User talk:Polargeo/Archive 2

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 Wikipedia: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)

Hi

Awickert just finished his polishing edit of Touchet Formation. I'd already incorporated several of his comments - think between the two of you the article is dramatically better than it was before the GA review. I'm impressed - and I learned a fair bit.

So, now the question, is it good enough to be rated a GA? Your final judgement would be appreciated.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found Awickert's note indicating he was tired and would get the rest later plus your note putting it on hold until you hear from Awickert he's done. So apologies for ready - fire - aim...

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a strong note of appreciation for your hard work and patience in getting Touchet Formation to the GA status. Very educational process. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:26, 9 December 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)).

Laz. I made the article far more neutral than it was originally. It is not me who created the article. Do not be so rude as to accuse me of ignoring sources. I am not the POV editor here. This attitude of yours is very confrontational. I am a reasonable editor and I will work with you if you can please calm down and make any suggestions for changes to the article on the article's talkpage. Not here. Polargeo (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You acuse me of attacking. I have not attacked you in any way, just have put some information on this talk page. How this is an attack I do not know. As for sources, I will see to getting them, in order for the article to be improved. Perhaps the article itself is better than it was as you suggest, but it that does not mean that it is flawless. If you interpret this message as an attack, then do forgive me for I see not how this is an attack in any way. (LAz17 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Good Article Review

Appreciate your good article review of Touchet Formation. I've incorporated most of your comments with the excpetion of the one on adding a template.

Afraid I'm unfamiliar with creating templates and have been through significant chunks of the list of existing templates (a rather long task) with no success in finding one that meets the need. Think I need to figure out how to create a template - but that's going to take me a while, as this is outside my current skill set. Since you suggest it is optional for a GA, I propose moving forward without a template, if you agree.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Spent a bit of time working on the dates. Pulled several recent articles and incorporated the materials. Think that short of getting a professional geologist to assist, this is about as well as I can do. Please give it another read to see if I got there.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Awickert indicates on his talk page, "As for the GA review page, I already wrote this on the talk page; if that isn't obvious enough I'll do something more, like archive my section of the review. I can also write up something on the GA candidate page and promote it, after Polargeo reads it, if you need someone in that capacity."

So I think we're ready for your final judgment on Touchet Formation. Appreciate all your and Aw's help - between the two of you this is a substantially better article than it was.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Passed. Well done Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SOURCES

By reading any single article out there about the war rape in Bosnia you will notice that the initial paragraph of mine is mentioned everywhere. Thus it will not be especially difficult for me to provide refernces, as a matter of fact I will hand you one for every letter if you like. Ironically, even the refernces already present in the article completly support my paragraph and presenatation. Even more so, 95%+ of the victims were bosniak women, of course no conflict is enturely black or white but in every there are princiapl victims and principal perpetrators, and it is this which is relevant. Haven't really read anywhere about the jews in the red army who commited war crimes in WWII against germans. Point made clear. And although I am not accusing you, I highly suspect a hidden will to cover up christian crimes on muslims from your side. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.136.93 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you assume I am a christian? I am not :) and yes you do need to include the sources. Also if you are quoting directly you need to put it in quotation marks. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources will be handed out, although it never struck me before that such references are needed for inserting statements in parity with the sun to be yellow. I am frankly quite hurt and appalled by the lack of empathy among people in general and especially Wikipedia editors, I am referring too the thousands of 12-16 year olds raped by bearded Serb nationalist in front of their parents, in abandoned fabrics and woods.83.254.136.93 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

abuse

Yes, the fact the user got away with such behavior for so long is disturbing. His type of behavior is sadly to be expected on Balkans related topics. On a related note I apparently want to put "Croats back in chains" according to Aradics defendants. lol [1] ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

I've just removed the prod tag you placed on this article as its creation was another WP:NEWT experiment and the proposal to build the ships is apparently verifiable and notable - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan#Dutch 1913 battleship proposal?. I can't say that I'm convinced that this kind of experiment is a good use of other editors time... cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Nick. I had googled this and realised that there was some coverage but without more extenisive work I could not have found sufficient notability for a separate article. I could see that it wasn't a speedy though. I gave the user an article creation help message as well as the PROD. In my mind that was the best thing to do. Let the user do a bit more work with some assistance if they really wanted the article rather than use up a lot of other editors time. This is the second time I have been involved in this Newbie treatment experiment, the last time was Richard Rogler and that was obviously notable so I added content to improve it. Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

