User talk:Osli73

Welcome all! Please feel free to leave comments on my Talk page, especially since I edit a lot of very controversial and sensitive articles. First, though, a couple of guidelines which I would appreciate if you could read through first:

1. Stay civil
2. If you are responding to a comment made by me, please do so where I made it
3. Please sign your entries

moved to talk page

I would suggest you stop making nonsensical and biased edits on the article on the Bosnian War, many people have worked hard on it and you can not remove sections no matter how bad you like them or how bad it makes your country look. Considering an overwhelming amount of people supports our version of the article we have no problem going to ArbCom considering they judge in favor of majority. An administrator will block you from further edits if you do not seize with unhelpfull edits. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Vandalism if any of this is not clear to you. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to Google your nick to know that you do NOT have a NPOV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.48.2 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to warn you to stop reverting articles as you did in Bosnian war and Bosnian genocide articles (3RR). You inserted the term Bosnian Mujahideen in the section which already contained information about Mujahideen. Next time I will star request for comment, and with your block log I have pretty good chance. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Additionally, I noticed your questions in Kosovo war talk page, and for the sake of having others read through it, I will post my opinion there. Thanks for showing interest. Ilir pz 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major dialect groups, the Ghegs, to the north of the Shkumbin River, and the Tosks, to the south. Kosovar Albanians are Ghegs. The Ghegs, who make up two-thirds of Albanians, are less intermarried with non-Albanians than the Tosks, who throughout history were more often subjected to foreign rule and other foreign influences. In the past, the Ghegs were organized in clans and the Tosks in a semifeudal society. Before World War II the Ghegs dominated Albanian politics, but after the war many Tosks came to power because the new Communist government drew most of its support from Tosks

It loocks that is not dialect? the Ghegs were organized in clans and the Tosks in a semifeudal society or you meam the north and west beacose the line at Shkumbim is not a strict line. Only a know that in north Albanian (Montenegro, Kosovo) was organisedit in clans, but in Macedonien (they are gege too) hey was ogranisedet not in clans? The gege dialec hase more spoked wariants nothing eles. You can not seperet in gege and tosk the cultur, politic ... the only differe is that the tosk dialect is more uninificat that gege dialect nothing eles. The officel langege is not tosk but, beacose that tosk dialect was more unificatet they have taket the sistem from tosk dialect.

Please don't make use of misleading edit summaries, and inappropriate use of the "minor edit" box, especially on articles as well-known to be controversial as Kosovo. Alai 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is your personal view (opinion) and has nothing to do with Enciklopedi.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witch is the alfabet (leters) of Tosks dialect? (see tradicional greece and arvanitas)--Hipi Zhdripi 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi, I've sourced this information from The Encyclopeda Britannica [2] the Albanian site Albinfo.com [3] and the Minnesota State University site (emuseum) on world cultures [4]. What is it you object to?Osli73 07:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you expressed your opinion about the definition of Kosovo's status, in Kosovo page. Calling it a province in the central Balkans describes best what its situation is. One, it is descriptive, it shows its status and location in the region. Two, it does not predict its status. It might be easy just like that for you to call it a province of Serbia, but to someone it might be offensive...due to many many reasons, which you may know as well. Regards, ilir_pz 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, I realize that the future status of Kosovo is yet to be determined. However, what I wanted to describe in the Kosovo article is its de facto current status. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, although under UN administration. Negotiations about its status are ongoing. If it might be offensive to some to state the obvious doesn't seem to be pertinent. Just saying that it's "a province in the cental Balkans" doesn't answer the question, "province of what". Better to say it like it is. There's no politics in that.Osli73 12:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be "of something" ? Kosovo according to its constitutional framework is a compact entity under UN administration. In my travellign docouments, in the part where country should be specified it says "territory under interim UN administration". Where is the problem with my definition? ilir_pz 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to browse throug Constitutional Framework and tell me where it says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia? I will cite in the document point 1.1. "1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." This document is approved by all the international community, and is the document with the highest value there. ilir_pz 13:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, internationally and by the UN, Kosovo is recognized as an autonomous province of Serbia administered by the UN. Resolution 1244 defines Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the internationally recognized successor state. For example, consider the wording of this [5] Security Council press release on Kosovo. It reads "....Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro)". In western media Kosovo is also described as a province of Serbia run by the UN. I don't see why this is so controversial for you.

Just because the Kosovo Albanian provisional government has produced a Constitutional Framework and issued travel documents which don't mention Serbia/Yugoslavia doensn't change the fact.

