User talk:Polargeo/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Polargeo, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Three glaciers"

Do you have any opinion on whether the "3 glaciers" mentioned by the former head of the British Antarctic Survey would be Pine Island, Thwaites Glacier Tongue, and Thwaites Iceberg Tongue? It has occurred to me as a possible interpretation but I have no evidence and am not even sure it makes sense glaciologically to call the iceberg tongue a glacier. Mporter (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The New Scientist reference to 3 glaciers may derive from page 15 of this talk:[1] Mporter (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jakobshavn

Another reply. You could add my talk page to your watchlist for a while, so that I don't have to leave these messages here. --Algkalv (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Please stop reverting Sermeq Kujalleq / Jakboshavn Isbrae edits until the dispute is resolved. Thank you. --Algkalv (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested on Talk:Jakobshavn Isbræ --Algkalv (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the right thing to revert an article name change when it has not been discussed on the talk page of that article. Jakobshavn Isbrae has had a stable name on wikipedia for nearly 3 years since it was created. I am following the wikipedia guidence on naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names. This states as follows

Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.Polargeo (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Climate Warming Affects Antarctic Ice Sheet Stability

Hi Polargeo,
Please see:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318140522.htm
"ScienceDaily (Mar. 22, 2009) — A five-nation scientific team has published new evidence that even a slight rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, one of the gases that drives global warming, affects the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). The massive WAIS covers the continent on the Pacific side of the Transantarctic Mountains. Any substantial melting of the ice sheet would cause a rise in global sea levels."
I am looking to incorporate this into the various articles to do with the Antarctic, and thought I'd give you a heads up and see if you wanted to do it. Cheers Paul dinghy (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. And worth incorporating, but this is talking about glacial cycle stuff (thousands of years) and has not necessarily got anything to do with the current anthropogenic levels or current stability. Which may make things worse or may not, this is very confusing to the general public. Anyway, I agree, go ahead and add it as this is certainly a relevant page for it. I'll have a look and if a bit more is needed i'll try to add it. Those ANDRILL people! I went to sleep during some of their talks in Washington last september. They are certainly getting a lot of information out of one thin stack of mud in the Ross Sea Polargeo (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica - thanks

Awesome rewriting! I really enjoy working in a wiki environment where things can get bounced around quickly, and you don't have to depend on only yourself being exactly right. I'll try to keep an eye out if you get too glaciologistical in your verbiage. ;) If this does work out, there's gonna be a bunch of subsidiary articles needing attention too. Thanks for the expertise. Franamax (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. Its good to get this clearer. Lets hope it sticks and improves. Polargeo (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Amundsen Sea article

Hi Polargeo, I was just checking this article out and wanted to remind you that the {{gnis3}} template needs to have the type=antarid to work properly. I fixed them [2] and I don't see any other places in your recent edits where you used gnis3, but just in case...

I was going to ask you for the lat/lon for Russell Bay so I could add it to the map, but I see now it's your image plus it's a jpg, which I'm not so good at (i.e. Photoshop).

And on another note, have you ever used Inkscape? It works with SVG files, which are pretty cool for that kind of image. (PS Keep up the good work! :) Franamax (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This image is exported straight from an ArcGIS map so I suppose I could have it in several formats. I did all labelling in the map package. Russell Bay is not really that significant so I'm not too worried and expect this article to expand a fair bit over the comming year anyway. I was just trying to get Pine Island Bay (in particular) into the Amundsen Sea article because people were adding info to it that was either incorrect or should have really been in the Amundsen Sea article to start with. Yes the antarid has got me once or twice before in my hurried editing. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Amundsen Sea Icebergs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Amundsen Sea Icebergs.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. This was a case of a bot on the loose!! Polargeo (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger

You need to complete [3] this giving your reasons for requesting deletion. And then add it to the deletion log here.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've had a difficult time doing these edits due to my inexperience in making 3rd (or even 2nd) nominations for deletion. This article shouldn't have got this far though. Polargeo (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polargeo. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rosiestep (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

