User talk:Jim Douglas/Archive 4

Bosniak-o-phobia

Jim, as a Bosniak, I agree with you 100%. This is since Anti-Bosniak sentiment covers the issues of Bosniakophobia. As I have stated to User:Bosniak in Bosnian (and as you have stated) a Google search result is not enough. Besides the results show the disputes referring to Bosniakophobia, not actually analyzing, defining, or supporting the use of the term. (once again I have nothing against User:Bosniak)

P.S. All of the Bosnian Wikipedia agrees that the article should get deleted and even has deleted it once. It will be on the deleting list shortly.

Greetings, Vseferović 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The right honourable Stephen Harper

I noticed you reverted my edit, I read the stlye guide and do not see why this wikipedia policy exists. It clearly notes that Harper is styled the Right Honourable for life so even if he were to lose the prime Minister ship he is still called the right honourable stephen harper. As such, is it not his title and cosequently shouldn't it be used when referring to him. TotallyTempo 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

well it seems you've done your research, I disagree with the policy of not putting in honourifics, but such is life. Thanks for your help TotallyTempo 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category

Just a note to let you know, your talk page, or one of your talk pages (I'm confused on the whole matter) shows up on Category:Bibliographies by author as a result of a straw poll of some sort. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I remove the category links from the page then? That'd clear up my most immediate concern on the category page itself WLU 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. WLU 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation (and opinion)

The Canadian General Lewis McKenzie is suspected to have raped women in the concentration camp "Sonja" alongside Serbian troops.

The is the not the first time that General McKenzie has been accused of rape during the Bosnian War. It is said that he knew of the rapes and even took advantage of the circumstances and raped himself. The main problem is that he is hiding behind "International Immunity" as the Cantonal Prosecutor of this case states for the "Independent Newspaper" (Nezavisne Novine). Several women, who were raped during the war time, have come foreword against the general.

A woman named Cavka, has pled for the international community to stop helping the general, who should pay for his crimes.

"International immunity" has kept General McKenzie safe from being sent to BiH. The General stated, for "Global and mail", that there was not genocide in Srebrenica and that the Bosniaks, led by Naser Oric, killed thousands of Serbian citizens.

This is my viewpoint:

I did not even know about the case. My viewpoint is that genocide occurred in Srebrenica. That is definite, since 8,000 Bosniaks vanished in several days. I translated this word for word, keeping everything as if it were originally written in English. If he has raped women at a concentration camp, then he needs to be arrested. I support this especially since he was in a concentration camp, which makes matters even worse. He was sent to help the people, not cause further chaos. What do you think about this? Vseferović 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks, well, I'm sort of looking into just cutting down to the basics until things cool down a bit more in my life, my personal life had a lot of problems, and today i fixed the main one, so now that it's overwith I can cool off a bit more, I had been irritable lately, and then Sunday they put up a lot of the things that I work on for AFD, and when I tried to defend myself, though harshly due to being already angry in person, I got an NPA tag put on by a user because I called him crazy... and not even crazy in the harsh way, more like... you're crazy to think I'm gone from this place!... so that pissed me off enough to just get out of here, and now, my life's a bit better, i didn't expect it to get fixed so quickly, but it did, still, i have a lot more to fix, though nothing aggravating, so I'll stay... but just for the FA duty I do and to take care of my best article. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! I have a 2nd cousin who lives in Newfoundland! I am from California. :)

Thank you

I am affraid some of you guys may be getting tire of me saying it, but,thank you again for catching the vandalism in the Langston Hughes article.TonyCrew 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :-)

New Sock Puppet?

OK, I must be getting really paranoid now. User:YoungOcelot. I said that I thought that Stralia was similar to me, what with the interest in Satanism and such, and now this dude shows up, with an interest in Metal Gear Solid (which I have) and with an account made what looks at a glance to be today, and he is already on American Brit's talk page. Just a heads up. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think so. Based on the comments on User talk:YoungOcelot, it could be this IP, which is apparently in San Jose, California. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his latest comment does appear more convincing then most of the stuff I've read. For now you indeed make a valid point, and I'd have to agree with you; but I'll keep an eye out just in case. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks, I blocked that account too, though also for just 34 hours. -Will Beback · † · 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BC

AD = latin from, A.D. is short for anno domina and dates intended to be "from the year of our lord" must be written A.D. 2000 because it it doesn't make sense to say "20007 in the year of our lord" BC has no meaning except as a date with the meaning of the date just after the alignment of the julian calendar to the solar year on 1st march 1BC. B.C. may mean "before Christ, but equally means "before calendar"

BCE has no meaning except to indicate that the author has no understanding of history! But, above all I'm completely fed up of mixing up BCE with CE in texts because two look very similar and I can't see why a jew would be any happier with "before christian era" rather than "before christians"?