Finally, I sincerely hope Kosovo is granted independence by the end of the year. However, I don't believe in bending the truth for the sake of politics. As you seem to want to do.Osli73 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The constitutional framework and travel documents were prepared by the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, Osli73. You do not know even this? ilir_pz 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making me cite the constitutional framework now: "CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROVISIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT UNMIK/REG/2001/9 - 15 May 2001 " and the travel documents UNMIK issued documents. What part of this was prepared by the Kosovo's government (which by the way is not only Albanian)ilir_pz 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, no, I'm not familiar with the travel documents issued by UNMIK, which may not explicitly state that Kosovo is officially a part of Serbia. UNMIK may have had their reasons for this. However, in all international organizations (or weight), such as the IMF, World Bank, the UN, WTO, etc, Kosovo is treated as a part of Serbia. Look at the map of the Balkans in any atlas (western, reputable) issued in western Europe and you will see Kosovo identified as a province of Serbia. Saying something else, because you want it to be so, is just silly.Osli73 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling me silly because I cite UN documents, which I even quoted for you? That is nice of you. Remember, I did not compile those documents, no matter what the reasons were behind them.ilir_pz 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is identified as a part of Serbia in just about any map you can find. [[6]] The UN resolution 1244 identifies it as part of Yugoslavia (of which Serbia is the successor state). Finally, we can all agree that Kosovo is seeking independence. Obviously it is seeking independence from Serbia. Why is this so controversial?

Heissan, You still did not answer what was silly in my wording above. Kosovo is seeking formal recognition of its de-facto status, and is negotiating with the international community to ratify that. The latter even said that with or without Serbian government's consent. It is clear as a crystal. ilir_pz 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still use the word silly too much as in the last example [7] and even send threats that you intend to do something to let those "who don't accept the facts (you think are ok) get upset.". Consider discussing more. Shows more maturity. Then changing what YOU think is correct, and intentionally attempt to upset people. It is more polite to discuss. ilir_pz 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, I'm not trying to intentionally upset you (or anyone else). However, I'm saying that if you (or others) are upset by facts (recognized by all foreign governments) which are not in line with your POV, then this is lamentable, but doesn't change anything.Osli73 10:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, yet again, I tell you which facts are recognized by foreign government, and are the most imporant documents in Kosovo, 1244 resolution and its constitutional framework. You don't want to browse through them, do you? The compromise can be found in the resolution 1244, where it is clearly stated that Kosovo will be formally considered as a part of FRY, and the UN interim admin there will lead the process to define its status (hint: there is no status until then). Osli73, referring to non-partisan organisations resarch groups and several old maps is trying to impose his NPOV on an article, and at the same time refusing to quote the documents with the highest importance in Kosovo, 1244 Resolution and Kosovo's [www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm Constitutional Framework]. Ignoring these two important documents, and instead referring to sites of convenience to NPOV push is not appreciated in Wikipedia. Furthermore, no need to accuse Kosovar Albanian wikipedians, for inisting in these internationally recognized, and most important documents valid in Kosovo as of now. Why do you refuse to consider these two documents? Regards, ilir_pz 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, UNSCR 1244 confirmed that Kosovo was to remain a part of FRY. As such, it was a province of Serbia. When FRY was replaced by SCG Kosovo continued being a province of Serbia. And when SCG break up and each republic goes it alone, Kosovo will remain a province of Serbia.¨

Telling Wikipedia's readers that Kosovo is a part of FRY/SCG rather than a province of Serbia is comparable to describing Catalonia as a part of the EU and not mentioning anything about it being a province of Spain. Osli73 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just amazed at your pushy NPOV, and intensive research done, and looking at your edits, maybe more than 80% are only related to Kosovo, and what?!? ONLY to that part, "Kosovo is a part of Serbia" sentence. As much as suspicious, I am also surprised why would someone being (I must say allegedly) Swedish, care so much. Never mind, good luck with your pushy edits. Not going to tell you you are wrong either, it is up to you to decide what sources you want to use, and how you interprete them. Hope they serve your aim well. Not going to discuss this issue with you further. ilir_pz 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir,

1. I realize you feel that the Kosovo article should be left to the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs. I feel this would be the worst solution, since this turns the articles into tools for pushing (nationalist) political views.

2. Why do you not believe I am Swedish? Because I'm interested in a issue of great importance for Europe, the continent where I live? I'm Swedish, my parents are Swedish and my ancestors are Swedish, so please stop implying that I'm some kind of under cover Serb just because I don't agree with you.

