User talk:Opbeith

Welcome back, Owen. I replied at my talk page. --

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, welcome back! I'm not sure how much interaction we had before your break, but your quality revisions of Nabeel Rajab suggest to me that you must have been doing good work then, too. Khazar2 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing the article Juniper shield bug. I made some minor changes, but can you please add some categories in the article? --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was patrolling new pages. Very sorry if I was too fast there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing Juniper shield bug With my good wishes! Tito Dutta ✉ 09:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comment where you address UrbanVillager as Boris Malagurski (or at least as someone who is privy to when BM's next "masterpiece" would be out), I figure you might have a concurring opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't expect that much material :) I've made some adjustments to your text, I hope you won't mind. I've also left you a question there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Bahrain Thirteen? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to

I think you're over reacting. The duplication report doesn't show any serious copyright violation that requires blocking the whole article, in fact I don't see any copyright violation at all; using phrases such as "of the geneva conventions" and "the international criminal" can't be avoided and thus this isn't even close paraphrasing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the text was originally inserted it was much closer; as the article has been edited over the years the two versions have diverged, though there are still some problematic phrases. (Keep in mind that the duplication detector shows only exact matches, not close paraphrases where only a word here and there has been substituted or deleted.) If you can isolate them feel free to reposition the template so that it covers only them. The copyright clerks and OTRS agents need to do a more thorough investigation (and revdel if warranted). —Psychonaut (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation was copied to

Talk:Nikola_Jorgic#Copyright_violation. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Response: The point of my addition remaining close to the wording of the TRIAL text was that TRIAL was an English language source reporting the findings of the the Düsseldorf Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court). This was reporting of fact, hence anything other than minimal creative rewording was inappropriate. I'm happy to do an original translation of relevant parts of the text of the Court judgment myself but the TRIAL text provides a convenient English-language reliable source for English-speakers who want to check out the reference. Up to you." Opbeith (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opbeith, please don't compound the copyvio problem by posting the full text of the article you are alleged to have copied here! I have removed it. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That surely can't be. It was obvious that there was no attempt to make use of the text content except for purposes of making what I believe was a legitimate comparison of the broken-up sections. I won't repost while you obtain an informed opinion which obviously I'll abide by. Opbeith (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But currently this problem is being discussed, with considerable duplication of commentary, in different three places: here, on

Talk:Nikola Jorgic, and on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Could we please consolidate everything to one place? Wikipedia:Copyright problems is going to attract the largest number of informed opinions, since it's regularly patrolled by OTRS agents and copyright clerks. Would you object if I move everyone's comments there? (The discussion really should have gone there in the first place, as per the copyvio template instructions.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't mind ceasing discussion here, leaving the existing comments as they are but with a pointer to discussion elsewhere. However on the various attempts I made yesterday to find the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems I couldn't find anything on Nikola Jorgic there. So then I followed the pointer to the Nikola Jorgic talk page where I did manage to find your comments and comparison. If the discussion is to go on at Wikipedia:Copyright problems I can't follow it, so for fairness's sake I believe anything that goes on there should be copied to the Nikola Jorgic talk page in order for me to be able to follow the discussion and comment if appropriate. Opbeith (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Tried again this morning and still can't find anything relevant searching on Nikola or Psychonaut. It takes ages to load as well because of "busy script" notices so I'd rather not waste time on more fruitless searches. Opbeith (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 September 1. That should load the logs only for the day in which the Nikola Jorgic page was reported. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that link worked, so I've no objection to the discussion being located there, but I suggest leaving the existing text at the Nikola Jorgic talk page with a pointer and link to continue the discussion at Copyright problems September 1 in order to ensure anyone interested is aware of the situation and then knows where to go - the NJ talk page is an easier place to take in the content than the rather crowded September 1 page. Opbeith (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll leave things as-is then, and just agree not to post any further discussion to the thread on this page. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Opbeith (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have see your will, in Talk:Srebrenica massacre, of publicising Pamela Geller's denial of Srebrenica massacre, as a way to warn against Counterjihad movement. I do not fully agree with you to mention this denial in "Srebrenica massacre" page (it is already mentionned in "Pamela Geller" page), and I can tell you an other denial from the Counterjihad movement. Since several month, Bat Ye'or is claiming that:

• she did not coined the Eurabia word (which is true as far as I know);
• she did not coined the Eurabia concept (which is false far as I know);
• she has been prosecuted for using or divulging the Eurabia word (which is false as far as I know);

Are you interested? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Visite - I've mainly answered on your page, but to clear up what seems a misapprehension in your message I want to say I'm not wanting to use the issue to "warn against" the Counterjihad movement generally. It's important Geller's denial should remain included in the Srebrenica Genocide article because it illustrates Counterjihad support for Trifkovic's campaign of genocide denial and Geller has been the most publicly influential of the denial supporters in the group. Opbeith (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen your replies, in my and your talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...against me personally are of little benefit whatsoever on the Srebrenica massacre talk page. I would politely ask that you please refrain from making the discussion personal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks at the Srebrenica Genocide Talk Page are born of my frustration at your erraticf interventions. You are an adminstrator who appears to see it as their role to step in when consensus among experienced editors at the article appears to be emerging and without serious discussion to recruit uninformed comments that send the discussion back to first principles already dealt with in the article and ignored by the new arrivers offered no guidance from yourself. I hope you will understand how frustrating I find it spending time having to go back to square one over those issues in the knowledge that the issue at hand is being obscured. You do not feel it worthwhile consulting before you take arbitrary action, even of a procedural nature. Now, when once again there is a need for intervention by a competent administrator to provide guidance regarding the contentious deployment of Wikipedia policy and guidelines you have done nothing to help resolve the apparently irreconcilable difference over policy interpretation but simply tell the parties to get on and sort it out for themselves. My comments are the product of long disappointment with the absence of constructive support at the article since the days when Serb nationalist subverters of the content of the article were at work. I do not expect you to agree with me, believe it or not I acknowledge that other people may legitimately hold opposing viewpoints to mine, but I don't think it's unreasonable to see some acknowledgment of my concerns. I live with rulings that I disagree with, but when an administrator intervenes I look for dialogue and constructive help. Over a long time that has not been forthcoming from you. Opbeith (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, regardless of your feelings as expressed above, 13 reverts back and forth are clearly indicative of an edit war that is counterproductive to our readers. As such, there was really no option other than to temporarily lock the page; one cannot pick a side in the dispute and block the others (note that more than one person was reverting on both sides). That such action would be arbitrary. AS for the long-standing differences, one needs only to review the ArbCom decisions with respect to Balkans-related issues to see the scope of the problem. You are operating in a manner which you feel is best for your perspective on the content of the article; I have to approach it from the perspective of what is best for the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the comments about my pollutant activities. I'm robust enough not to be worried about what you may think of me personally, all I am interested in is an indication that you are able to see my interest in the article as something that can occasionally be worked with rather than ignored or opposed. As I pointed out before regarding your intervention to protect the article, you had a choice whether to roll the argument back or not. You may have taken action out of immediate concern, which is fair enough, but once again you won't even acknowledge that your action might legitimately be perceived as less than neutral and influencing the outcome. I appreciate that it's difficult to hold the ring in an area where there are sometimes irreconcilable views but doing what is "best for the project" must surely involve a constructive attitude that sees an argument over a serious problem not simply as an irritant to be contained or removed but a structurally important issue to be resolved. What is "best for the project" is surely to appreciate that editors' considered views may have substance and then work cooperatively towards a solution. My frustration is provoked by steps that fuel dispute, like your apparent unwillingness to try to understand dissatisfaction with your actions taken without consultation, your obvious dissatisfaction with certain forms of consensus, your recruitment of new commenters, apparently to challenge the unwelcome consensus, in a way that disregards the need to ensure that they have a basic awareness of the issues that are the reason why this article even exists - the wording of the Genocide Convention, the legal findings - and in this instance your decision simply to throw your hands in the air and walk away from an ongoing argument that clearly needs input from someone familiar with and in a position to give authoritative comment on Wikipedia policy. "Sort it out for yourselves" is not helpful "for the project" or for those who waste a lot of their time trying to reach some sort of outcome. Opbeith (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled. I've had a cluster of Wikimedia Mail advisory messages about your changes here, but they include three saying you've "created" my Talk Page. Any idea what that's about??? Opbeith (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2]. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why is my page being "created"? It's been here long enough. Opbeith (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the visibility changes must generate some sort of "re-creation" process, but why doesn't the message system make that clear? And for the person on the receiving end this is hardly a transparent/reassuring process. Opbeith (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fernand Grenard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Joseph Gabet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jura

