Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 5 September 2008

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you. Design copied from User:Duja.

Archives 21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008 2 January 2008 – 1 August 2008

Comment on reverts

I see four reverts of yours in a six day period whilst there is discussion ongoing on the talkpage. You did not know at the time that these users were banned users, they have only been blocked in the last two days. As such, the 3RR rule applies. As it is now, carry on the discussion on the talkpage regarding this, (and continue to revert blocked editors, though they are not yet banned). You don't need my permission to remove comments from your talkpage, you can do that whenever you want. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I included the IP reverts because they are still reverts, no matter who makes them, even if they are an editor cicumventing a block or 3RR. In those cases, they will be found out and blocked as has happened in this case. In terms of Decensi, yes, you can revert on site because he is effectively banned. The edits of banned users (including their socks) can be reverted on site. It is clear that someone operating that amount of sockpuppets will remain blocked indefinitely and as such can be considered banned. Remember, a Ban is different to a Block. Your course of action was correct, alert an admin through WP:AIV, WP:ANI and they will block them. In this case, it is obviously a sock so you can revert, but remember, if it is not 100% obvious, then wait for an admin/checkuser to look into it and deal with it. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Ok, but an RfC would make more sense. That's standard in these kind of disputes. --DIREKTOR 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Pax blocked? That's so hard to imagine that he used this many sockpuppets he usually "got his way" alone anyway by reverting as far as I've seen. I'm shocked by this I'll have to review the case first, thanks for telling me about this. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And he was a incredibly active user too I don't get how he could edit even more with different accounts. Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The latest sock doing the same edit as the previous ones confirmed before . Hobartimus (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV...

...is only intended for persistent vandals. Reports about sockpuppets are better placed at WP:SSP, where you can make more detailed reports, evidence is saved, and it's easier to respond to comments. If you could, please move your report there so it can be handled easier. Thanks. Hersfold 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but first and foremost, they're a sockpuppeteer. Since most site-bans relate to sockpuppetry, we need to gather all evidence of multiple account abuse on a single page. The directions at WP:SSP have you create a subpage, which then can contain evidence from multiple cases. At WP:AIV, reports are immediately removed once the account is blocked, and become very difficult to find for later review. Hope this helps some. Hersfold 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct venue for sockpuppetry is WP:SSP. Woody was giving you a general list of the sites where reports can be made, but from what I can tell, he wasn't specifically directing you towards any of those, and he didn't mention several of our other reporting noticeboards. WP:AIV is generally for severe and persistent vandalism that doesn't seem related to anything else, and WP:ANI is for severe and exceptional cases that often require discussion amongst several administrators and other users. If an ANI report doesn't go answered for a while, make a new comment in the same section and someone should notice it shortly. Hersfold 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, Rjecina.
I don't know if you have you asked CU's services regarding this case, but I think I've found something interesting.
Recently, you've disguised a sockpuppeteer. I've been browsing some of edits of those sockpuppets, and I've found strange coincidence.
Remember banned user:Justiceinwiki (banned 22 Nov 2007} and his interest for the article Prebilovci? Here's his case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki.
See edit history of that article.
Take a look who else showed interest.
User Kirker (currently, you have talk with him on article about Miroslav Filipović).
See his edit history . First edit in 26 May 2007. See his area of interest. Userpage still empty (often case with SPA accounts; though, not necessarily). Does this ring a bell?
Who else edited that article? Recent 50 edits:
User Kirker appeared 10 Dec 2007.
Special:Contributions/62.63.212.13. See vandal revert (17:03, 18 December 2007).
Special:Contributions/217.209.200.153 (14:33, 18 December 2007) See comment on revert. . Kubura (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page. Kirker (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, Kubura thinks you should make the checkuser referral, so please go ahead. Or are you both going to back out of it, having started the rumour? If you want to be courteous and tell me why you think I should be investigated, that would be appreciated. At one time I offered to tidy up your dreadful copy before you put it into articles. You chose not to accept that offer, which is perhaps just as well, because I'm no longer sure that you are entirely objective. Also I sometimes can't even understand what it is that you are trying to say. I'm sorry if you think it strange that I sometimes edit stuff after you. Sometimes it's because you or someone else has drawn my attention to something I might want to comment on and sometimes it's because you or someone else have revived an article on my watchlist. Yes, I guess that is very strange. Kirker (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Your vandalism on user pages has been reverted. If you continue you will be blocked. This is your first and last warning.PaxVendetimus (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First edit and already threatning?
Oh, is this you, Pax? and . Kubura (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And those Marcellogo's ("good" and the "bad" one). Same area of interest, Pax. Kubura (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Peter