3. Denying that Kosovo is a province of Serbia is an example of how Wikipedia is used to push political views rather than facts. That's why I'm interested. How come it's so important for you to deny that Kosovo is a province of Serbia? Osli73 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree fully with your first point. Second point is doubtful to me, as you seem to be far pushy from a neutral editor. Sorry if that is not the case, it just gives a wrong impression. I always appreciated non-Balkans editors, helping bring neutrality (not insisting on a single point, which clearly is controversial and feeds nationalistic feelings). With third point, I disagree fully again. It is important to me to cite documents, not keep the side of any. If I were to keep my side and push it in Wikipedia, I would say Kosovo is independent, as its people voted for it more than a decade ago. But that is not my mission here. ~You seem to misinterprete my intentions very well. ilir_pz 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir, firstly, do you mean to say that you think the ex Yugo pages should be left to the ex Yugos?

Second point, I'm pushy because after spending a year in Poland with students from all over Eastern (and Western) Europe I'm allergic to the petty nationalism which is is so rife throughout E Europe (never ending listing of atrocities and wrongs committed against the own ethnic group while downplaying those committed against other; claiming that ones own ethnic group somehow has exclusive rights to "ancient homelands"; defining yourself as European and your neighbours as less European; a generally just arguing about the past instead of looking towards the future). So, sorry if things like trying to (in my mind) twist the status of Kosovo to fit ones own political views gets me going. I just think it would be so much more mature if Kosovar Albanians could write "Kosovo is technically still a province of Serbia, although currently under UN administration" and if Serbs could say "ongoing discussion on the future status of Kosovo are likely to result in conditional independence". Why not try to let a Serb write on Serbian crimes against Albanians while you write about Kosovo Albanian crimes against Serbs? Osli73 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not read my messages fully. I said just above "I always appreciated non-Balkans editors". How clearer can I say it. You can have your reasons for showing interest in exactly in the Kosovo article, but that does not justify you to be pushy. Being pushy is not a good thing in general, but especially not in Wikipedia, where you cannot really control that, and will just inspire a revert war...as it happened recently. Instead learn to agree to disagree, it helps. I know what would have been more mature, but do not ask an Albanian to say they are living in a province of Serbia. Having in mind what we went through several decades, it is not polite of you to ask them to say that. About the part where Serbs should be mature about, well, the term here is "realistic", as after all that happened they do not have to be mature to understand that Kosovo will become independent. On your last question, I really do not know why you ask me that? When did I prevent someone from writing any kind of crimes, as long as they are backed by credible sources? can you give me one example, and THEN ask me that question.Thank you, ilir_pz 10:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure presidents from 1989 to 1999 should be added as presidents. During that time apartheid existed in Kosovo, so they were not legitimate presidents. Besides, they were not called presidents, but something like "the head of the committee" or something. The first time Kosovo had a president was after 1999, with Ibrahim Rugova being the first. ilir_pz 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I agree with you. However, which aparheid are you referring to?Osli73 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eversince Milosevic took over the control over Kosovo, abolished its autonomy, and installed a brutal military regime, until ending that in the most brutal way in 1999. That cannot be described in any other word. About the presidents, you might want to reconsider then. ilir_pz 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the pre-1999 presidents. To me Kosovar society seems just as segregated and marred by intercomunal violence as before. Just that the boot is on the other foot. If foreign soldiers weren't keeping order, things would definately be back to the same old ways. Don't you think?Osli73 08:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The foreign soldiers need to stay for some time, I agree, as there is a wide gap, and a lot of mistrust in each other between communities. And no, this is not due to the war in 1999. The mistrust has been building up for centuries, and generations. You cannot expect miracles in 7 years, can you? You still hear messages of hatred of Polish for Germans, or Dutch or French jokes about Germans...and what? the war ended 60 years ago. Time will heal wounds, but not as fast as some foreigners want it to happen. ilir_pz 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Albanians and Serbs could stick to just making jokes about each other (like people do in W Europe) that would be a huge improvement. But, you're right, it's not likely to happen that fast. Certainly not after 7 years. However, the 'healing process' isn't likely to go any faster by both sides constantly listing the atrocities and wrongs committed by the other. But I guess it is a question of mentality that is very difficult to change. That's why I think it's a good idea for these two people to live apart in their own separate countries, just like CG and Serbia.

