could pass mirror recognition test, for example.If you check wikipedia article about Sentience, you will notice that there are only four non English Wikipedia links. How could you say that there is an global agreement that whales are sentient when most world culture doesn't use the term sentient?Vapour (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Srebrenica Genocide Memorial

Hi! While looking for a picture of the Sea Gallantry Medal, I came across your 3 July 2007 posting at Talk:Srebrenica massacre#oh, and one more thing saying: "not sure how to correct the actual name of the 'SGM' article though". From the title I have given this posting, you can see that the article is still called 'SGM'. Do you still want to change it?
If so, it's really quite simple: Up the top of every WP page are a series of "tabs"; 2nd from right is "move" - click on it; fill in the boxes; click on "move page".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the Whaling page lately?

My head nearly exploded when I saw it. I haven't been on it awhile because I've been summarizing whaling logbooks the past few weeks. Apparently the guy who edited it is Japanese. You can clearly see a bias in his writing. Might need some help cleaning it up. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you threatening to editors?

First of all, other editors have agreed to use the term Srebrenica genocide. Who are you to say that you will remove it? We will insert it back. That term has been used on Srebrenica genocide article for a long time, and who are you to threaten other editors? Who gives you right to threaten anybody? You think you can change the fact that what Serb terrorists had done to Srebrenica was nothing more but Srebrenica genocide? I sometimes surprise myself, why am I even wasting time on you. All you want is attention, and you're getting it by blatantly abusing wikipedia's policies. Bosniak (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim you have a fascist agenda.

Is your agenda Genocide denial? If you claim to be innocent, why do you spend most of your time minimizing the Srebrenica Genocide? Are you a proud Fascist? Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave messages on my front page, rather on my talk page. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You ask me if my agenda is Srebrenica genocide denial, and whether I am a 'proud fascist'.

First of all, I am certainly no fascist.

As for my 'agenda', I simply want the Wikipedia article to be balanced and factual, and in accord with Wikipedia policies. What my personal views are on what happened at Srebrenica, and/or whether I support one side or another in the Bosnian conflict ought to be a) irrelevant, as the only issue should be whether my edits are valid, and b) a rather absurd criticism from someone who is clearly so opinionated on the issues themselves.

Finally, thanks for addressing your question to my talk page. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you so perfectly fit the first sentence of the Genocide denial page? Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Journalist 007 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Need your help on Celebici Prison Camp article

As I'm sure you are aware, I am currently involved in an edit-war with Kruško Mortale on the Čelebići prison camp article. After I decided to add to the article by adding a section on the conditions and treatment of prisoners, Kruško Mortale began reverting the article to his version. And this started the edit-war.

He first had an issue with a sentence I had written. I was willing to discuss any issues he might have had. So I deleted that sentence because it was unsourced. And I deleted the category "Crimes against Humanity"...because apparently it was wrong..even though torture, rape, murder, and other inhumane acts are clearly acts and crimes against humanity. But anyhow, that was deleted because I wanted to compromise.

But now, he just keeps reverting the article for no reason. All of my statements are sourced and by reliable sources mind you..not a single Serbian source! Yet he keeps claiming that I am spreading propaganda and that I am a puppet of you. Jonathanmills. I do not know what his deal is. I presume he does not want any information on Wikipedia about the way Bosnian Muslims mistreated and commited crimes of war against the Serbian population.

Now, I am well informed about the camp as many of my relatives have been there and I have researched it extensively. All I have done in that article is add to it by adding information which was neccesary. 3/4 of the article is spent on the Background to the war. And a couple of sentences near the end about how the ICTY found that there were just some prisoners beaten and killed. Clearly the article served no justice about explaining what the camp was, what went on there and the kind of things the prisoners went through which is why I added to it. I have deleted nothing.

Now...Kruško Mortale is reverting and deleting the parts I have written for no reason. What I ask of you, is to be a third-party in our edit-war and try to be neutral and help solve this dispute. Or if you could contact some other users who would be willing to be neutral, third-party members in helping us end Kruško Mortale's vandalism and come to a resolution we can both agree on. The link to the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C4%8Celebi%C4%87i_prison_camp

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Dfener91 (talk)

RE

Thank you too, and I am sorry I thought you were sockpuppeteer of Dfener91, although coincidence in editing between you two was amazing, however I have no problem with any user when using relaible sources, but I saw many examples of sneaky vandalism by Dfener91 who inserted something not supported by the source, so I reverted it to original version. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dobar dan

Yes the 3RR ban was a while ago. I like the changes you've made to the article and thank you for your support. Unfortunately, I will not have time to visit the article in question as I have more important things to deal with in real life outside of wikipedia.