I suggest starting a new calendar with year 0 as 2006 and all dates from this date will be call APC and all dates before BPC (before political correctness!)

And if you want a jewish article why isn't it written with jewish dates? - or is it as I suspect an article for none jews? Indeed, if it was jewish I'd expect to see it written in Hebrew (although Aramaic or Greek may be technically more correct!)

And, I'm not going to complain about the Jewish system of numbering years, so why must the internet have four very different date systems for English (B.C. BC BCE B.C.E.) indeed, if you count AD 1000 and A.D. 1000 ......

The article was wrong to use more than one dating system, but I will never use BCE because it is just PC nonesence ... if you want at least to have one consistant dating system then it better than three in the same article!

User:Bosniak

This is not nearly the first time he's been doing things like that. If you check his contributions, he has been posting this: User_talk:PaxEquilibrium#I_don.27t_wish_talking_to_people_with_mental_illusions across many talk page in Wikipedia (it's basically a personal attack - and I've had nothing to do with him ever) during the nomination to delete one his (read: his, not ones he's editing/he created) articles: Bosniakophobia. --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Describing saying that the massacre at Srebrenica didn't happen as a "critical view"

Jim, I hope you'll excuse me not spending too much time replying. I'm sorry if I've offended you by assuming that your actions were motivated rather than uninformed but that's how they struck me. I don't want to get into discussion over the issues because I've been there so many times before - including with you already. Either you have no idea of what goes on at sites where issues relating to the wars in the Former Yugoslavia or you do. If you do I have no interest in talking to you - there's no point, I have had plenty of that.

If you don't, you really shouldn't be condemning a Bosniak like "Bosniak" for reacting as he does. As someone who had only very indirect involvement with what went on between 1992 and 1995 I feel sickened and angry at the way sympathisers with unrepentant criminals persist in rubbing salt into the wounds of the past as they regularly do at the Srebrena Massacre article and elsewhere. When I feel like that, is it any wonder that people who had more immediate experience of the situation react in the way they sometimes do to the never-ending onslaught of denial.

I don't agree with everything Bosniak says and does. But I certainly understand why he reacts as he does and essentially at the bottom of it all what he is trying to do is honourable. When someone else turns up rowing in the opposite direction it doesn't interest me too much what sort of respectable explanation they give why they're heading that way. I know nearly all of them want to take their passengers in the direction of something I find obscene. Maybe that's not your intention. Who knows? But excuse me if I just wait and see where we end up. --Opbeith 19:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, see that you're now the target of the wrath of the Bosniak editors of the Srebrenica massacre page. Believe me, for them, the article is all about maintaining a very specific and politicized view of the massacre.Osli73 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you've not my talk page on watch…

I have responded to your question on my talk page. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And again.  :-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on Black people!!futurebird 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Genocide a crime?

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 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CleanUp2

Thank you, Jim, for the welcome. I actually have an account name under which I do most of my work. I know it may rightfully be labeled sock-puppetry, but I log in under name of CleanUp2 when I'm in the mood to spend some time on vandalism cleanup. I learned the hard way that when cleaning up vandalism with your regular account name, some vandals will use the system to hunt you down and specifically target your ongoing projects. It's sad that the very thing which makes Wikipedia great is also what makes it so troubling. Regarding the Mark Twain thing...I didn't go back far enough in the revert and brought in a damaged version by mistake. I was just about to bring in the better version when you had done so. As disappointing as the vandalism is, it's heartening to see the lightning speed at which editors send vandal's work into the garbage bin.

User:Bosniak again?

I'd appreciate a second opinion, as not completely familiar with his editing patterns. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak again? Thanks, Asterion^talk 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

Thanks for taking over the baton in reverting the childish vandalism! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OffTheMainSequence.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

North America

Yes, you are right. I just read the talk page. I'm sorry about it. I already explained myself there. However I think that the subsection is very clear, it is about the usage of the term North America. Thanks and again, sorry. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Jim, you're right. I will do what you requested me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Corticopia 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 72.39.175.193 ... the Vandal

How do you block Mr. 72.39.175.193?? He is on a tear with his vandalism. Que-Can 09:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I was just trying to clean up my talk page --24.235.229.208 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Jim

I offered you a peace treaty around Christmas and you scoffed in my face.