Let us hope the time of "just making jokes" is close. But listing atrocities is actual right now, as there are thousands missing, and wounds are far from being healed. Justice should be provided to innocent victims. Only then can the real healing, or better to put it "forgiving but not forgetting" process. The mentality to change, that will take much longer. Hopefully the new generations will one day, as the old ones still live in myths. That is is a good idea for Kosovo to be independent, we knew that a long time ago. But division in ethnic lines, besides being impossible as Sers do not live in a compact area in Kosovo, it may also have a chain effect. At least the Contact Group does not support this idea at all. Were you thinking smth like this when saying "these two people to live apart" ?ilir_pz 09:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and when you edit Kosovo article please make sure you do not blank out major parts of the text, like you did in your last revert, you took off Economy, Demographics and some parts on other culture heritage damaged during the war in Kosovo. It can happen, but pay more attention next time. Thanks in advance, ilir_pz 09:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least discuss why you are removing external links from Kosovo war article? trying to heal the hatred or...? Explanation, in the comments line, or in the talk page is always appreciated, to justify your edits. ilir_pz 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (1) there were too many links to be genuinely useful; (2) some were a bit too specific and (3) a lot of them were quite partisan and more about POV pushing. I understand the logic for discussing big changes, but not for making corrections or general clean-up. Otherwise you'll end up with very long but very poorly edited articles.Osli73 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovo war article is highley slanted towards Serbs, and will have to change soon.Ferick 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you reach an agreement on the wording of the intro for the Kosovo article, make sure this is implemented too for the template above. I will unwatch the article from now on. Good luck with your mediation attempt (I have been there before). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once (if ever) we agree to a wording I'll try to implement it on other Kosovo/Serbia related articles as well. I'm quite a new on Wikipedia and must say it doesn't feel good to have to compromise about the facts (especially with people who are editing pages where they openly state that they have a very specific political agenda/opinion). Osli73 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. I have practically given up on the matter myself. This is even more worrying when you compare it with any other respectable encyclopaedia, as I quoted in the Talk:Kosovo page. Have a nice day, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osli73, I have had contact with User:Ilir pz and he has agreed to have a vote on the introduction of the Kosovo article (and the Template: Kosovo description. The exact terms still have to be agreed, but I suggested (and he agreed) that any introduction should at least include the following: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia, SCG or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. If this is ok with you, do you think you and User: Asterion can come up with a version of the introduction to the article in a couple of days to include in the vote? Any other comments are ofcourse also more then welcome. Let me know your opinion on this matter, best regards Cpt. Morgan 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinoutr, in principle I'm against voting about facts (e.g. let's have a vote on Creationism vs Darwin). In addition, I don't see that it should be a controversial issue, "Kosovo is, technically, a province of Serbia, presently administered by the UN (on the basis of under SCR 1244)."

Ilir has one interpretation of UNSCR 1244 (that Kosovo is part of FRY and has nothing to do with Serbia, since it's not mentioned in the text), everyone else, including the US State Department, CIA Factbook, EU Commission, United Nationa, Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC, Encarta and Wikipedia interpret UNSCR 1244 as saying that Kosovo is a province of Serbia (which at the time was one of the constituent parts of FRY but is, soon, an independent country).

If the majority vote for a formulation denying that Kosovo is a province of/in Serbia I will accept it, but I can't respect it.Osli73 19:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion we are not voting about facts, but about how to formulate them. It is evident that the results with be dissappointing for some. We should find some way out of this deadlock, however. The current article on Kosovo is already outdated (dissolvement of SCR is not included), so we should find a way to reach a solution here. If you see another way, let me know, but I am afraid that by only discussion we will never reach a compromise here. So the alternatives are voting, or the rigorous, unfavorable way of arbitration. Also, Ilir also agreed that the subheading politics of the article will be changed to have a more extensive description, which can include both views. This is only about the introductory paragraph. Cpt. Morgan 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt. Morgan, I believe that this is one of the reasons why Wikipedia sometimes comes out badly compared to traditional encyclopedias - compromises or even all out capitulations are made to people/groups using Wikipedia to push their own political agendas or views.

I realize that, for his own political reasons, Ilir and a lot of other Kosovar Albanians do not want to be associated with Serbia and would prefer to see it as being in a legal limbo following the dissolution of FRY. I've already given the arguments and evidence for why I believe it is 100% clear and undisputed that Kosovo is, technically, a province of Serbia. However, my suggestion for a compromise is:

"Kosovo is, technically, a province in Serbia. However, since 1999 it is administered by the United Nations (based on Security Council Resolution 1244)."

If someone wishes, we can add, after SCR 1244: "..., referring to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)." Notice that I suggest "in" rather than "of", implying geographical location rather than sovereignty. That should placate those who wish to downplay the connection with Serbia.