I responded on the article's talk page to your question about who finished second in the killing competition. Kirker (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rijeka terror attack

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rijeka terror attack, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Krajina and rebels

I've tried to fix the Operation Storm intro as best I could. But it is not easy, and the last thing any of us want to do is overload the introduction with information which will be covered in detail throughout the article. I accept that it does need some form of overview, as many (such as I) often consult pages just to see the intro for a taster as to what it is, and then browse elsewhere. Because the Krajina Serbs declared their independence before Croatia, the last time Krajina formed a part of the rest of Croatia was when it was a federal republic in Yugoslavia. If the world never recognised the Serbian republic, then there is no need to say "recaptured", or "regained", or "retook" because the world recognised it as being part of Croatia in the first place. What the government of Zagreb had done in August 1995 was establish sovereignty of the region, which all of Krajina's citizens - regardless of ethnic group - will have been compelled to recognise. That is why I use the term "incorporate": it doesn't indicate that "independent Croatia had it, then lost it, then took it again" which is misleading (as far as being independent goes), and it also doesn't state that "Croatia annexed it" either, which is also misleading since Croatia did have a claim on the land. The rebel business is very tricky, and here more than anywhere we need to be careful. Kosovar Albanians often proclaimed themselves to be rebels, since they regocnised their territory to be within Yugoslavia before 1990, even during the growing unrest from 1981 onwards. Serbs of Krajina had never referred to themselves as rebels, neither had their sympathisers outside of Planet Serbia. Again, it is more a matter of timing: their independence forces were indeed viewed as rebels by Zagreb. Zagreb seccesionists were viewed as rebels by Belgrade. The term is relative, rather like "opponent", one man's opponent is another man's ally. Croatia's over-all success in the whole affair doesn't give editors a green light to present cases in a Pan-Croatian light. As far as heavyweights are concerned: Croatia is Croatia, always has been, its association with former Yugoslav republics are not relevant, not even when discussing matters pre-1991. You see that this leads to confusion and error: hence the reason, an independent Croatia did not retake that what it didn't control as a separate entity! And in a conflict which initially involved the remnants of a once larger army of which Croatian citizens once formed a part (the YPA, JNA), you can see why Croatian soldiers were seen in some quarters are rebels (ie. Croats who took up arms in the very early stages were not members of an internationally recognised military). By the time Croatia was recognised in 1992, the Krajina affair had long been in effect, and who rebels against whom was by then a lost cause. Evlekis (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

ok, ok... won't touch the articles :) --DIREKTOR 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rijeka terror attack

I have nominated Rijeka terror attack, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rijeka terror attack. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category speedy tagging

Hi Rjecina. No reason was given for deletion; see WP:CSD. The category wasn't empty so I was unsure as to the rationale. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Za dom

Another one for you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Translation

"For your tireless struggle against Wiki-vandals. In your place I would have lost my patience long ago." :) --DIREKTOR 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper socks

I have a though that leaving all the articles that the PaxEquilibrium socks are attacking unprotected will force him to use up his sleeper accounts. I think User:Thatcher has prevented him from creating new accounts, so his only recourse is to use up older accounts. I know this might be painful for you, but they are easy to spot and revert, and I think this might make the problem go away sooner in the long run. What do you think? Kevin (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Actually, no I did not know that. I haven't been on wiki in a while. Doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of socks going on, I had a feeling someone was controlling all those. How does the situation go? Is he still creating more socks? --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been checking out his sock puppets contributions.....he really went out of his way to stalk your edits. Congratulations on getting him. Some of his edits are very disturbing. Heh.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Actually I can totally expect that of him, seeing his real side through his socks now, and his thoughts on Croats, and apparently a strange obsession with Thompson. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Roughly you can say so... I mean definition of prominent. I met User:MikeBabic already. He's just a kid of some Serb who escaped to Serbia. That's where his indoctrination comes from. I saw that there was some Krajina fighter too? I wonder what his prominance came from? Killing?Zenanarh (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For amazing diligence in combating sock vandalism, I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. --DIREKTOR 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, you cooked up nice octopussy with the potatoes under peka. Zenanarh (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably...

