Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 11 November 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Rollback...

Granted. I am so happy to actually have a polar scientist around, someone who actually knows the areas in question! Please feel free to add {{Rollback}} or {{User wikipedia/rollback}} to your user page to indicate that you now have this permission, and of course review Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to review how the function is to be used. John Carter (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Touchet Formation

Appreciate your good article review on Touchet Formation. I'll work on incorporating your excellent comments in the next week (agree with all of them). Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Şanţul-Mare Pecica

Your suspicions about Şanţul-Mare Pecica being a copyright violation is well founded. See my notes on teh article talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks good work. I'll keep an eye on it too. I tried to find the copied text and even tried translation into Romanian but ran out of spare time. If the prod tag is removed I'll follow it up. Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

Hi there Polargeo. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards SoWhy 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. Was just trying my hand a bit of patrolling and it was nice to discover such a poor article about someone who was definitely noteworthy and to be able to add some info. Polargeo (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously closed with lack of evidence. Glad I have finally been involved in a contentious enough 'battle' for someone to try to hit me Below the belt. Polargeo (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I've been told by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:William M. Connolley that I should "take something up" with you. These instructions were given to me by their edit summaries while they were blanking my talk page comments in blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy here and here. I don't agree with their instructions. I don't think I have anything to take up with you! However, some editors (maybe you) might consider it rude if their comments on a second editor's (someone else's) user talk page are posted by a third editor (me) on an article's talk page. If you feel that way then please let me know, and we can talk about it. If you don't feel that way then I'm just here to say hello. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your edits have been very foolish. Your WP:Wikilawyering would be amusing if you were not so irritating. Polargeo (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of my edits to List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming have been foolish? If you're referring to the talk page space, I didn't mean to irritate you, but I understand that this was the result, and I hope you are less irritated in six days when I plan to return to the list's talk page to assist editors there in reaching a consensus. As for Wikilawyering, I think you're mistaken because I'm not taking any actions against anyone. An editor in your group posed a question, and your post on another user's talk page provided me with evidence of an answer that I attempted to share with the community. I think you are an honest person who genuinely reached out to a second editor by inviting him to join your group. In an ideal social space, an isolated act of kindness and honesty like yours might never be utilized as evidence by a third person like me. But I'm here to help build a better encyclopedia and not to participate in an ideal social space. Based on your recent talk page post and the response of the editor on whose talk page you posted, I have no plans to share your post again. However, please understand that if editors there are asked again about why this list has resisted renaming and deletion, I will share my view and then, if pressed for evidence to support my view, I will display your post again...or at least try to. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Meta" puppetry? That is good, though I'm not sure it was deliberate. And "POTSTED" must be "posted" :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rape

On the article Rape in the Bosnian War you posted an image of a woman. How do I know that this is not a woman from Somalia? Okay, she's not black ,but you get my point I hope. I am not aware that there are people working in the fields in Bosnia. To be precise there aren't such fields there as we would see in typical third world countries. Agriculture is not a big activity in bosnia and herzegovina, so such images are very untypical. (LAz17 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

The photograph was taken from the site of a mass grave. The woman was a Bosniak who had returned to the area with her family and was trying to rebuild her life there (she brought us coffee). I was part of a team investigating the mass graves at the time. I just thought that some humanity to an otherwise cold article might help. When I went to this area there were a lot of women working in the fields. I don't think it was commercial agriculture but subsistance, they were growing food to feed themselves. There was a lack of men. Polargeo (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the picture induces an extra sexual connotation to the whole article. It looks like a bosniak woman ready to be raped by bloodsucking serbian biggots - the picture pushes a POV picture. I think that it would be best for it to be removed. Again, how do I not know that this is not in somalia? Where was the photo taken? Such scenes are not typical of the situation in bosnia. People were not raped in the fields. They first fled into concentrated areas. I hope you understand why there is concern? I want to go ahead and remove that photo of some unknown woman of unknown nationality. (LAz17 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I don't mind you removing it but only if you have a better one. However, I spoke to that woman and know she is a Bosniak and the place is the cancari road if you want to know where it is. You may have an issue with the biggot image but what else would you call rapists who abused the ethnicity of their victims. I think 'bloodsucking biggot' does not go nearly far enough in those cases. It is begining to sound as if you are in denial and you are trying to apologise for the rapists. Polargeo (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see a whole anti-serb biase in the article. Lets add some data such as the following (I have sources) "One of the earliest propaganda campaigns during the conflict in b-h came in 1991-93 when the serbs were accused of pursuing an officially sanctioned policy of mass rape. Bosnian Serb forces were said to have raped from 20,000 to 100,000 Muslim women; the reports varied widely. The bosnian Serb army numbered not more than 30,000 or so, many of whom were engaged in disparate military engagements. Common sense would dictate that these stories be treated with some skepticism. Instead, they were eagerly emcrased by Western leaders and their media acolytes.""Amnesty International and the international committee of the red cross concurrently declared that all sides had committed atrocities and rapes." I mean hey, the media also made up stuff about "dog embreos" being planted into bosniak women. It was a hit for the media outlets. I hope you get where my concern is. The actual validity is important, and we should look to avoid reports that originated from only one side (bosniak govenrment). This is a conflict where the serbs bore the disproportionate brunt of media scrutiny. The west turned a blind eye to our suffering. So, I feel that the amnesty thing should be put up in the header. (LAz17 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

You obviously haven't read the first sentence "During the Bosnian War many women were raped on all sides. Estimates of the numbers raped range from range from 20,000 to 50,000.Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict: A Framework for Prevention and Response, UN humanitarian source

Obviously you have not looked into the issue enough. The 50,000 was some shit number shitted out by croatian and bosniak propaganda sources. Newsweek published that fake number on january 4th, 1993. Some estimates ranged up to 100,000 ya know. Just like we got reports of serbs putting dog embreo's into women. Kinda ridiculous, isn't it? A European Community delegation headed by Dame Anne Warburton made a hurried investigation during two brief visits in Dec. 1992 and Jan. 1993. They visited primarily Zagreb, and got only minimal access to alleged muslim victims and refugee centers. They declined to specify the source of the most reasoned estimates, but the warburton group came to the astronomical number of 20,000. There is a lot of pressure you know, can't discredit your allies/buddies completely. However, lets look at another source which you probably on purpose decided to ignore. An inquiry by the UN Communission on Human Rights soon presented a more moderate estimate, however. Its investigators visited Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia from January 12 to 23, 1993. In its report of Feburary 10, the commission, while refraining from giving an official estimate, mentioned a figure of 2,400 victims. THe estimate was based on 119 documented cases. The report concluded that Muslims, Croats and Serbs had been raped, with Muslims making up the largest number of victims. (LAz17 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).