User talk:Jonathanmills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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]

NB -- I COPY-AND-PASTED THE FOLLOWING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S PAGE. JUST WANTED THE LINKS :-)

Hello, Jonathanmills! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Tag on Srebrenica massacre[edit]

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]

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre[edit]

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]

Alternative View[edit]

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 (discuss first, edit second)[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Response...[edit]

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]

think again[edit]

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]

Thank you![edit]

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]

assistance with the article Bosnian Mujahideen[edit]

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 [1]). He has also deleted links to the article on other articles. [2][3][4][5]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.[6]. 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"[7] or "propaganda attempt or original research if you wish, based on unverified sources per WP:RS"[8]. 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"[9] 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]

London Meetup - January 12, 2008[edit]

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]

reply to your message on my Talk page[edit]

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]

Liberals[edit]

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]

Balkans arbitration remedy[edit]

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]

hi there,
I'm actually not disagreeing with the warning you left me as such (I was inexcusably abusive, although in my defence it's very out of character for me)... however I just wanted to request that a warning might also be sent to the guy who is on the other side of this, given that he is completely ignoring my rather detailed (and comprehensive, IMHO) reasoning as to why what he's saying is rubbish. (For all I know, you already have, BUT I am just suggesting that deliberately inserting biased and clearly false -- or at least nowhere near encyclopaedia-standard-proven -- information into an article, and refusing to answer the charges I've made, should be against the rules in the same way losing your temper is).
Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in a position to identify whether the information is biased, false, or a candy bar, but I have already left a message at User talk:Historičar warning him about the sanctions in the Balkans area. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough! Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient is not a scientific term[edit]

Thank you for your notification. It is true that there is no disagreement that most mammal can feel pain and emotion, including distress. There is no disagreement that animal are intelligent in varying degree, though none are known to be as smart as human. All of the above is a separate matter from animal being sentient. Anyway, it doesn't quite matter what you or I think about it. The source of the edit was from an advocacy site rather than reliable sources (i.e. media and academia). When you make such an extraordinary claim that "everyone agree" that animal is sentient, it require quite extraordinarily solid source. Vapour (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the term "sentient" is a very western specific term. I, a Japanese, for one, couldn't come up with an appropriate translation in my language and I had to check a dictionary for a similar word and found a Buddhist term which is somewhat similar. Only problem is that Buddhism regard every living being to have a certain degree of self awareness, which is not confirmed by science. There are only few animal which could pass mirror recognition test, for example.If you check wikipedia article about Sentience, you will notice that there are only four non English Wikipedia links. How could you say that there is an global agreement that whales are sentient when most world culture doesn't use the term sentient?Vapour (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London[edit]

Wikimedia UK logo
Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12


Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Srebrenica Genocide Memorial[edit]

Hi! While looking for a picture of the Sea Gallantry Medal, I came across your 3 July 2007 posting at Talk:Srebrenica massacre#oh, and one more thing saying: "not sure how to correct the actual name of the 'SGM' article though". From the title I have given this posting, you can see that the article is still called 'SGM'. Do you still want to change it?
If so, it's really quite simple: Up the top of every WP page are a series of "tabs"; 2nd from right is "move" - click on it; fill in the boxes; click on "move page".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My head nearly exploded when I saw it. I haven't been on it awhile because I've been summarizing whaling logbooks the past few weeks. Apparently the guy who edited it is Japanese. You can clearly see a bias in his writing. Might need some help cleaning it up. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Massacre again[edit]

Hi. Old discussions keep popping up at Srebrenica Massacre talk page, this time the title (name) of the article. Editors tend to get exhausted by reiterating the same old arguments. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the section "Opposition to the term "genocide"", please see the talk page; I've no real care, but the page history suggests it has been there for quite some time in the aftermath of arguments over what it should say. Probably best to sort it out there first. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate, I don't care either, I just think it's obviously an inaccurate title. But there's no way I'm getting into that minefield again :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bakunin a government agent?[edit]

Hi mate,

I saw your postings over at the Bakunin talk page and was just wondering, what evidence do you have for suggesting Bakunin was in fact in the pay of the French (Russian?) governments? Please note that I'm not intending this as a sort of aggressive question, despite having Bakuninist sympathies I'm genuinely interested in the issue and not looking for an argument. Apologies if you've included it somewhere in your writings already, as I didn't read the entire talk page.

Anyway, if you have time, I would be interested in your response.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not quite sure about the confusion between the French and Russian governments here, bearing in mind that the French government referred to here is that of Louis Blanc and other socialists who had come to power in the February Revolution. James G. Chastain discusses this in 'Bakunin as a French Secret Agent in 1848' in History Today. Billingsley suggests, somewhat ironically, that the French government paid him to go away. (see Bakunin, Yokohama, and the Dawning of the Pacific Era. I think it is quite clear that in 1848 Bakunin got backing from French revolutionaries to spread the revolution. As for Marx's suggestion he was a Russian agent, I think that has been generally dismissed. However, while in Siberia he did have a state sinecure from his cousin Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky, then the governor - but whether that makes him a government agent I'm not sure. Muravyov was a liberal and Bakunin was linked with plans to break away from the Russian empire and joining or copying the USA (Kroptkin came across traces of this years later). Myself I feel that Bakunin was a more effective revolutionary before he got bogged down with anarchism and all the ideological baggage that went with that. A little bit of first time tragedy second time farce.Harrypotter (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica genocide / Srebrenica massacre[edit]

Hello Jonathan

I'd just been answering your latest at SG/SM. The issue of the claims of the names on the voters' roll was investigated by the ICTY demography unit and Tokaca. I'll try to get back to you with references. I wish I could feel confident about your disclaimers. Opbeith (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have any references for the fact that three thousand were supposed to have voted. I can't find anything specific. Helge Brunborg of the Norwegian Statistics Office worked with the ICTY to confirm the identities of the missing. He checked the lists of those reported missing against the voter registration lists for 1997 and 1998 (not people who voted, the names of those registered to vote, ie names of all potential voters) and found 3000 names that matched names on the list of the missing. After further investigation he was able to eliminate all except nine of those as potential survivors from the list of missing. If you go to the transcript of the Krstic trial in which he gave evidence - he is being examined in the transcript at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/trans/en/000601ed.htm . The evidence that sets out how he proceeded is at pages 4055 to 4067. Opbeith (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Jonathanmills, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Jonathanmills. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay[edit]

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanmills&oldid=1216152810"