Other than that I support having a separate section discussing the different views/interpretations of the current status of the province. Please see the Tibet article as an example. Osli73 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osly, as I have stated before I do understand your concerns and there is no need to convince me with the arguments. I have no opinion on the matter and I am only trying to resolve this dispute. The link to Tibet is interesting, because there a similar dispute is at hand. With regard to Wikipedia, reaching consensus on a topic is an official guideline and indeed means some articles will be compromises between different versions. It does not necessarily make Wikipedia worse than other encyclopedias, but it does make it different. With regard to Kosovo, I would like to know if you will respect (meaning you will not revert) a version reached by a supermajority in a poll and if so, if you are interested in supplying (together with User: Asterion) one of the two options to choose from? If you will not respect a poll, I will refrain from setting it up, because there will be no use in doing it. If you will respect a solution, but have no interest in setting up the poll with us, Asterion will supply the version alone. Let me know how you feel, Cpt. Morgan 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new version was proposed by an Adminstrator (TheTom) on the Kosovo talk page, perhaps you can have a look? Cpt. Morgan 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinoutr, I will respect the outcome in the sense that I will not revert it. Yes. Osli73 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli, What do you think of this? (Feel free to edit it, it is mainly based on your suggestion but I played a little with it)

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), it was placed under United Nations temporary administration. Currently the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[1]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion, I think it covers just about all the bases. I have two comments:

• it might be worthwhile to include some kind of reference as to how Kosovo came to be run by the UN (Kosovo war or NATO occupation in 1999), otherwise an unknowledgeable reader might not understand the context of the UN administration
• Kosovo is run first and foremost by UNMIK, which in turn has devolved certain powers to the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government.

This is my alternative suggestion:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following occupation by NATO forces in 1999 Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[2]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Osli73 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to all your changes but I would change the text to read "Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo...". E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion, I agree with your proposed change in wording. So, are we happy with the following suggested wording:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999 Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[3]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

If you're happy with this version, can you take it to the peson running the vote? Osli73 11:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I will do. Thanks a lot, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Live Forever has reported you for a violation of wikipedias Three revert rule on the above-mentioned page. Please familiarise yourself with that rule and ensure you comply with it at all times. This is just a polite reminder of the rule, but further transgressions may result in your account being blocked. Please discuss disagreements on the talk page rather than edit-warring over them. Kcordina ^Talk 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is User:Live Forever which is reverting the article instead of contributing to it. I have invited him/her to discuss the contents and the wording of the article. I'm open for new information and sources. Instead User:Live Forever has claimed it is all propaganda (without supplying and sources) and deleted it all. I'm trying to be constructive, User:Live Forever is not. I'm sorry if I feel a need to repair his/her vandalism. Osli73 11:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Two common rules of courtesy: (1) please direct questions or comments to me, don't make general comments here; (2) please sign any comments on this talk page]Osli73 07:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote to me: “Please don't make general statements on my talk page, direct questions or comments to me.” According to the rules I can both comment and ask questions. You do not need to answer since I will not be activ here at Wikipedia. --Noah30 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - yes; questions - yes; insults - no. Hipi, I see that you've been banned before. I guess this is the reason why. Please, stay civil and curteous.Osli73 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been banned here. I have been here for only two weeks. Now you are insulting me...--Noah30 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli73. Could you please go here and write what you think about moving the page "Bosniaks" to "Bosniak people". Most other articles about ethnic groups follow that convention so I feel like it'd be a good move to make. Live Forever 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osli, regarding the discussions we had over the past few weeks and in view of the compromises that we tried to make, I would like to ask you one final time if perhaps you can agree with the current article version of the introduction of Kosovo. There certainly are things you would like to see changed, but you have to ask yourself if they are worth starting another revert war over. Alternatively, a vote or other solution might lead to an introduction that is even further away from what you would like it to be. Looking back at the discussions and compromises I must say that the current version is very close to a good compromise. This article is currently one of the articles on Wikipedia that has been protected for the longest time (Wikipedia:List of protected pages) and even was mentioned on some websites as an example related to the recent NY Times article[8]. Also, people have been wanting to add other information to this articles a number of times (See the talk archive). So, look at the article with a cool head, think of all the discussions and arguments you've heard and if you think we could lift the block without a revert war starting again, please let me know.

P.S. This message was posted at the pages of all people involved that are still active on Wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr), I am not happy with the current wording of the introduction. I have been willing to go with a number of the compromise versions put forward and have worked with several other editors to put forward suggestions. I have asked several times for us to go ahead either with a vote or with one of the compromise versions.

Please see the latest compromise version put forward by ChrisO. In short, it focuses less on legal issues and UNSC resolutions and more on geography and population. I made som small adjustments to it (wording). Why not just go with this and if some editors are unhappy with this because it runs counter to their political beliefs, then that is unfortunate.