Alright, thank you for your response. In the interest of fellowship, I shall evolve from a troll into some other life form, but I shall regardless always remain a fan of innocuous nonsense. 151.203.203.30 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rust

Thanks for giving the warning for the set of rust edits. I was a bit slow finding the templates. BW52 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:206.77.103.101

Thanks. I do know that and when I block users I often think about it to make sure I've done the right thing... but I think I make that mistake more than I should. Thanks for pointing it out and I've corrected it. :) --gren グレン 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

They are very sneaky now. Now they attemtp to have a Wiki i.d. to do their vandalism. So many a thank you to you for always catching them.TonyCrew 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC) :-)

Columbine high school massacre

Thanks for clearing it up; however, it seems to me that it isn't Neutral PoV. I know the cited article asks them, but either they should be made in a neutral PoV or getten rid of. 72.200.27.179 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

Rick Mercer's orientation might already have enough weight, but you can't use the undue weight argument for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The fact that the head of state of a major western political body was raised under Nazi values is extremely important and should be in the intro. I was just putting it in the part about his childhood, which is giving it less weight than it deserves. --24.235.229.208 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --24.235.229.208 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Somalia

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks greatly for helping clean up some of the edits to the Somalia pages. --Petercorless 07:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User Account

I don't safe on Wikipedia anymore. Is there a why to delete my account or rename it? Please keep me!!! Mr. Asher Heimermann 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism4im

Yes, I know. I'm an admin, so I've seen my share of vandals (and have used my share of warning templates). Given that the template is for use with an obvious vandal who is already aware of the policy he's breaking — and the warning already states that it'll be the only one given — the extra sentence was over the top (and sounds like the warning editor is a little overagitated, IMO).

I'm not sure if you're providing an explanation or disagreeing with my edit — did you want to discuss it? If so, let's continue the discussion over at Template talk:Uw-vandalism4im to make other aware of it. Just let me know. Tijuana Brass 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, Jim Douglas, I am nominating you to become an administrators for your efforts you have of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. I think you are, and have been, more than ready for the tools. Can you please leave me a message on my talk page to tell me wether you accept the nomination or not?--Wikipedier 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you sign your posts?

Hi again, Jim Douglas, I noticed you were able to include your user page, your talk page, your contributions, and the date at on the same edit on my talk page. I've tried to include all those when I sign, but I only get my username and the date. Here is an example.(If I signed my post, I may try to get for example, something like, Wikipedier (talk) contribs 03:34, 9 Februaury 2007 (UCT), but I would only get Wikipedier 03:34, 9 Februauy 2007 (UCT)). If you don't understand what I'm talking about, that's fine. So far, noone seemed to mine the way I sign.--Wikipedier 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I had to experiment a few times with the preferences, but now I have what I would call a more formal signature.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chosen etc.

Oke first of all it is never ment for it to be an offical thing or whatever that would become a Charmed spin-off. It was a project created by my acting school. The task was to write your own play/episode/movie etc. And a lot of friends of mine (who have been acting 4 years aswell) but they were never listed in imdb .. I mean DUH were not famous or anything.

This whole project was entirely fan-based and we wanted a temporarily space to put our new progresses on because the website is still offline. I was wondering if whatever was deleted can be retrieved so I can store it on my pc and to use it for the official website and not on wikipedia ??? Is there any chance ?

Thanx,

Blessed Be ...

Y. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarthYotho (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Curling

Thanks for the warnings on User:Pianoman1424 talk.. I'll admit I am lazy and once I revert vandalism normally don't go posting warnings. Anyway, about the additions themselves I checked all the coresponding championship pages and didn't this Mike Meyers listed at all, including the years he supposedly won those. I suspect that it is the editor who added the paragraph himself, but to be honest its tough to follow Curling at all in the U.S. EnsRedShirt 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my thought as well at first, but none of the dates add up, and other then Myers being Canadian I don't see a connection. EnsRedShirt 08:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI...

This appears to be about you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF is it all about? —KingIvan 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kate McAuliffe

Ohh, heh -- didn't even notice that. I've added it to Wikipedia:Protected titles. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Use English

I note you've been posting reminders to users about their use of languages other than English. I've created a template message for this purpose which you may want to use (and also possibly edit): Template:useenglish. It's now listed along with other helpful warning and reminder templates at WP:UWT. —Psychonaut 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Deleted?

hum? 08 Voter 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: 400,000 Faces

Thanks to your help and suggestions and the advice and clean-up of other users, i think the 400,000 faces Article is ready. Can you check it for me and approve it? When you have done so, how do I move it from my user page to create the article? Kln4yd 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Just checking....

Heh, fixed. Thanks very much for bringing that to my attention -- I seem to have attracted the attention of an unsavory customer who loves dynamic IPs, and the "31 hour" and "indef" sock tabs are right next to each other. Oops. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What are they teaching the kids in school these days? The silly vandal can't even spell "guerrilla" -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know about that. If it wasn't an insult to our simian friends, I'd suggest his spelling might be more accurate than he intended. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)