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helpful advice from PamD installed here for reference: sortkey and categories for birth and death dates can be added per: {{subst:l|1924|2002|Soymie, Michel}} (lower case "L" as name of template, not "1"). For unknown dates but likely still to be living, leaving out both dates - For unknown dates but likely still to be living (leaving out both dates): {{subst:l|||Soymie, Michel}} generates categories: living and date of birth unknown.Opbeith (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have to tell you that your edits are actually not ok. Srebrenica massacre is the name of the article, and we should use that, as far less controversial title of the event. You cannot push anyone to use your version of the title... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made by User:Nemambrata involved a systematic campaign of editing away the word genocide in relation to Srebrenica. The title of the article is contentious, as you are well aware, and in my view of course inadequate. But that is irrelevant as far as mentions in other articles is concerned, even when an explanatory link to mention of the genocide leads to an article under the massacre title. There is no requirement for a text reference to be governed by the conclusions of the debate on the name of the article which has not resolved the question of the accuracy of the title but has simply settled for what is claimed to be the most accessible designation.

Moreover, the campaign Nemambrata has undertaken has completely ignored the relevance of the term used to the article itself. S/he has changed the official name of the Potocari Genocide Memorial Center to a name which would be offensive to the families of the victims buried there who are very upset by the campaign to deny the genocide being conducted by politicians and others in Serbia and Republik aSrpska. S/he has also changed the charge being faced by General Tolimir - Tolimir is charged with genocide, not with massacre. The subjects of a number of the articles are in fact individuals - Sonja Biserko, Florence Hartmann, etc. - who have been highly critical of the Serbian and Republika Srpska governments for their persistent efforts to minimise the crime by avoiding the term genocide, established by the highest international courts of law and reaffirmed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the United States, the European Parliament, in favour of the term massacre.

In most cases Nemambrata appears to have been working his way through a list without even bothering even to give an explanation for her/his undiscussed changes. The very few cases where anexplanation has been offered the reference to the war in Bosnia as a civil war when it has been confirmed to be an international conflict waged by one state on another in international courts - multiple times at the ICTY, and even in the English courts (when Serbia made an application acknowledging the war's status as an international conflict). This Serbian student is pursuing a campaign to push a political point of view, one to which you have subscribed both in your present identity as WhiteWriter. You are not a disinterested party in this. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will end this conversation with the quotation from ARBMAC. "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited." Your edits are exactly the same pursuing a campaign as Nemambrata, just in the opposite POV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, I know you in this and your previous incarnation from your interventions at the Srebrenica Massacre/Genocide article. I hadn't realised that questioning your changes of identity was covered by the policy on "Outing", which I understood to refer to revelation of personal details rather than unexplained changes of identity. My apologies in that respect.