...another one User:MilanMilutinovic. Zenanarh (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I reinstalled my edits for RSK page. There is a humungous difference between a Serb-dominated JNA, and a JNA where most citizens are Serb. To say that it is Serb dominated reflects that it is purely designed to represent Serb interest (ie. there is conflict inside it between Serbs, and those opposed to Serb intentions, and somehow, Serbs come out more powerful, hence they are dominant). We are talking about numbers, Serbs were highly dominant in number, and that was because we, and Slovenes, and Muslims all defected. Montenegrins did not, and any army in which Serbs are a partner with someone else means that they are all working together for a joint cause. In 1992, I myself fought in Homeland War, so I too for some years ate the propaganda fed to me daily by my superiors and by our government. I was led into believing that I was defending Croatia against Serb nationalizm. What I was told, and later how things actually emerged for me, turned out two totally different things. I don't regret my country being independent, but I don't like to spread lies either. Milosevic and his allies always believed in some kind of Yugoslav federation, even if he wanted to be its sole decision maker. Actual Serb nationalists, never believed in the cause - yhey were in "internal" conflict with Milosevic, but they were not the "dominant" ones. Balkantropolis (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Podgorica Assembly

OK friend, I'll take a look in the afternoon, now I'm at job and can't concentrate normally. Zenanarh (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Language policy of the SFRY

Hi, how much do you know about the language policy? I know that the official language was Serbo-Croatian, but what about Slovenian and Macedonian relative to it? Were they co-official, or just official on a regional level? BalkanFever 08:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This Serbo-Croatian hybrid is wrongly cited: official name of it was "Serbian or Croatian language" or "Croatian or Serbian language" / "Srpski ili Hrvatski jezik" / "Hrvatski ili Srpski jezik". Not "Serbo-Croatian" / "Srpsko-Hrvatski". Serbo-Croatian was vernacular short name of it. Here it became "official" name?! Zenanarh (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The official English name was always Serbo-Croatian. The name "Srpsko-Hrvatski ili Hrvatsko-Srpski jezik" was also used in Yugoslavia. In fact, I own an old dictionary that uses this same term. --DIREKTOR 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to my question ;) what was the status of Macedonian and Slovenian relative to the aforementioned hybrid? BalkanFever 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The second or post-1945 Yugoslavia had three official languages: Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian), Slovenian, and Macedonian. See . AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did they have equal official status throughout the entire country? BalkanFever 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except in the army, which was solely Serbo-Croatian speaking. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Serbia

Thanks for the message. Like you, I hate to get into edit wars with people who have an emotional investment in the subject, on whatever side. Any article on the Balkans is bound to attract controversy, and it's difficult to avoid polemics, which have no place in Misplaced Pages articles.

You raise specific factual issues which I'm not qualified to address. Why don't you post them on the History of Serbia Talk page? Addressing controversy on the Talk page is not the same as an edit war. If assertions in the article are not supported by legitimate citations (not just other's opinions), then of course you should edit the article accordingly. Reverting back to the uncited assertions is vandalism and should be reported. I'm sure you would be supported by the Admins.

As for the article's grading, I don't think the article is A-class. In fact, I say that it "needs more citations truly to qualify for the B-class rating it's been given." I am looking at the article purely as to style and structure, and on this basis I think it could easily be an A-class article, once the citations issue is addressed. Remember, even A-class or Featured articles can still be edited for accuracy. J M Rice (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Editorial style

OK, Rjecina, after this you are now entirely expelled from the "decent editors" list. You are gone. I would have instantly reverted that series of IP edits on the basis of our core policies of NPOV and RS. But you tried to find some vague "editorial policy" to remove the (deeply erroneous) anti fascist edits. You are a POV pro-Croatia lazy warrior. I will look upon your every edit with contempt and revert it.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, calm down. The edits were terrible and they were against editorial style, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Try to assume good faith, and don't throw labels of "not decent" on people. I disagree with Rjecina almost all the time, but this is an overreaction and certainly will not help productive editing in Balkans related areas. AniMate 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate. I don't think that any Holocaust related article has such descriptions like what kind of installation can be made by one, using a knife and a child. Tortures were definitely made by the monsters, but in my eyes, an user who is pushing 15 lines of the text like that one in the article of 30 lines, is nothing better. We should contribute to an encyclopedia and not to the individual's frustration healing private blogs, forums, etc... If we start to edit articles that way, Misplaced Pages will turn to compilation of horror and misery made by the human beings, there will be nothing left to glorify our humanity. 21st century is age of information, that's where Wiki belongs. BTW give some credits to Rjecina, he seems to be lonely fighter vs many agenda missionaries, maybe he's not always right, but I've noticed that in some cases there is a space to support him. There were no white and black sides in WWII, no good and bad boys. Just winners and losers (but no sympathy to Fascism, of course). Ustaše are certainly not something that Croats should be proud of, but it doesn't mean that everything written about them is true and objective. Catholic priests and Catholic church were satanized and persecuted in post WWII Yu, it's not some secret. Hypothetically, an objective contributor writting about that should bear it in mind. There's a lot of bias in the sources. And there is almost no source that is not disputed by another one. Total mess. That's why I refuse to edit 20th century in the Western Balkans, I don't have nerves. I respect anyone who has. It seems Rjecina's bad grammatics is his biggest problem. Maybe all of you contributing to the Balkan WWII thematics should be more friendly to each other, to avoid WWIII ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk: World War II persecution of Serbs