List of ice shelves

Hi Polargeo, since you created this page, would you mind to look at my latest change to the talk page?--Ratzer (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Already looked and responded :)Polargeo (talk)

Name

I moved the article because unless "Venerable" is actually part of his given or family names, it is not part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions to include it in the article title. If his name actually is "Venerable" you can move it back. -Drdisque (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious (and other) titles don't matter. For example, the article is Martin Luther King, Jr., not Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. The article is Henry Kissinger, not Dr. Henry Kissinger. -Drdisque (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. I am just not sure that this name is ever used without the venerable. Polargeo (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polargeo. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenland ice sheet

Hi again, I read your user page with great interest. Tell me where on the Greenland ice sheet did you work. I've created the article Summit Camp, where also the satellite camps NEEM Camp, Raven Camp and North Grip are mentioned (not too much information I could get together on that matter, especially pictures are missing, if you would donate any). BTW, I also created North Ice and contributed to Eismitte, both historical ice sheet sites.--Ratzer (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Almost forgot, I also created NEEM Camp. Regards,--Ratzer (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of my work was half way between summit and Swiss Camp not too far from Crawford Point weather station. I do work with someone who has been to NEEM recently so may be able to get some photos. I'll have a look at the pages. Polargeo (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I've reverted your recent comment [2] as inappropriate per WP:TALK. If you have any comments of substance, based upon Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or minimally demonstrating an interest in improving Wikipedia in some way, I hope you'll do so. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want your comments to be considered as a part of consensus-building, please follow WP:CON and WP:TALK rather than simply dismissing others' comments. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: [3]. I've already suggested you read WP:TALK. I suggest you take this to an appropriate forum per WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove these out of context graphs... You know, neutrality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.22.243 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is a list of people against the pseudo-climate consensus... Not a place to put graphs FOR the global warming theory...

YOU KNOW... NEUTRALITY!!!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.22.243 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You also removed a load of other stuff. Talkpage please Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Re [4]. I'm extremely appreciative of your effort to de-escalate this situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And likewise your recent comments to my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Report

I've reported your threat to Wikiquette Alerts: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Polargeo_and_Atmoz. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my supposed threat that I have been reported for. SA you are being extremely silly. If you wish me to take you seriously you should grow up and get some clue pretty quickly. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is making personal attacks and innuendo. I have enjoyed working with you, but these sorts of personal jabs make it difficult to collaborate. Just comment on the content and not the contributor, m'kay? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Start reporting me for minor stuff like that and you'll find that I get pretty annoyed. So don't be surprised. I just had to deal with Ronz's overzealous civility enforcement. I have very little time for this rubbish. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that justification to be very thin indeed. I'm sorry if I annoy you, but you're not allowed to simply attack people that you find annoying. I've documented the entire incident now at WQA and would be happy to continue the discussion there. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [5]

Given that we've already discussed this type of behavior at length, and you previously showed some interest in de-escalating your behavior, it's sad to see you do exactly what I stated would be inappropriate in User_talk:Ronz#reverting. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please learn what a real attack is. I've had enough of your high and mighty WP:wikilawyering nonsense anyway. You seem to be on a personal crusade against what you percieve as incivility. Whilst most editors find your actions of deleting talkpage comments or hiding them far more incivil. I will no longer bother you if you cease bothering me. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You appear to have an inability to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (second sentence in lede section of WP:NPA)