I really do not see why testimonials from witnesses should not be added or at least something to that effect to really show the kind of treatment and things that went on at the camp..espiecially when the witnesses are from the ICTY trial itself! or the testimonies were used in the ICTY trial (like those I put). If testimonies on articles are used in the Srebrenica massacre and other Yugoslav war related articles, then why should it not be allowed on this one? I agree it wasn't well structured but at least it was a start. ([11]) And Kruško deleted because he claimed it wasnt from WR:RS...yet it was testimony taken from the ICTY..but anyhow..

It's clear Kruško is going all out to minimize and discredit the treatment of these prisoners by justifying his reverts and deletions any way he can even if they are illogical. I believe he has no background or clue about this prison camp until he read about it here or somewhere else and so his initials thoughts when the article was edited to include what had ACTUALLY HAPPENED there to serb prisoners was that it must be Serb Propaganda! Either that or hes been listening to too much Christiane Amanpour. I on the other hand spent of my early childhood in Konjic before my family had to flee and my relatives were imprisoned in the camp. So i think I have a better background as to the situation there, but I digress...I'm boring you here..

As a side note, do you speak Serbian? learning it? What makes you interested in the Yugoslav Wars? BTW, I think that all three of us are spending a little too much time on Wikipedia.

Keep up the good work and preserve the integrity and truthiness (is that a word?) of the article in my absence. Cheers friend! --Dfener91 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre again

Hi. Old discussions keep popping up at Srebrenica Massacre talk page, this time the title (name) of the article. Editors tend to get exhausted by reiterating the same old arguments. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the section "Opposition to the term "genocide"", please see the talk page; I've no real care, but the page history suggests it has been there for quite some time in the aftermath of arguments over what it should say. Probably best to sort it out there first. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries mate, I don't care either, I just think it's obviously an inaccurate title. But there's no way I'm getting into that minefield again :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bakunin a government agent?

Hi mate,

I saw your postings over at the Bakunin talk page and was just wondering, what evidence do you have for suggesting Bakunin was in fact in the pay of the French (Russian?) governments? Please note that I'm not intending this as a sort of aggressive question, despite having Bakuninist sympathies I'm genuinely interested in the issue and not looking for an argument. Apologies if you've included it somewhere in your writings already, as I didn't read the entire talk page.

Anyway, if you have time, I would be interested in your response.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure about the confusion between the French and Russian governments here, bearing in mind that the French government referred to here is that of Louis Blanc and other socialists who had come to power in the February Revolution. James G. Chastain discusses this in 'Bakunin as a French Secret Agent in 1848' in History Today. Billingsley suggests, somewhat ironically, that the French government paid him to go away. (see Bakunin, Yokohama, and the Dawning of the Pacific Era. I think it is quite clear that in 1848 Bakunin got backing from French revolutionaries to spread the revolution. As for Marx's suggestion he was a Russian agent, I think that has been generally dismissed. However, while in Siberia he did have a state sinecure from his cousin Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky, then the governor - but whether that makes him a government agent I'm not sure. Muravyov was a liberal and Bakunin was linked with plans to break away from the Russian empire and joining or copying the USA (Kroptkin came across traces of this years later). Myself I feel that Bakunin was a more effective revolutionary before he got bogged down with anarchism and all the ideological baggage that went with that. A little bit of first time tragedy second time farce.Harrypotter (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide / Srebrenica massacre

Hello Jonathan

I'd just been answering your latest at SG/SM. The issue of the claims of the names on the voters' roll was investigated by the ICTY demography unit and Tokaca. I'll try to get back to you with references. I wish I could feel confident about your disclaimers. Opbeith (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any references for the fact that three thousand were supposed to have voted. I can't find anything specific. Helge Brunborg of the Norwegian Statistics Office worked with the ICTY to confirm the identities of the missing. He checked the lists of those reported missing against the voter registration lists for 1997 and 1998 (not people who voted, the names of those registered to vote, ie names of all potential voters) and found 3000 names that matched names on the list of the missing. After further investigation he was able to eliminate all except nine of those as potential survivors from the list of missing. If you go to the transcript of the Krstic trial in which he gave evidence - he is being examined in the transcript at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/trans/en/000601ed.htm . The evidence that sets out how he proceeded is at pages 4055 to 4067. Opbeith (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)