The only solution is to have a proper vote (finite time span, etc.) on this compromise version. What do you think about (1) the version proposed by ChrisO and (2) having a vote on it?Osli73 08:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osli, I certainly would like to see this protection ended. The version by ChrisO sounds good to me. Also your adaption is mostly fine, except that you removed the other province of Serbia. It kinda liked that part of ChrisO's version, because it puts the relation between Kosovo and Serbia in a broader perspective. Perhaps you are willing to put that back? A vote could be a final way out of this, but any compromise is always preferred in my opinion. Especially since we now have a fresh version proposed. I suggest you also ask ChrisO's opinion on this matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinoutr, I have nothing against putting back the reference to Vojvodina (the other province). I just thought

1. it could be sensitive (especially to some Kosovar Albanians) to compare the status of Kosovo to that of Vojvodina and
2. that it didn't really add any information about Kosovo as such (as opposed to the Republic of Serbia).

However, as I said, I'm fine with keeping it in if it will help move the process forward (to unprotecting the article). Osli73 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osli, thanks for putting it back. Maybe you are right that it is a sensitive issue, so in that case we would be better off without it. But I liked it in the sense that it made the first sentence more descriptive and detailed. Also, it keeps the text closer to the fresh version by ChrisO, hopefully that helps a bit in keeping people cool about this issue. But lets see what comments arise from the other parties on this last version (although they have been very quiet lately). I am afraid this might still take a while to get completed. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

"Serbs think they are unfairly picked on by the West; Croats feel they are unfairly portrayed as Neo-Nazis; Bosniaks continue to cultivate their victim status from the Bosnian War and Kosovar Albanians can't think straight whenever they hear the word "Serb"."

I one sentence you have succsessfully portrayed the term "Balkanization". --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So simply said - yet so horrific in truth. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Osli73, desamma måste jag säga. Blev glatt överraskad när jag såg att du också kom från Sverige och dessutom precis som jag norr om Stockholm. :) Vilken förort är du ifrån? Jag är ifrån Märsta. Som sagt kul att du oxå intresserar dig för Balkan. Har du läst något på universitet rörande ämnet? Ja tyvärr har jag kämpat länge mot Ilir och hans allierade för att hålla Kosovo sidan desstomer neutral. Du anar inte vilket jobb jag hade det i början då sidan var i ett katastrofalt underhåll och jag var ensam om att försöka driva den framåt från den pro-albanska stagnation den hamnat i. Kul att fler angagerar sig nu och jag är glad att vi är flera nu som orkar beskyddda den. Det är klart att den ska respekteras. Jag anser mig relativt passiv på Kosovo sidan numera men jag angagerar mig så mycket jag kan när jag ser att det spårar ur. Finns det flera områden angående Balkan som du angagerar dig i? Litany 16:20, 27 Juen 2006 (UTC)

---

Efter så mycket hyckleri och halvsanningar(på denna del av hemsidan) ang. Kosovo vill jag göra en lång historia kort: Det enda jag har att säga till Ilir&Co är att enligt hans ironiska definitioner vad som bör kallas vad och vad inte...vad som är rätt och vad inte...vill man följa den så kan man med ett gott samvete påstå att Skåne är en provins i Scandinavien, Skåne är inte en del av Sverige, Skåne har rätt till självständighet och utträde från landet Sverige. Skåningar pratar inte Skånska, dom pratar Malmöitiska med små inluenser från Lunditiska och Ystaditiska...Skåningar var först på plats i Sverige och med den rätten så kan dom kasta ut alla utom sig själva, naturligtvis;-)..Heja Skåne.....heja Skåne..... Om inte detta påstående är hyckleri så är jag nog inte den jag är...;-)...Sug på den karamellen Ilir&Co..:-) --Miromiro 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Ta EJ bort denna inlägg, men ni får gärna översätta den till engelska. Tack![reply]

