| Revision as of 23:34, 5 September 2008 editKirker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users526 edits →Talk: World War II persecution of Serbs← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:06, 26 November 2017 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →Women in Red World Contest: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (223 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| <!--Template:Archivebox--> | <!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| <br clear="all"> | <br clear="all"> | ||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| ==Comment on reverts== | |||
| Just welcoming you back to wikipedia. Regards, ] (]) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]). You don't need my permission to remove comments from your talkpage, you can do that whenever you want. Regards. ] (]) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks --] (]) 18:56, 29 March 2010 (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 ], ] 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. ] (]) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== yo yo == | ||
| Pozdravljajus. :) (] (]) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)). | |||
| Ok, but an RfC would make more sense. That's standard in these kind of disputes. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| == Re == | |||
| ] A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please ], as well as our subject-specific ]. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the ]. | |||
| If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that they ] the page or have a copy emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The latest sock doing the same edit as the previous ones confirmed before . ] (]) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Re-blocked == | ||
| Rjecina, when you were banned last year (]), the community consensus was actually for an indefinite ban. I went out on a limb in your favour when I chose to implement the ban decision merely through a one-year block , giving you a chance to come back. However, that was of course linked with the expectation that you would change your editing if you chose to come back. You would of course also still be under all the editing restrictions that were imposed on you prior to your ban. | |||
| ...is only intended for persistent vandals. Reports about sockpuppets are better placed at ], 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. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 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 ] have you create a subpage, which then can contain evidence from multiple cases. At ], reports are immediately removed once the account is blocked, and become very difficult to find for later review. Hope this helps some. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The correct venue for sockpuppetry is ]. 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. ] is generally for severe and persistent vandalism that doesn't seem related to anything else, and ] 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. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately, seeing the (few) edits you have made since returning, there is no improvement at all. You are right back with the same disruptive pattern. Making an unexplained POV edit on ''exactly'' the same issue you were blocked over last year , as the first thing on expiry of your block. Again no meaningful edit summary. Again in broken English, and no visible effort to get your grammar right at last. And then this incomprehensible rant on a talk page. | |||
| == Checkuser == | |||
| Unfortunately, this leaves me no hope you will become a constructive contributor yet. On the basis of the ban decision from last year, which is still valid, I am therefore re-blocking you. This time it's indef. If you want to return, you will first have some explaining to do about how you plan to improve your editing. ] ] 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Rjecina.<br> | |||
| :It is possible that we are having small mistake with this ban4life ? | |||
| I don't know if you have you asked CU's services regarding this case, but I think I've found something interesting.<br> | |||
| :My thinking is that edit summary (bye) has been OK, because that is my last edit on english wikipedia. | |||
| Recently, you've disguised a sockpuppeteer. I've been browsing some of edits of those sockpuppets, and I've found strange coincidence.<br> | |||
| :About my broken english it is possible only to say that interwiki spammer has accepted my incomprehensible rant and ended his spamming on sh wikipedia. You can read his statement:"Rijecina2: Don´t worry this will notbe a wiki problem. This discussion will help solve existing problems" . Example of July spamiming on sh wikipedia you can look in this . | |||
| Remember banned ] (banned 22 Nov 2007} and his interest for the article ]? Here's his case ]. <br> | |||
| :When this Juli it has become clear that I will become administrator on sh wikipedia I have started to write warnings on others wikipedia about interwiki spam or vandal problems (interwiki warning example on bosnian wiki from and I will continue to do this in the future. For me it is hard to imagine that this is disruptive conduct or that administrators (which I am on sh wiki) on other wiki must know good english to write interwiki warning on english wikipedia ? | |||
| See edit history of that article.<br> | |||
| :My proposition is to change definition of this ban4life in: | |||
| Take a look who else showed interest.<br> | |||
| :"Requested by the user on sh.wikipedia as an unwanted SUL local account" | |||
| User Kirker (currently, you have talk with him on article about Miroslav Filipović).<br> | |||
| :and remove ban4life from user:Rjecina2 on english wikipedia so that I can contact administrators or vandals on english wiki about "small" interwiki problems on sh wiki which have started on english wiki--] (]) 09:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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?<br> | |||
| Who else edited that article? Recent 50 edits:<br> | |||
| User Kirker appeared 10 Dec 2007. <br> | |||
| ]. See vandal revert (17:03, 18 December 2007).<br> | |||
| ] (14:33, 18 December 2007) See comment on revert. . ] (]) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Reasons are writen on 23 August 2010, but Future Perfect is not responding (even on emails...). I can now add new reasons (meta, interwiki problems with sh wiki), but I do not see reasons. This account will be active (or user:Rjecina2) only for interwiki problems between english and sh wikipedia|decline=sh.WP will just have to find someone else to deal with interwiki issues, this reasoning does not adequately address the reasons for your block ''here''. Being an admin on another project is in no way a free pass to do anything in particular here, and there is no good reason to unblock your alternate account as it is still you, and there was in fact strong support for a ban at ANI. I suggest that if you want to pursue this further you contact ] by email. ] (]) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| : I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page. ] (]) 23:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I am blocked because of "disruptive conduct has resumed". Is the writing warnings to wikipedia users to end the interwiki vandalism on sh Misplaced Pages Disruptive conduct? If answer is yes then I am guilty, because this is reason behind ban (my only edit between april and september)|decline=And that shows you really don't get why you were blocked and why your behaviour is a problem here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] ] 16:10, 27 October 2013 (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.] (]) 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Europe 10,000 Challenge invite == | |||
| First edit and already threatning?<br> | |||
| Oh, is this you, Pax? and . ] (]) 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. The ] has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland ]. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like ]. For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like ], sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --] (]) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| And those Marcellogo's ("good" and the "bad" one). Same area of interest, Pax. ] (]) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao/sandbox&oldid=748363836 --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Speedy Peter == | |||
| Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! | |||
| I responded on the article's talk page to your question about who finished second in the killing competition. ] (]) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_2&oldid=812113507 --> | |||
| ==Proposed deletion of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Krajina and rebels == | |||
| I've tried to fix the ] 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. ] (]) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re == | |||
| ok, ok... won't touch the articles :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of Rijeka terror attack== | |||
| ]I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. 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. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Category speedy tagging == | |||
| Hi Rjecina. No reason was given for deletion; see ]. The category wasn't empty so I was unsure as to the rationale. Best, ] ] 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Another one for you. ] (]) 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." :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 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 ] 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? ] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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?] (]) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For amazing diligence in combating sock vandalism, I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Rjecina, you cooked up nice octopussy with the potatoes under'' peka''. ] (]) 12:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Probably... == | |||
| ...another one ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ''']]'''<sup>]</sup> 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?! ] (]) 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. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Back to my question ;) what was the status of Macedonian and Slovenian relative to the aforementioned hybrid? ''']]'''<sup>]</sup> 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 . ] (]) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did they have equal official status throughout the entire country? ''']]'''<sup>]</sup> 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, except in the army, which was solely Serbo-Croatian speaking. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Alasdair, calm down. The edits were terrible and they were against editorial style, ], and ]. Try to ], 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. ]]] 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 ;) ] (]) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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. ]]] 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. ]]] 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::When posting on administrative boards, new posts always go at the bottom. I moved it for you. ]]] 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 ], ], and ] and cannot find anything to support your actions. ]]] 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] (]) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Magnum Crimen == | |||
| ] Be advised to avoid vandalizing this and other Misplaced Pages articles!--] (]) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:06, 26 November 2017
|
Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you. |
|
Welcome back
Just welcoming you back to wikipedia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
yo yo
Pozdravljajus. :) (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).
Speedy deletion nomination of Glenn Henry
A tag has been placed on Glenn Henry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Zhernovoi (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Re-blocked
Rjecina, when you were banned last year (here), the community consensus was actually for an indefinite ban. I went out on a limb in your favour when I chose to implement the ban decision merely through a one-year block , giving you a chance to come back. However, that was of course linked with the expectation that you would change your editing if you chose to come back. You would of course also still be under all the editing restrictions that were imposed on you prior to your ban.
Unfortunately, seeing the (few) edits you have made since returning, there is no improvement at all. You are right back with the same disruptive pattern. Making an unexplained POV edit on exactly the same issue you were blocked over last year , as the first thing on expiry of your block. Again no meaningful edit summary. Again in broken English, and no visible effort to get your grammar right at last. And then this incomprehensible rant on a talk page.
Unfortunately, this leaves me no hope you will become a constructive contributor yet. On the basis of the ban decision from last year, which is still valid, I am therefore re-blocking you. This time it's indef. If you want to return, you will first have some explaining to do about how you plan to improve your editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that we are having small mistake with this ban4life ?
- My thinking is that this edit summary (bye) has been OK, because that is my last edit on english wikipedia.
- About my broken english it is possible only to say that interwiki spammer has accepted my incomprehensible rant and ended his spamming on sh wikipedia. You can read his statement:"Rijecina2: Don´t worry this will notbe a wiki problem. This discussion will help solve existing problems" . Example of July spamiming on sh wikipedia you can look in this link.
- When this Juli it has become clear that I will become administrator on sh wikipedia I have started to write warnings on others wikipedia about interwiki spam or vandal problems (interwiki warning example on bosnian wiki from 9 August and I will continue to do this in the future. For me it is hard to imagine that this is disruptive conduct or that administrators (which I am on sh wiki) on other wiki must know good english to write interwiki warning on english wikipedia ?
- My proposition is to change definition of this ban4life in:
- "Requested by the user on sh.wikipedia as an unwanted SUL local account"
- and remove ban4life from user:Rjecina2 on english wikipedia so that I can contact administrators or vandals on english wiki about "small" interwiki problems on sh wiki which have started on english wiki--Rjecina (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Rjecina (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reasons are writen on 23 August 2010, but Future Perfect is not responding (even on emails...). I can now add new reasons (meta, interwiki problems with sh wiki), but I do not see reasons. This account will be active (or user:Rjecina2) only for interwiki problems between english and sh wikipedia
Decline reason:
sh.WP will just have to find someone else to deal with interwiki issues, this reasoning does not adequately address the reasons for your block here. Being an admin on another project is in no way a free pass to do anything in particular here, and there is no good reason to unblock your alternate account as it is still you, and there was in fact strong support for a ban at ANI. I suggest that if you want to pursue this further you contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Rjecina (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am blocked because of "disruptive conduct has resumed". Is the writing warnings to wikipedia users to end the interwiki vandalism on sh Misplaced Pages Disruptive conduct? If answer is yes then I am guilty, because this is reason behind ban (my only edit between april and september)
Decline reason:
And that shows you really don't get why you were blocked and why your behaviour is a problem here. Spartaz 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nomination of Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Misplaced Pages:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Misplaced Pages:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!