But I would remind you that the changes I made were simply reversions of a succession of unexplained and in a number of cases vandalistic edits in a pattern which clearly indicated the expression of a point of view. The culminating change to the Tomislav Nikolic article appears to confirm that Nemambratnam, who acknowledges that s/he is a student from Serbia, was simply imposing a Serbian nationalist viewpoint, as articulated by Dodik, Nikolic and other challengers of the judicial finding that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide according to the provisions of the UN Genocide Convention. The term "The Srebrenica Genocide" is normal usage and not proscribed at Wikipedia. Nemembratnam's blanket changes were unjustified. My experience suggests you have a similar point of view to Nemembratnam's and not averse to unconstructive interventions yourself so perhaps you would care to be a little more restrained in your accusation that I am pushing a point of view. You're the last person who should be quoting "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited." Opbeith (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are so deep in your pov that any further conversation from my side would be completely pointless. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. I'm afraid that I've become as emphatic as I am in the way I express myself through years of exposure to to persons like you and indeed you yourself who for your own reasons are unwilling and unable to accept the established truth about a terrible crime. Opbeith (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(additional: User:Nemambrata turns out to be "a suspected sock puppet of Warhammer76 and has been blocked indefinitely.") Opbeith (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into consideration everything you've written on The Weight of Chains talk page, with specific reference to the issue regarding the Synopsis, I have a feeling like you're not really aware of the difference between a Synopsis and a Review, so I'd like to point out those differences to you on your talk page.

syn·op·sis /səˈnäpsis/

Noun: 1. A brief summary or general survey of something.

2. An outline of the plot of a play, film, or book.

re·view /riˈvyo͞o/

Noun: A formal assessment or examination of something.

Verb: Examine or assess (something) with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary.

Synonyms:

noun. inspection - survey - parade - magazine - revision

verb. revise - examine - inspect - reconsider

The difference is that a synopsis simply summarizes what's going on in the film, what the plot is, while a review goes deeper and assesses the meaning, impact, intention, etc. I believe you think a Synopsis should be a Review. It's not. This is why I recommended that you start a section in the article that would be called "Controversy", or "Reactions", or something similar, where you could add different reviews and takes on the film by relevant sources, which would add to the balance of the article. So far, I only see bloggers attacking the film. When we see relevant sources criticizing the film, I'll fully support the addition of the section that I mentioned. Until then, I'd like to suggest that you end your crusade against this film, because you writing your opinion on the film doesn't bring anything constructive to the article and you're starting to get quite aggressive. Once again, I'll also remind you not to duplicate sections, i.e. create new sections for topics that are already being discussed at an existing section. It's very frustrating and against the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we disagree on how a synopsis differs from a publicity handout. Re new sections, if a discussion is ongoing deep within the text of a Talk Section that is some distance away from the most recent Section, we are obscuring the discussion from the view of anyone not already involved. I doubt there is a Wikipedia rule against greater transparency. I agree with you, I should perhaps try to contain myself and be less confrontational when I see cynicism and manipulation at work on Wikipedia. It's difficult at times. Opbeith (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations returned ! I think to be effective we need to be a little more 'focused' .... I have tried (mentally at least) to come up with specific objections/corrections/additions which would alter the balance of the page. You are clearly more familiar than I both with the facts and personalities of the war and also Wiki-processes. I'll see what I can devise (IF I have time) and perhaps 'run it past you'. I have already done some minor edits, to remove some inflated prose (and some linguistic/grammatical errors!) ... so far no-one appears to have noticed !Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, removing individual elements of inflated prose helps make the synopsis sound more like a proper synopsis but that simply leaves the synopsis sounding more objective, which is presumably why the author hasn't seen fit to respond. A synopsis needs to reflect the objective content of the film. UrbanVillager has noted that the synopsis should not include analysis that would imply a review rather than a report and has suggested a separate "Controversy" section. The content of a "Controversy" section would need to make it clear that the film has not attracted the attention of significant reliable sources but various commentators have remarked on certain significant aspects of the film's treatment of its subject. Opbeith (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the typos etc. do annoy me!Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, particularly the etc.! Opbeith (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, re your comment about Wiki-processes, I have some limited knowledge of these largely acquired by checking the claims of self-styled authorities deploying their version of "Wikipedia rules". Rules are often in fact guidelines, to be employed using commonsense, and are essentially aimed at ensuring the objectivity and reliability of content rather than providing a toolbox for enforcing a particular point of view. Checking the original wording will often reveal unexplained lacunae. Opbeith (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Opbeith, which parts sound like a publicity handout to you? As for the sections issue, I wrote on the Weight of Chains talk page regarding the matter. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of your unreferenced synopsis is better continued at the Article Talk Page where others can join in. I am looking over the three other sources to see where they offer an informative account of the film's content rather than an analysis and I will discuss this with Pincrete, who has seen more of the film than I have. I will bring this to the Talk Page for discussion with you and other interested parties whether these can be incorporated to provide a more accurate and informative synopsis. As far as the Sections issue is concerned I have replied to you at the Talk Page noting again the importance of trying to make the discussion as comprehensible as possible on an ongoing basis. Opbeith (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where a subject is less notable, it's harder to write good content due to scarcity of sources. It's especially difficult when the topic is
  neutral article. We could write thousands of words about some obscure cult belief or snake oil, but all the sources will be from believers or quacks respectively - if no mainstream source paid enough attention to say "Hey, this is all bullshit" then our content would be deeply unbalanced. We can write a great article about moon-landing conspiracy theories because they're prominent enough to have attracted mainstream responses; we can't write a great article about this conspiracy theory. bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I understand the point you're making. However this article about the film, appears to have Wikipedia approval, despite the misgivings various people have expressed. An article about a film clearly implies a synopsis. Wikipedia allows synopsis on the basis that it can be checked against the original content. The problem with the current Synopsis is that it is the work of a single author and unreferenced. It's gradually been edited nearer to reality but comparing it with the reports of other individuals it is clearly incomplete and apparently misleading. So it is unbalanced as it stands. Hopefully it will be possible using other sources to achieve a more balanced version. As criticism of the film and its maker would be dealt with separately from the synopsis this should hopefully pass the "non-controversial" test, particularly since the original author is presumably anxious for a synopsis larger than the single referenced paragraph to remain part of the article. Opbeith (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re.Bobrayner's comments/your reply. Surely, since the film itself is the source for the claims it makes, it is possible to include some of those claims in the synopsis. Many of the claims are self-evidently laughable & others are about historial events which are already covered by Wikipedia pages. The difference between the BM version of events (or at least the fact that there IS a difference) can be noted in the synopsis (with links to Wiki-pages giving the 'mainstream view'). Is my logic wrong here? Would this not go a long way to giving the article some balance and context WITHOUT needing outside sources ? Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might like to take a look at these: 1. Message of "Kosovo: Can you imagine?" is sure that the few Serbs a 'nd other non-Albanians living in Kosovo in a very difficult situation, it is now almost impossible to fully achieve our interests in the southern Serbian province, but we must never accept the idea that Kosovo is not ours, because nothing is lost until we admit we were lost. Today is America's number one power, and has a far greater impact on us, but as long as we resist the propagation of what Western diplomats call "reality on the ground", we have a legitimate right to take back what is ours. Maybe it will not happen for a long time, but we must keep the awareness of why the province is an important factor in our national identity. This alone, however, quoted the western audience that might not really understand why we insist on the phrase "Kosovo is Serbia." which is at : http://www.glassrpske.com/plus/teme/Boris-Malagurski-Zajedno-moramo-promeniti-svet/lat/69579.html

2." Senator Joe Biden is really responsible for what happened in the nineties." http://www.vesti-online.com/Dijaspora/drzava/Kanada/Vesti/127741/Okovi-raspada-bivse-Jugoslavije (link on the article page) ...