E52

It's OK you marked and removed the Nokia E52 article. I will re-write it when the E52 is released.Csifan16 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I marked it but it was very quickly changed to a redirect by User:UninvitedCompany. Polargeo (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for your good work on the AfD. You have done a splendid job, and you may know what I am about to say anyway, but here goes: Word to the wise, and bear in mind I only saw one sentence that seemed like you were heading in the direction that I am warning you against. A general rule: one doesn't have to pursue every red herring. More specifically to the one sentence: once one distances oneself a bit from the bad faith, one is wary of the trap of trying to show it. It can't be done. Know that it is there, for that is a powerful motivation, but don't expect it to go away or be undone. Their points are defective, argue against the points. Those that are ad nauseum proof by assertion you may ignore, if you like. You probably know all this stuff already, just being sure. Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Yes I know that but a reminder is good. I know I have to remain cool in an AfD but this is difficult when you have on one side a couple of quite loathsome comments and on the other several experienced editors (even admins) who seem to have gotten themselves sucked in by these sort of tactics. Looking at the previous deletion debate on ethnic cleansing in croatia these tactics worked then and an admin came in and judged it delete on synthesis simply because nobody had argued against that specific point in the AfD. Polargeo (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Prev. AfD: The 'hide the best argument' is a known and probably common tactic.
No consensus. Cha-ching! Hi-5.
Now for the real work. Have to say, I am better at debate, but I do add material now and then. Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Don't you dare post a BLP violation like that on my talk page again. It is clear at BLP that it doesn't matter if you have a source, you can only put such information if it is highly referenced, which means that the sources check out. The court rulings make it clear that the term "mass rape" never appears. Therefore, any sources to the contrary fail under BLP and are a violation. Do not post such violations on my talk page again. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava. I was only trying to help by giving you the references. I'm not sure how any of them could have been a BLP violation when no individual was named. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ericom

I have made significant edits to this page. It is entirely consistent with dozens of similar software company entries, for example, Leostream, Anywhere TS, Aqua Connect, Bomgar, Thin Linc, Chicken of the VNC, Dame Ware, Fog Creek Copilot, NX Technology, I'm in Touch, etc. etc.

I will have a look at these and then tag them if necessary. Many articles get on to Wikipedia that shouldn't be here you cannot use the existance of other articles to argue your case, each company may be slightly different in the coverage it has received. I tagged your article because a guy called Nigel argued that your page was similar to or no stronger than Corizon and that was deleted. Polargeo (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Butler Group is a highly respected IT analyst and they elected to cover Ericom because the company is of note in the virtualization market. The reason that you cannot access their reports is that they cost thousands of dollars, hence they are of great value and not "ad-type promotional write-ups". If you like, I can send you a copy of these reports. Pitvipper (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pitvipper. I was trying to be helpful by tagging the page. I would have left you to sort this out and you would have had weeks to do this but you removed the tags twice without properly addressing them, as you can see three other editors all voted delete. That is why I made this an AfD. You need to put this case to the AfD discussion now. You also removed the AfD tag you cannot just do this, removing tags without addressing them will only cause you more trouble. Polargeo (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your contention that I deleted tags without addressing them, as I significantly edited this article twice in the past few days and also explained the company's notability.96.56.217.34 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressing them isn't deleting a little bit of text that you think you can get away with and then removing the tag twice without any consultation. Did you even look at the advice and links the tags gave? It was my intention to help by pointing to this advice, the tag is a polite way of trying to get people to address the short comings of an article. It is not a punishment. You also removed an AfD tag. This is a tag that you should not remove per Wikipedia guidelines. This demonstrates a lack of respect for consensus, one of the pillars of wikipedia editing. As you are obviously a paid employee of this company (or why else would you write an advert for it) my advice is to comply with wikipedia guidelines even more strictly, then you will find that things will work out better for you. Polargeo (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I did more than simply "delete a little bit of text". I removed most of the text in the article, explained misunderstandings about some of the anlayst comments and added another Microsoft reference. For your information, none of what you called "advertising" was written by me, it was all taken directly from quotes in IT analyst reviews and trade journals. This company is a leader in their field and I can provide you with many more third-party references.96.56.217.34 (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I felt I was trying to help. Copying quotes can still make an article read like an advert and be unencyclopedic. Write ups in industry magazines can still originate from press releases, or contain vast bits of text from interviews with company PR. Sometimes they take big bits of text from press releases and stick this into the magazine article. Then someone like yourself takes these quotes and sticks them into wikipedia. I know how the world works. I've seen the BBC, CNN and national newspapers do this so it is certainly no criticism of an industry magazine per se. We should just avoid falling into this trap here. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Peak District