I don't think we're getting anywhere with the Kosovo introduction, particularly since Ferick has openly rejected WP:NPOV and is now refusing to discuss sources. Accordingly, I've submitted a request for mediation. Please indicate on that page whether you consent to having the matter mediated. -- ChrisO 09:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar, yes, I too feel the article is a bit partisan. However, given the nature of the event it describes, that can be forgiven. Especially since it is a very well sourced and documented article. As for the Christmans Day massacres and other background stuff, I think that could go in a specific background section (but with careful review of sources).Osli73 12:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you really mean? Do you mean is it too much to describe a human rights violation at a very high degree? What do you think about Armenian Genocide then?(cantikadam 08:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Very well spotted! That's Ferick's website, no doubt about it; the description is the same as on his Wikipedia user page. -- ChrisO 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Srebrenica Genocide article. Stop removinig factual elements of cases and substituting them with already discredited Serbian sources. I've warned you in the past, this is the last warning. --Bosniak 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak, you sound quite hysterical. Please let me know what you are referring to and maybe I could understand. I have removed an unsourced section and changed the placement in the article of another. If this is such a sensitive topic for you that you cannot have a civil discussion with differing opinions on how the matter should be presented then maybe you should focus on other topics instead.Osli73 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the article alone. You maybe can't know what is like situation here, because you live... you have everything. But I who live in Bosnia can still all the time hear how Bosniaks killed themselves in Markale, how Srebrenica is no big deal... as they only slauthered Turks, and however that 8000 is hey big number... 3000 is small. 3000 is small? I can still hear and read how Bosniaks destroyed Star Most. Why?! What is revisionism?! What the hell is it? You probably don't know Serbian language, but why in the hell they write that there was about 2800, maximum 5000 victims, and it is... you know normal. Serbian version of Srebrenica. Tell me, what do you know about Srebrenica?! About Bosnia. You are safe there, here we can still hear how we will be slauthered in future, and how Srebrenica will be repeated. --HarisM 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HarisM (and others), again, I realize this is a sensitive topic for many people. I don't deny that some 8,000 peoople were murdered in Srebrenica, that this was planned and carried out by the Bosnian Serb army/government or that there are those who, incorrectly, claim that all of this did not happen. In many ways the article is one of the best resources I've been able to find on the massacre. However, I do not agree with the politicized way in which some of the material is presented or with some of the conclusions/analyses which are made in the article (or alluded to). Osli73 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can agree or disagree, it's up to you. However, we will not let you post already discredited Serbian information and present it as a fact in Srebrenica Massacre article. Although I salute your decision not to deny Srebrenica genocide, I must condemn you for spoiling the article with moral relativism and already discredited Serbian sources (e.g. the number of Serbs killed, adventures of accussed concentration camp raper and Serb lobbyist Gen. Mackenzie, etc). --Bosniak 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak, you are hell bent on calling anyone who challenges your highly biased presentation and analysis of events as "vandalism" or "moral relativism". I get the feeling that you see the Srebrenica massacre as more of a political tool than a historical event. You choose to only present your numbers and dismiss any source or text which does not fit your view as "Serb propaganda". Please read my lengthy answer to Live Forever on the Talk page here.

And, no, Lewis MacKenzie was no "concentration camp raper" - as I explained/showed above to Dado, that was a smear campaign by the Bosnian government during the war. The Journal of Conflict Studies describes it:

Part of the propaganda war was a successful Bosnian government campaign to discredit MacKenzie personally (including stories that his wife was a Serb). The UN's response was to ignore such stories, rather than take action to refute them, and by June they had reached such a level that MacKenzie asked to be relieved as he could no longer function without risk to his troops, identified as "MacKenzie's men." In November 1992, coinciding with the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia, the Bosnian government claimed that MacKenzie had raped and murdered three or four Muslim girls obtained for him at a Serb concentration camp. By 1995, this story was being reported as regular visits by MacKenzie to a Serb camp brothel stocked with Muslim girls.

CheersOsli73 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop reverting changes on Kosovo. You are very subjective on this issue (very pro-serb) and you're not even from the region. Wikipedia needs to be kept neutral. and Osli73 sabotages the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.8.3 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 August 2006

Well, anonymous user:

1. I certainly believe that I try to portray a NPOV by (a) providing references for all data and (b) having a Fairness of tone, both explained in Wikipedia [9].
2. I'm not aware that there is any rule/recommendation that only people from the region are allowed to edit articles related to that region. In fact, it's my experience that "people from the region" are often not able to leave their emotions behind when editing Wikipedia. The Kosovo article is not the property of Kosovar Albanians (or Serbs for that matter).

Cheers Osli73 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Serbia user- no question about it.

You stated that this statement is not in reference to the ICTY:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide."