3. There is an explicit complaint in one interview by BM about politicians 'harping on' about Srebenica, but I can't re-find it at present.Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as (1) is concerned, that is Malagurski's/the Serbian authorities' leitmotif - "nothing is lost until we admit we lost". It's worked for them in different circumstances. It doesn't do the Serbian people or the Balkans as a whole much good. However (2) I can't get the link to work. (3) It's of secondary importance what he says outside the film about Srebrenica, because he's already editorialised his viewpoint in the film - he implicitly endorses the claim made by Trifkovic, spokesperson for the perpetrators, that the killings were an event stage-managed in furtherance of Western interests and he chooses Corwin's individual opinion, unexamined, over the UN Secretary-General's report or the ICTY findings, because he wants to say that Srebrenica was the fulcrum of the plan to "colonise" the Former Yugoslavia. Opbeith (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these links are actually 'outside the film'. It's only what is implicit in the film being made explicit outside it, when 'playing to a local audience'.Pincrete (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to make my personal position here absolutely clear - I'm not part of any anti-Malagurski campaign at Wikipedia, however repellent I find his support for and his willingness to promote the views of associates and supporters of mass murderers. What I am most definitely against is his and his friends' use of Wikipedia to promote his career and political ideology and the way this appears to be condoned by the usually rigorous patrollers of Wikipedia practice. That is why I have expressed my concern over the gang's activities and my anger at Wikipedia's institutionally limp connivance with those activities. I hope that a respectable balance can be achieved in the articles about him and his work by including objective appraisals from trustworthy sources whenever his career management plan permits.) Opbeith (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Opbeith,

You rock for trying to be the beacon of moral hope and rounding wiki pages so that they reflect all points-of-view. The Boris Malagurski page is clearly one-sided and seems to claim that there are no credible sources that portray Boris in a negative light about his views on the world, so let's compile a bunch for them so that we can put it on his page. Call all your editors and friends who are passionate about this topic and let's bring that uber positive page down to a neutral level.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/elich280711.html Boris Malagurski: "After I initiated and organized protests against Kosovo's illegal secession from Serbia in February of 2008 in Vancouver, I was hoping that Canada, a country that has a lot of experience with separatism on its own soil, would not recognize the false state of Kosovo." Credible page linking him to nationalism in his own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.172.134.168 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the motivated people who create articles like the Malagurski article by taking advantage of all the ounces of slack that the Wikipedia process allows are equally adept at the creative application of every resource they can find in the handbook of Wikipedia policy and guidelines to pinch out any contribution that has less than 100% robustness.

In real life common sense applies. At Wikipedia, despite guidelines to the contrary, when there's a lobby every i must be dotted and every t crossed. Because the subject is on the one hand adept at manipulating favourable public exposure and on the other so ludicrous as to attract minimal rigorous criticism in serious sources it's difficult to find a text with wording that cannot be found wanting in one way or another by a determined deconstructionist.

That's a time-wasting and energy-sapping process, as I'm sure it's intended to be. I'm afraid that where you and I and anyone with any perception can see that Elich's interview is just a vehicle (Elich himself being an associate of the propaganda-generating Jasenovac Research Institute), understanding Malagurski's comments about his activities and attitudes in relation to the status of Kosovo as confirmation of the commitment to promoting Serbian nationalism that pervades his work is going to challenged as "original research" because Malagurski does not explicitly align himself with any wider campaign. (Even if he did, Plan B would roll out, exclusion on the grounds of the non-notability of his efforts - it's a no-win game, of course).

Eventually Malagurski's vaulting ambition will take him into places where he is more likely to be "notable" in Wikipedia terms. That's when the material that will make a balanced article easier to achieve will become a lot simpler to find. It takes patience and the sort of determination his fan club have to wait for that and in the meanwhile basic principles of decency will continue to be trashed by the use of Wikipedia to further his self-advancement.

Sadly, though I share your disgust, I'd better warn you that anything that might look like an effort to mobilise a campaign to get to grips with this obvious perversion is liable to get seized on and used to discredit other efforts to achieve rationality and neutrality. The administrators who currently appear to turn a blind eye to the pro-Malagurski endeavour would no doubt be rigorous in their policing of anything that suggested a coordinated effort to achieve balance.