No problem :) And thank you for the time you spent on the article too, you could have failed the GA nomination straight away, but you stuck with it and helped with the developments so thanks a lot. Schumi555 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rape in the Bosnian War

I have to hand it to you, it's starting to look much better. Thanks for sticking with it, despite my stubbornness. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. Sorry I felt I should oppose on the RfB. This is not me being negative. I am sure that if you fail this one, learn and progress and keep up the good work you will come back and pass easily given another year. Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo, I just want to acknowledge what you've achieved with RitBW, covering as it does a difficult and immensely painful topic. Your conscientious perseverance is to be commended. Everyone who connects with the article owes you a debt of gratitude. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger

Please see my comments on your attack on the relevant talk page. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Attack? Honest assessment I think. Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reply on the relevant TPAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did reply on the relevant talk page. Polargeo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthro ext. event

Will you please stop stomping around and wait until the matter has been sorted by consensus? Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is kept or not this has no bearing on any of my other edits. It is simply incorrect to have redirects from sixth mass extinction. I can pull out several peer reviewed papers that show thish is not just anthropocene and covers the whole holocene. Also what you have done sticking see alsos everywhere (including at the top of articles) to this neologistic article does not help anyone and I can argue removal of them in every case. Again this has nothing to do with whether the article is kept or not. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

I saw the work you did resolving the POV in the Rape in the Bosnian War article and was wondering if you could help with the Karađorđevo agreement article. PRODUCER (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed articles

Hi!

Just to answer :

• Karađorđevo meeting:your recent revert of me . Section testimonies as such is completely fake. the intro says that all the mentioned witnesses agree about the "story"(which one??). The reality is that statements each of them differ (very much)-what you can see even in the below subsections! more over most of the "witnesses" mentioned in the article (Marković,Okun ,Zimmerman,Ashdown) were not present the meeting so their stataments are at least 2nd hand sources (not to say gossip!!). I have tried to sort them by that logic but PRODUCER and ICTYoda recently are simply reverting any of my acivities. I would ask you not to do that.
• Btw,I wanted article to be at least 50% of the issue (the meeting itself). unfortunately, PRODUCER inserted numerous testimonies (Okun,Zimmerman etc.) on this way it is full non-issue content.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then you should focus on the content that you disagree with rather than simply reverting back. Then this will become about the content of the article rather than an edit war. There was far more in those reverts than I can easily keep track of. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to... but the PRODUCER and others simply revert all they disagree. No mather what colaterral damage might happen.

See these examples:

[4][5]

Agreed there is colaterral damage in those edits. However, they do come in the middle of an edit war so it is difficult to see the overall arguments. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ethnic maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Polargeo, you have a point here. This should have been a category, not a seperate article. Feel free to delete the article.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Holocene extinction event

I've moved your latest post on Talk:Holocene extinction event to User talk:Andrewjlockley. If you've got something to say to a specific editor, please post it to their talk page instead of an article talk page. Article talk pages are exclusively for discussing article improvements, not messages between editors. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I 100pc respect your opinions on this matter, but you're simply not editing in a constructive fashion at present. Please try to work in a respectful and constructive way according to consensus. Thanks Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't add in the Anthropocene stuff I will do it. I am just waiting for this to calm down a bit first. I didn't think your version of a merge was constructive though as it simply swapped holocene for anthropocene in part of the article. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ICTY

