User talk:Jim Douglas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re: Like A Maiden

Huh. I guess that might be notable? But it's current version looks like you could make a pretty good claim to A7 (notability) or G11 (advert). Or something. Haven't heard of that one, before, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • 14:12, February 18, 2007 User:Zzuuzz (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Like A Maiden" (CSD G7 Author requests deletion)
Hm. That's frequently used when an author blanks a page they recently submitted. Which I guess is also true. *shrug* Funny thing, that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

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 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. (I thought I had included you in my initial announcement a couple days ago, but apparently you were somehow overlooked. Sorry!) —Psychonaut 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Jim, I agree that the whole discussion over on the Srebrenica massacre page is extremely frustrating. Believe me, I've experienced it. However, I don't see that leaving the article in the hands of the extremists and those that should loudest is a solution (in fact, that's howthe nationalist wars in the Balkans started). Given that the article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. Regards Osli73 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslims fear Backlash

Please don't be scared or offended by the creation of this article. I am extending you the chance to at least disscuss the merits of the article. Please don't offence or assume the use of the phrase is direct attack upon you or your sensitivities. All I wanted was a chance to discuss the merits of a term (that gets massive hit on all search engines) without it being swept under the rug. Are you saying that if I managed to complete the article with full references, (before being "speedy deleted") that you would support me in the project? Prester John 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America fork

Hello! Please comment and weight in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jim Douglas

I notice you reverted recent 2000 victims edit, back to 8,000. Thank you. Bosniak 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Do you have some prove that there were exactly or around 8000 victims?

Is genocide when there were killed mostly adult males which were capable to use rifle or gun?

  • When the victims are non-combatants, yes, yes it still counts as genocide. Djma12 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested move

Hello Jim. Yes, I had read the arguments of those opposing the move and I know that the genocide definition is not disputed, it's just a discussion about which is the most suitable title for this article according to most common usage. After the Srebrenica massacre was declared a genocide I started hearing references to it as "Srebrenica Genocide" more and more, so I guess that it's becoming a more usual and adequate form, thus justifying the article to be renamed in my opinion. Regards, Húsönd 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rv and Rvv

Jim, I'm sorry if my edit summary text offended you. In all the time I've contributed here, the abbreviation "Rv" means only "revert" while "Rvv" means "Revert vandalism". I learnt that by seeing other using this terms. If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. However, check my contribution log and you'll see that when I'm reverting vandalism I add "Rvv" [1]. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America

Hey Jim, the point is that the English-speaking nations of Central America, the Caribbean and South America (Guyana) members of CONCACAF uses the North America zone (not saying subcontinent), and such zone includes only Mexico, the United States and Canada. Thats why it is included as an occasionally usage CONCACAF Gold Cup (in English). JC 13:00, 16 March 2007 (PST)

[edit] Autoblock

Its fixed now and am began on my own machine. Thanks for your interest. Regards, SqueakBox 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Jim,

Yesterday, I actually spent about 45 minutes reading the discussion page and seeing your experience at the Srebrenica Massacre article a couple of months ago. I can see why you decided to wash your hands of it. I can see we disagree on some fundamental issues but I also believe you are acting in good faith and simply giving your honest opinion. By the way, even though I do disagree with you on some issues, I share your opinion that the UN is not an oracle of absolute truth. The free exchange of ideas offered by people acting in good faith has its merits.

In any case, I am currently contacting frequent editors of the Srebrenica Massacre and, as a courtesy, posting on their talk pages this message which is now on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page.

I understand you are probably rather inclined not to get involved but, in case you may be, wanted to give you the chance to see this latest proposed edit.

Best Regards, Fairview360 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access to Ronald Reagan

Please grant me access to the Ronald Reagan article so I can watch and work on it.

Update: Thanks for the info.

[edit] RE: Continents

Hi there! I hope you're well. I've been observing the discussion at Talk:North America and generally concur with you. Relatedly, would you care to weigh in at

Merci! Corticopia 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/User_talk%7EJim_Douglas_038e.html"