"I will no longer bother you if you cease bothering me." I'm not trying to bother you. You freely admit that you are trying to bother me. Stop it. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop twisting my meaning. You are bothering me whether you state it or not. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, and follow its policies and guidelines. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. Is there something else bothering you, you've not made it clear. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I should think it is obvious that I was working hard on sources and negotiating with Nealparr on content and you posted a deletion essay. The article has just gone through 4 AfDs. When I stated my opposition you simply reverted my comments. Again you did this on the BLP discussion because I was critical of you. Wake up. It is not incivil to be critical of another editor when it has got to the point that the other editor is being disruptive. Again you being judge and jury will not see it that way, so I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I ask that editors follow "Comment on content, not on the contributor" on article talk pages. Comments directed at contributors work against consensus-building and the basic purpose of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is not up to you to decide when an editor's criticism of another editors actions is justified or not. You seem to be doing this on the weakest of grounds and reverting every criticism that you don't like no matter how marginal. You are interpreting the rules and guidelines of wikipedia beyond the spirit of them and this is wikilawyering. You have determined that I attacked you. I read the same set of rules and disagree. So I request that you follow the rules you hold so dear and cease reverting every thing you perceive as wrong and only do this for unambiguous cases. Polargeo (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm absolutely not reverting everything. If you're unable to accept that bit of reality, I doubt further discussion is going to get us very far.

"You are interpreting the rules and guidelines of wikipedia beyond the spirit of them" I disagree. I find the philosophy above, "I ask that editors follow..." is a very effective and straightforward interpretation of our key behavioral policies/guidelines. As always, I'm open to constructive feedback that actually cites current consensus, especially current policies and guidelines. Reading WP:NAM and WP:DGAF may be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another two guidelines that I supposedly haven't read or understood. I suppose I should expect that from the biggest wikilawyer that I have ever encountered. Who seems to have the correct interpretation of every guideline at his divine fingertips. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"As always, I'm open to constructive feedback that actually cites current consensus, especially current policies and guidelines." --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The response of a true wikilawyer par extrordinaire! I doff my cap to you. No "How are you today?" normal communication, just "policies and guidelines as interpreted by yours truly." Oh dear what a terrible place this sort is driving wikipedia into. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One last try.

"As always, I'm open to constructive feedback that actually cites current consensus, especially current policies and guidelines." For example, you might provide a quote from a policy or guideline that contradicts my approach or interpretation. Or maybe link to an ArbCom decision that suggests a different interpretation. Of course, this includes an appropriate application of IAR as well - if you can argue that a different interpretation, or even a special exception, is warranted in order to improve Wikipedia, I'd be very open to such feedback. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You continue to interpret both my actions and WP guidelines in your own way. I posted the entire guideline for personal attacks on your talkpage along with my own rationale for why you had interpreted this incorrectly when you posted this warning on my talkpage. You simply reverted my addition and continued on in your high and mighty way. How can I possibly go any further into guidelines than that? You have no clue whatsoever. I am so open I have never hidden anything anyone has posted on my talkpage. I consider it a matter of principle. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my last try. If you'd like to continue this discussion, let's wait a day or two before taking it up again. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not perfect but at least I can see my own imperfections. It is very difficult to debate anything with someone who thinks they are always right per WP policy! Polargeo (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please see the image at the top right corner of your talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Will do from now on. :) Polargeo (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bosnian War

Hi. I have no problem with the statement itself although it feels more like POV than established facts. If it was sourced I would have no issues with it, naturally. I don't think soley removing unsourced material from the introduction of an article makes anyone "trigger happy" about reverting. Just like I don't think this was inappropriate since it was unsourced. I appreciate your input though. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay point taken I have replied on your talkpage :)Polargeo (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. And as long as it is not totally unsourced nonsense, we and others should take it to the talk page. I normally nearly always refer to the talk page in disagreements or other in other issues, but I do value the importance of citing sources. Without credible sources you can put in pretty much anything. But I definitely see you point. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I think it would be helpful if you simply refrained from posting to my talk page completely for a day or so. If you have a dispute with me that requires my immediate response, please find an intermediary to contact me who will respect my request to follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't even begin to show an understanding of those guidelines so please stop quoting them. Right I will draw a line under this now. Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay

We'll discuss it later. I can't concentrate on so many things at the same time. First and foremost I want to get that one article from foreign policy that I mentioned. If I get that, and if other things get sorted out, then I'll get back to that discussion. I only mentioned the stuff again because I left a comment on the guys wall and saw that I was mentioned. (LAz17 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)).

Rape in the Bosnian War

Please see my response to Laz regarding the figure of how many women where raped [6]. Included are the findings of the Report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia by the United Nations [7]. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)