Ceha made the ICTY section way too general and may need to be moved to the Bosnian war article. In the beginning the ICTY section was much more specific as it discussed Tudmans involvement (and was supposed to be expanded regarding Milosević's role), I fail to see how the "investigation of Bosniak wartime leadership" is related to the Karađorđevo agreement. I propose we move the ICTY section to the Bosnian war article and create a more specific section as it originally was, and a heads up, next time be more wary of Ceha's edits as many of them tend to input original research. PRODUCER (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that there was some OR in Ceha's edits but jumping on them straight away is not going to solve the edit war. The same as I haven't removed any of your edits. Shall we discuss the ICTY section in the article talk page Polargeo (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pine island glacier

Has the new data been fully incorporated? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. The answer is no not fully. Someone added an external link a couple of days ago so it is mentioned. I want to do a proper job on this in the next few days. I was actually a reviewer of the recent publication by Wingham et al. (2009) about the thinning (that this story is about) and have also written a briefing for the British government on it. It is in agreement with my own thinning measurements but shows the extent over a larger area (they do cite my paper). There is another paper currently under review for Nature which may add more to this story. I know all of the authors of this study personally. They did make a small error in the first sentence of the the paper by saying the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could raise sea level by over 3 metres, instead it should be 4.8! The recent Bamber et al. (2009) paper in Science that this is based on is a masterpiece in overstating their actual contribution to the science, but unfortunately this means until someone recalculates it everyone will cite Bamber and misinterpret the data, you actually have to look at the suplementary material to get the true value. Polargeo (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've added a citation to the new paper, Wingham et al. (2009) and a couple of sentences highlighting the increased thinning. This isn't the time to go further just yet as there is a lot more coming on this and the section will need more reorganisation. Polargeo (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hodgson Lake

Hi Polargeo! Thanks for your suggestion, although I'm not sure if I understand it. As far as I can tell, Lake Hodgson is already a redirect to Hodgson Lake. Am I missing something? SaraCoelho (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text now, to be consistent with the title. Thanks again, SaraCoelho (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Polargeo! Thanks for your advice. I'll probably pest you with a few questions if I stumble upon any problem. Cheers! SaraCoelho (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RE

Polargeo, I am sorry that you think I might be PRODUCER. We aren't even editing in the same time zone. But, if you have any doubt, you can ask for checkuser. I am just interested in particular articles, and I have to admit I have on my watch list contributions of some users which I check from time to time. If you check my edits, you will find that every of my edits is based on ICTY, ICTR or some relaible source. Cheers. ICTYoda (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

okay, I accept you are not PRODUCER but you were another editor before you were ICTYoda because it is clear you are not new to this. Polargeo (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Just for the record:I do not erase sourced material.See my comment on Talk:Slobodan Praljak

anyway, see the dispute with Ahmići massacre and Producer's vandalism he deletes all he dislikes :[6][7][8]--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also this here [9] that PRODUCER dislikes and simply reverts-no mather the sources.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope my explanation helps!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your report does no help at all!. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have overstepped a line here. You have to realise this. Polargeo (talk)

Re:Aradic-es

Hi Polargeo. I see your point. I was quite surprised myself to notice him revert-warring immediately after his block was over. Big mistake on his part. Nevertheless, it is arguable wether his edits can be classified as "inflamatory". I've read his stuff, and most of it is pretty "true", but then he adds a sentence or two that make the whole batch of (arguably valid) information seem anti-Bosniak. Don't get me wrong, he may be "anti-Bosniak", but he seems to be keeping his POV in check 80% of the time.

I believe the proper approach is to try and mediate between the two sides and add the bare information without any bias, and this obviously cannot be done with Aradic-es blocked for a month. Hence, I do not support your immediate report, as I do not believe it would benefit the article(s). At least I'd wait if the mediation stops the edit-warring (if not, well...). Don't get me wrong, PRODUCER is a great guy, and he's probably more objective than Aradic-es, but sometimes Aradic's edits are more sensible nevertheless. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see your point too and I have thought hard about it. The trouble is that pretty "true" can still be 100 % inflamatory. I cannot believe Aradic is not well aware of what he is doing when making these additions, particularly the way he does them. I have also noticed that in some cases he has gone in and made some of these changes just after PRODUCER has done some minor wikignoming task. This suggests to me that he is actually provoking PRODUCER into another edit war. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay the edit warring is 50/50 between them. PRODUCER is really into edit warring! Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ICTYoda

thumb|left|100px Sock he is, hmmmm? Banned is he now? xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep control of your anger or to the dark side you will turn!! Polargeo (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you only knew the POWER of the dark side! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from unconstructive edits on wikipedia. This includes the reverting of serious edits to wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Socky :) --Čeha (razgovor) 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would do some research before vandalizing scientific wikipedia pages. Thank you. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic thoughts

