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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]