The crucial thing is not to give in and to keep ensuring that wherever robust enough material can be found the voice of sanity continues to penetrate the bubble of Mala-La Land. Opbeith (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself and I applaud all of your efforts in showing a different side to this campaign. Keep up the good fight as Boris has clearly aligned himself with the Serbian right wing, and with that of the fascist Chetniks, despite the fact that technicalities, as of now, harbour him. But several of us can play at that game. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glogova (Bratunac), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains Dispute resolution case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia,

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.57.233 (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy already fixed your links at the SPI page. [3] You included comment indentations in the links so that's why they wouldn't work. I will remove your comment to streamline the report. --◅

Opbeith, I'm going to ignore Psychonaut's advice and give one more shot at discussing this issue with you. First of all, regarding the links you listed on the sockpuppet investigation page, all of those links are available at Malagurski's Facebook page and websites, not to mention if you search his name and films on Google. That's how I research any topic, I find reliable sources of information. I could list a lot of links about Malagurski and his work here as well. You could too, and you have - on the talk pages. Does that prove that any of us are sockpuppets of someone? The fact that I mostly enjoyed watching some of Malagurski's films which inspired me to write about him and his work on Wikipedia and the fact that you believe Malagurski's films are "crap" [4] (presumably based on the Srebrenica section, which makes me wonder if you've even seen the entire film) is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Both of us and everybody else has an equal opportunity to edit all articles regardless of our personal opinions, provided that we all use reliable references.

Insertion by Opbeith: Once again there's a bit of selection of versions going on. I suspected that this would occur and made sure I amended my original comment to make it clear that I wasn't introducing the description of Malagurski's work as "crap" gratuitously, but picking up on the previous manifestation of UrbanVillager's misleading dismissal of criticism: (start quote) "the overall mission really means adding unverifiable slander to the article, and this is what bugs me. None of them commented saying "Hey, let's see how to make this article better and more balanced", most of them showed up with the attitude "Boris Malagurski sucks, his films are crap, blogs and websites say that too, let's add that in the article"(end quote) [5]. Just so we're clear. Opbeith (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You advocated many references that weren't reliable or were disputed. Burgic's blog post, Slobodna Vojvodina's blog post, original research that suggests that Malagurski supports someone's views just because he supported someone having the right to voice his opinions, etc. This is what bothers me, not the fact that you want to add negative things about Malagurski to the article about him and his films. You have a right to an opinion and you have a right to not like Malagurski or his films. There are many negative aspects about his work, of course. For example, he ignores the negative aspects of communism in his film "The Weight of Chains" and provides no criticism of Yugoslavia. He fails to discuss negative things that Chetniks did during World War II, and discusses war crimes against Serbs much more than crimes against Bosniaks and Croats. I personally dislike Trifkovic and think that he is an Islamophobic professor. I also don't like a bunch of other people that Malagurski interviewed in his films, and don't agree with many points, but do like the general message and editing style. It's a cool movie, and I greatly respect the enormous effort that was put into making it.

What's not cool is constantly accusing me of being Malagurski, his sockpuppet, his colleague and his whatever, just because I don't join you and some other editors in agreeing that his work is "crap" and I don't agree with the addition of unreliable sources that confirm that. If you have an issue with the topic at hand, discuss the content, not the contributor. When uninvolved Wikipedia editors confirmed what I was saying about adding blogs and fishy websites as references, I feel like you and some other editors decided to "get rid of me", by filing a conflict of interest case and second sockpuppet case against me. If you want to chase me away in this way, well, you can only chase me away by making me tired of going in circles with the same arguments instead of focusing on the quality of the articles, because I'm not Boris Malagurski or on his payroll or anything close to that. I told you the truth on the Malagurski talk page. I didn't join Wikipedia to argue and defend myself from wild accusations, I joined to edit articles and have civilized discussions in case of a dispute. If you want to edit and be constructive, let's work together. But I can only agree to things if they're within Wikipedia policy. Opbeith, Malagurski's work does deserve criticism on Wikipedia, and as a sign of good faith, I did some digging on the Internet and found an article that criticizes Malagurski's work from a reliable website called "Pescanik.net". They tend to be biased at times, but "Pescanik" is a well-known radio station in Serbia and is definitely notable. Here's the link:

http://pescanik.net/2010/12/putevi-izgubljenih-urbanosti/

In which they say:

"Iza zbunjevaca dolaze apolitični, estete, ljubitelji umjetnosti i ostali sličnog kova koji, zavaravajući same sebe ili iz nekih sasvim drugih razloga, ne prepoznaju da je samo bitisanje u ovom svijetu kakav danas imamo veoma političan čin koji jednostavno traži političke aktere koji djeluju za svoje ciljeve. Ovaj mehanizam su shvatili i nacionalisti, i fašisti i rasisti pa i oni koji nam pod apolitičnošću prodaju sasvim druge priče kao književna grupacija Proza na putu ili režiser Boris Malagurski koji će nas uskoro počastiti još jednim “remek-djelom” dokumentarnog žanra The Weight of Chains."