Hi Polargeo, I see you haven't been editing a lot lately, and your later edits have been, umm, not-completely-science-related... But I wonder if I could get your commenta.

This thread was initally meant for your talk page since you are well placed to evaluate its import. But I decided to place it at T:Antarctica to get wider comment (and yours, I hoped). No comments after 5 days. Can you recommend any other editors or an active wikiproject where I can get comment on this? (Ozone depletion is causing climate change in/around Antarctica - per Nature)

Or should I just edit the article? It seems a rather bold statement. But it also seems to be a unifying statement to tie together our (mostly your) earlier work on ice vs. temperature vs. sea-level vs. global warming vs. climate change. I can edit the Ozone section easy enough, but then I'd want to go back up and restructure the sections just above. If you have comments, they're appreciated! :) Franamax (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aradic

Please report Aradic as you have had more luck with this than me. I'm sick of his racial slurs, biased editing, removal of reliably sourced information, and spreading of propaganda. [10] [11] [12] [13] PRODUCER (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

An SPA edit warrior whose more than 90% activity is reverting ,9% arguing at talk pages is the last person that I know on wiki who is appropriate to give anybody lectures about civility, temper or especially edit warring Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Look both of you stop this crazyness. Aradic: I am not going to report you. Producer: Aradic is a real pain but he has not overstepped the mark. Yes his edits are really shockingly poor quality, badly sourced and badly written and very biased but that is not in itself a reason to report him. That is a reason to help him by editing his poor English grammar and helping him to improve his ability as a researcher. If he starts edit warring or vandalising then report him. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, despite Aradics many offenses (ban evasion, sourced info removal, ethnic slurs, censorship, consensus breachment) he does not get blocked but gets to continue this behavior on wiki. PRODUCER (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Aradic's ethnic slurs generally stop short of outright abuse. He is at least clever enough not to go too far. The article on the UK was just silly really and a complete waste of his time. He should just start up a forum where he can say whatever he wants rather than using wikipedia. Aradic, do you have a web forum in English? Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Misha Glenny etc.

Yes, I have heard about him. I have heard about some other journalists. But , their attitude is not relevant in this case. What is relevant here are the politicians at the executive postions (governments, diplomacy) and army.Because they the ones who are in charge for making decisions.

Talking about journalists and reporters... I have seen dozens of documentary movies released by BBC that speak quite contrary to GLenny... Including the ones with statement which had no connection to reality (and sometimes neither to common sense)