Considering your history with Kirker, your removal of his comments is highly inappropriate. He has a right to voice his opinion, even if he's agreeing with a banned user. I'm concerned this is more about your disagreeing with Kirker rather than an attempt to protect Misplaced Pages from Pax and his sockpuppets. AniMate 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirker's interpretation of edit warring and consensus are irrelevant. You can point that out on the page, but you cannot and should not remove his talk page comments. Simple. If you doubt me, why not go ask an administrator. AniMate 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When posting on administrative boards, new posts always go at the bottom. I moved it for you. AniMate 20:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that says you must remove any posts made by or related to sockpuppets? I've checked out WP:SOCK, WP:TALK, and WP:BLOCK and cannot find anything to support your actions. AniMate 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rjecina. I came to this page just now because there is something I want to say to you that belongs here rather than on the talk page of some article. I found that you already have a discussion going on here, so I am adding my own comment in this section.

Your suggestion that I am part of a group of editors who act together is offensive and demonstrably untrue. For a start, those other people you mention show more tolerance than me and more goodwill. I don't have much time for "being nice" to idiots. (I am not suggesting that you are an idiot, even if you sometimes behave like one :-).) In fact I am far from being a natural Wikipedian. Look at my response to Animate when he took issue with my attitude towards Kubura. Or look at my impatience with DIREKTOR when he was insisting on "puppet state" and I was arguing that "client state" would be less contentious.)

Maybe you think I am unduly pro-Serb, which is how it might look because my work is primarily concerned with one small part of BiH (Kozara and the area between Prijedor, Sanski Most and Banja Luka) at a specific moment in time when Serbs were unquestionably on the receiving end. But one cannot be familiar with Prijedor and the crimes of, for instance, Duško Tadić, without realising that Serbs can be just as capable of dishing it out. I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the more recent history to get involved on Misplaced Pages.

You are fully aware that interest in a specific matter can distort how people perceive you. You face the same problem when you worry that some people will think you are anti-American because of your attitude towards NATO. (An attitude I share, by the way.) But if you still need convincing that I am more concerned with the truth than with any particular agenda, look again at the Pavelić article. You will see that I saw merit even in some of what AP1929 was trying to say.Kirker (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So nobody can question USHMM? Really? To this day members of the museum's board are embarrassed by the extent to which they allowed their agenda to be steered at the outset by the interests of the Clinton administration. So there was no mention of the Uštaša plan to rid NDH of more than 2 million Serbs. And although the Holocaust denier Tudjman was invited to the opening ceremony, no Serbs were invited. It was not till years later that the USHMM acknowledged the events in NDH to be the start of the start of the Holocaust. (The Holocaust was genocide, remember?).

And journalistic sources - even the best of them - will never be the most reliable. Historians will nearly always turn out to be nearer the truth than newspaper reports. (And I say this as a journalist myself.) Your innocent faith in the NYT is touching. But as Norman Finkelstein noted on his website and elsewhere, in one recent year the NYT mentioned Israel several thousand times, and Africa just 35 times. But the NYT DID report (July 1981) that about 3,000 of the 7-8,000 men and youths taken prisoner at Srebrenica made it safely back to muslim territory.