Which would lead me to suggest the addition of a sentence that would sound like this:

"Alan Pejković from Peščanik, in regards to The Weight of Chains, wrote that Boris Malagurski is part of a group of "confused people" who are apolitical, aesthetes, art lovers and others similar to that, deceiving themselves or for some other reason entirely in not recognizing that merely existing in the world that we have today is a very political act that warrants political actors who work for their own goals."

If you agree, I'll recommend this to the Malagurski talk page, or you can do it. And I'd appreciate a fresh new start, because I'm tired of arguing when we can focus on making articles better. I hope that I was right in ignoring Psychonaut's advice and that there actually is some point in discussing these things in a civilized manner with you. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New UrbanVillager", I'd be happy to work with you on developing balanced articles about Malagurski and his works if I had any idea who you were or what you're up to and believed that what you actually wanted was to see a balanced set of articles. But the "Old Urban Villager" I was so familiar with has undergone a dramatic personality change in the day or so since we last engaged. "New Urban Villager" seems to have developed a capacity for rational thought and measured language, along with the ability to think and speak without making word for word use of Psychonaut's mentorship advice which previously "Old Urban Villager" seemed determined to deploy almost down to the last quotation. "New Urban Villager" is unrecognisable as his/her own master, careful and coherent, no longer so excitable and immediately self-contradictory. But nevertheless the same determination to obfuscate the purpose of Malagurski's work is still evident.

You seem to be offering a sort of trade-off. You are happy to acknowledge certain negative aspects of Malagurski's work that "Old UrbanVillager" was never able to perceive in return for me accepting that Malagurski's work has essential merit and abandoning my view that what appears now to be the "UrbanVillager" swarm and other associates have not been engaging in motivated "sock-puppetry". As "New UrbanVillager"you seem to be suggesting that if we tone down the adulatory tone of "Old Urban Villager"'s articles we can agree to the inclusion of some generalised philosophical criticism that avoids mention of external discussion of the nature of Malagurski's activities and whose purpose they serve. You suggest this is simply a matter of civilised discussion that's possible if I stop trying to "chase you away".

You invite me to share your "cool" appreciation of Malagurski's movie by jettisoning Trifkovic as a tainted Islamophobic mouthpiece while at the same time leaving unquestioned the general message of The Weight of Chains, delivered personally by Malagurski in his commentary, that events in the Balkans such as the key episode of the genocide at Srebrenica were merely ploys to justify Western intervention against Serbia ("colonisation" as he so emphatically puts it). Frankly that assumption alone is enough to put the possibility of "civilised discussion" some way out of range - "not cool", I'm afraid, not even substantiated by reliable sources..

I'm particularly puzzled by your odd offer to distort Alan Pejkovic's comments in Pescanik. As far as my limited access to B/C/S allows, Pejkovic is not in fact saying what you suggest he does, that Boris Malagurski is one of a group of "confused people" - apolitical, aesthetes, art lovers, etc. - who have failed to understand that merely existing in the world is a political act that "warrants political actors who work for their own goals." (whatever that means). He in fact says that post-war moral confusion has left apolitical enthusiasts of the arts vulnerable to manipulation by nationalists, fascists and racists and to propagandists selling them a political story like Malagurski with his The Weight of Chains. That's actually a substantially different meaning. I don't really find that terribly convincing evidence of your "good faith".

I'm not interested in "chasing you away". What I'm interested in is not having Wikipedia abused to promote Malagurski, his films and ultimately his nationalist propaganda, you're just one of the vehicles. I'm afraid I wasn't born yesterday. Opbeith (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opbeith regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Opbeith. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]