I.e. in movies about history of Croatia ( especially NDH and Jasenovac ) Serbs were referred as protestants .This obviously was something that people from predominantly protestant countries (UK and their colonies) would not like to hear.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of non-UK commentators and analysts fall into the trap of thinking that the UK government really cares about religion. This is partly because they see the Northern Ireland situation as being a religious conflict where the UK government is on the side of the protestants. This is simply not the case outside of NI itself (particularly in England). The NI situation is a real pain to the government and if the people of NI voted unanimously to be part of the Republic of Ireland then on the whole the British would be very pleased. The UK government only really cares about its global influence and the best economic interests of the UK. I think the problem that some Croats have with the UK is that the UK government wasn't really that supportive of them, unlike the Germans. People try to revise history to make it look like that is because the UK is pro-Serb. The real truth is that the UK is neither pro-Serb or pro-Croat and is mearly interested in a stable Europe where the UK can do lots of trade. The UK and French governments at the time were aware that Croatia hadn't satisfied the conditions for independence set by the European Council of Ministers. This meant that there was likely to be conflict if the issues of the Croatian Serbs were not dealt with and the Croats were not in control of all of the territory that was being granted to the control of Zagreb (and we know that there was terrible conflict). Germany had very close ties with Croatia, unlike the UK or France, and so out of the three Germany was the only country with an interest either way. The UK eventually chose to recognise Croatia because good relations with Germany overode any idea of following the political process needed to avoid horrendous conflict. In retrospect the UK government felt that they probably did the wrong thing. But then most countries did the wrong thing when you look in retrospect. Polargeo (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Politics of UK is first of all:pro-UK . That is comprehensible by common sense. It is also clear that political guidelines of certain country can match or mismatch with another country. IN case of UK we have quite a match during 1991-1995 with Serbia , but heavy mismatch during 1999 NATO attacks on SR Yugoslavia.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct but my impression is that it is less of having a match with Serbia and more of not having a specific support for Croatia. Also many of the actions you highlight can be interpreted as just trying to control the situation and may only be seen as ending up pro-Serb by some people who disagree with the actions. If you wish to write the article you will need to find references that make the argument that the UK was pro-Serb. This must be done without giving undue weight to a single reference. You cannot make the argument yourself and find UK actions that justify your thesis. That would be original research. Polargeo (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And again :theory about pro-Serbian UK politics is not (only) mine and definitely not originally mine! Brendan Simms supports that theory as well as some other scholars. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Great those references would help but an entire article on the pro serb aspect would give undue weight to this theory. That means that it is fine to have this theory on wikipedia but an entire article based mainly on it is extremely unbalanced and gives undue weight to this theory. I personally think the academics who follow this line are idiots who can't see the full picture but there you go it is not up to me to judge them on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, Brendan Simms is not some political fanatic ,left-radical, anti-British activist or Smth like that. on the other hand we have an article Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše that is also based on a book of one scholar (Michael Phayer) which is still standing.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Replied at my talk page for simplicity. Basically: Fair enough. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin

I know you work in a very difficult area of wikipedia but why are you not an admin? You have the experience and seem very good at working with extremely difficult editors. I see you regularly having to deal with admins who treat you like one of the difficult editors. This is because they come from outside the area and hence are unable to spend any time to work out what the complex issues are. Also you seem to be very neutral, with improving wikipedia and editor collaboration as your goals. Polargeo (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I never really thought about it. :) The guy that tries to be neutral in these touchy Balkans ethnic articles doesn't make a lot of friends, and an RfA is apparently all about friends. For example, I can help LAz out now when he may feel a pro-Croatian map is being displayed on articles, but then I can engage in difficult and tense discussion with him on an issue such as the Chetniks, where he represents a more pro-Serbian PoV.

When a User has an interest in keeping and eye these Balkans articles, I think it may be unlikely he'll be voted an admin. But then I know little about RfAs. One thing is for certain: I can think of few other Wikipedia topics which are in more desperate need of admin attention. There is a definite "gap" here. Very few admins are willing to get their hands dirty and really get involved in these ugly conflicts. I'd sure hate to nominate myself for an RfA and get laughed at because quote-miners dig out something from back when I was a kid. xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You do have some shockers from when you were a 'kid' but you have since proven yourself to be a very good wikipedian. I will propose you for admin if you are willing to give it a go. See what they say! Polargeo (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure why not, thanks for your confidence. How about next Monday (November 2nd)? I'm currently way too busy. In seven days (in fact on that very same date :), I'll be taking a HUGE exam and I'll probably have to go on a Wikibreak this whole week. Is that ok with you? I'm curious what AniMate thinks of my chances. (I moved your post here, hope you don't mind) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've had a very informative chat with AniMate [14] and I've come to the conclusion it is unlikely my RfA would pass. I need some time to prepare, and I'll likely try my luck next spring (or summer). Thanks for your confidence, it probably would never have occurred to me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. If I'm still about on wikipedia next spring I'd be happy to propose you then. I think most people up for RfA haven't been tested anywhere near as much as you have and the fact that you remain civil and seem to be able to cope very well with it all is a good reason to support. Anyway maybe it is best having a good editor focussed on those Balkan articles rather than a distracted admin. Polargeo (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)