But none of this matters anyway, because you have no right to dictate what sources should be used. And it is simply perverse to suggest that information on websites is always less reliable than information taken from books. The truth is, I suspect, that your bias is showing. You know that what the Ustaša did was genocide yet it seems you will go to any lengths to avoiod saying so.Kirker (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that there are still some Muslims in BiH means that Srebrenica was not genocide? Genocide is the attempt to rid an area of a racial/ethnic group, in whole or in part. In the Srebrenica judgment, ICTY determined that more than 7,000 people were murdered as part of an attempt to remove the group of Muslims (about 40,000) living around Srebrenica. In the villages of Drakulić, Motike,Šargovac, Invanjska and Piskavica on 7 and 12 February 1942, Ustaše murdered all but a handful of ALL the Serbs living in those villages. So you are not doing the Ustaše justice when you say they didn't succeed. A few months later they took away 75,000 people from the hundreds of villages around Kozara (men, women and children, unlike Srebrenica), subsequently killing or starving to death about 45,000 of them. Would they like to hear you calling those efforts another failure? You know that the same sort of thing happened at many other villages. Presumably you are aware of the recorded testimony, for instance, of Artukovićev driver? (I myself have talked at length to Luburićev driver, who lived very close to me here in England.) Also I expect you know how Neubacher reported Pavelićev policy to Hitler, and how Budak explained it. Etc. Etc. Like so many others in your part of the world (on both sides), you claim to be unprejudiced and yet you cannot escape your one-dimensional perspective. I cannot say if I would do any better if I had been born there, but I know that some people do rise above the prejudice.Kirker (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no point arguing about how many Serbs the Ustaša murdered, and how many they expelled. (Both murder and expulsion can contribute to genocide.) It doesn't matter anyway. The fact is that they had a plan to get rid of all of the Serbs, and did their best to implement that plan. Genocide. Period. I notice you have nothing to say about the fact that 99.9 per cent of Serbs were murdered in those five villages between Banja Luka and Prijedor. Genocide again, I'm afraid. Your point about original research is just stupid. Where the facts are not in dispute, we are entitled, even here at Misplaced Pages, to apply appropriate terminology to those facts. For instance "murder" and "murderous" are widely used in Misplaced Pages articles and no-one dismisses the use of such terms as OR. (Or perhaps you do?) So why upset yourself when "genocide" is used? It has a more precise definition than "murder," and unlike "murder" its meaning does not change from one country to another according to national laws.

It is ridiculous to say that all countries have committed genocide, but certainly many have done so. Even if they all have, why would that prevent us applying the term to the Ustaša?

If you do nothing else, would you please tell me what makes you think that one or both of my parents was born in Yugoslavia? Have I ever said anything to make you think that? Kirker (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say you are a historian, I suppose you mean in your own opinion. Please don't tell me that anyone pays you for such shoddy work and thinking.

As always, your narrow, inbred perspective leads you to evade the central points. For instance the fact that the entire Serb populations of five villages were murdered cannot be undone by quoting the present-day demographics of Banja Luka. (What's that got to do with it anyway? Two of those villages are not even in the Banja Luka municipality.) Again whatever happened or did not happen in Foča has no bearing on the simple question of whether genocide occurred in NDH. If you want to point out that Četniks murdered Muslims by the thousand elsewhere in NDH, do so in the proper place by all means. But again it has no bearing on what happened in those villages between Banja Luka and Prijedor in February 1942 and in hundreds of other villages on Kozara later that year.

What lay behind that bitter remark "nice, really nice" which you put on my page a while ago? You may remember you have been accusing me of sockpuppetry and other such nonsense, so I am rather surprised you were expecting tender loving care from me.

what little thing upset you, exactly?

You have said in advance that you will not trust whatever I tell you about my family situation, but I will tell you anyway. If it makes one or two people see what an idiot you are, the effort won't have been wasted.

I was born in the UK and until the time of John Paul II's second visit to Zagreb (by which time I was well into my 50s) I knew very little about the Balkans. But I've been interested in genocide for many years and have done some work for a world-respected genocide research institute (www.aegistrust.org) near my home in the English Midlands, which grew out of Britain's first holocaust education centre and museum. My mother's grandparents and ancestors as far back as about 1750 were farmworkers in the northwest of England. We don't know anything about them before that, so you are probably right. They must have emigrated from the Balkans. My father, who has probably never heard of Yugoslavia, was born in New Zealand and returned there around 1980 and since then I have had no contact with him. We know very little about his family except that his grandfather emigrated from Scotland (within the UK) to NZ. But yes, you're right, his mother's family must have come from the Balkans. You know my full name, so you should have no difficulty researching all this a bit more deeply, since it is obviously important for you.

No apology expected. I class you with Kubura in that respect. In any case, how could a self-styled historian possibly be wrong? One lsat thought: could your parents be Croats by any chance? Just a wild hunch, LOL Kirker (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

Be advised to avoid vandalizing this and other Misplaced Pages articles!--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)