Yet, another time, I am proving you wrong, read here: http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.htm --Bosniak 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stated that the soure which was supplied was not the ICTY judgement. Now that you have found it, please enter it. Cheers, Osli73 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really that interested in the events concerning srebrenica, I think it is pretty much clear for the most of us what actually happend. However, I have deep respect for user Bosniak and his efforts which I value to be neutral. He's spent hours and hours on the srebrenica massacre article, providing critical info. The so-called "serbian casualties around srebrenica" are classified by the UN-tribunal as a pure myth, and to this lead also the motivation that "serbs only took revenge for what the Bosnians had done three years earlier". If you believe this is the truth then I suggest you create a webpage of your own, however the UN-tribunal has demented these myths and here on wikipedia we try to follow mainstream facts. Greetings Bosoni

Bosoni, yes, Bosniak may have spent many hours on the Srebrenica massacre article and in many ways it is a very good, well references article. I think noone is debating what happened. I certainly don't dispute it. The discussion is rather about how the facts are presented and what analysis is either made or implied. On these points (the last two) I feel that Bosniak presents a very one-sided picture. Take the example of the "Serbian casualties around Srebrenica". This is clearly pertinent to the article as it helps the reader to understand one possible motive for the viciousness of the massacre - revenge. However, for political reasons Bosniak (and, I believe, other Bosnian editors as well) is unwilling to include this information or this analysis (made by some of the sources I referenced). This article is not about "remembering those who gave their lives" or any such thing - it is about describing, in an encyclopedic way, what happened, why it happened and what consequences it has had. Cheers Osli73 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi osli, you've broken the wikipedia 3 revert rule on Srebrenica massacre. As you haven't yet been warned and apparently have no prior record with 3RRs, you'll get another chance. so consider this your warning. cheers --heah 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a courtesy message that I requested on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Srebrenica massacre that you be shortly blocked for your constant edit warring. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- hi Jitse, you should have banned him long time ago. Bosniak 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak Reply to Osli73 Hi Osli73, I am the only Bosniak editor here. Fairview and others are not Bosniak and they are not Muslim. Once again, your assumptions are wrong. You are pulling old tricks with POV tag. Your tricks are getting old man. Bosniak 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting, or you will be blocked for breaking the 3rd revert rule. Thank you, --Serb ^talk 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. William M. Connolley 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understood all what you said there. My suggestion regarding the Srebrenica massacre page is that the editors either try to find a compromise or, if some of the editors are not willing to do this, that they agree to disagree and accept the POV tag. I can't see how adding back a POV tag can equate to an edit of an article.Osli73 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for four days for truly excessive revert-warring on the above. You reverted the tag 9-10 times and then deleted the paragraph about the Dutch troops at least twice. Please discuss further when it expires. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, I was under the impression that POV tags did not constitute edits to the text and thus did not fall under the 3RR rule. Once William M. Connolley made this clear [11] I immediately stopped this. So, I don't agree with your judgemnet on this. Yes, I edited the Dutch troops twice, but that doesn't really constitute 3RRs.Osli73 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Osli! Förlåt att jag inte svarat tidigare, har tyvärr haft så lite tid att spendera vid dator den senaste tiden så mitt wikipedia arbete har helt få ligga åt sidan för tillfället. Jag har flyttat ner till Kroatien för att läsa kroatiska ett år, så det finns massor att fixa men det börjar se lite ljusare ut, peppar peppar... Angående Srebrenica så förstår jag din situation. Jag läste igen argumenten och jag tyckte faktiskt att senast jag läste igenom artikeln (senast någon gång under augusti) så var den helt klart POV. Jag förstår din trötthet angående att bli kallad "serb", "chetnik", "Milosević anhängare" och etc. bara för att man skriver om något som inte passar personen i frågas egna nationalist drömmar. Det har hänt mig alltför många gånger här, trist men dom vet ju inte verkligheten. Såg att du blivit bannad för några dagar, shit happends, hoppas du kommer tbx med ny kraft iaf.

Jag är ganska dåligt insatt i srebrenica massakern, tyvärr. Vi kan alltid diskutera saken lite närmare (bla dina påståenden) innan jag ger mig in i debatten och "addar" i artikeln.

Ha det bra/ Litany 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, hopas du njuter av den syeuropeiska värmen.

Ang. artikeln, egentligen handlar det inte så mycket om vad som hände (tror att det i princip inte är någon som bestrider fakta) utan vad som presenteras, hur det presenteras och vilka slutsatser man drar eller alluderar till i artikeln. Tyvärr så verkar de bosniska artikelskribenterna ha svårt att se skillnaden utan går i direkt försvarsläge (all kritik klassas som "Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism", bara det). Skulle tro att artikeln blir unprotected inom kort (även om jag har svårt att se vart det skulle leda om de inblandade artikelförfattarna inte är beredda att komma överens/kompromissa, inte ens om en POV-tag för att visa att det förekommer en konflikt kring texten, vilket var vad jag blev förbannad över häromdagen).

Det jag skulle uppskatta din hjälp kring är alltså inte själva sakinnehållet utan hur det presenteras (bla språket, citatval, vad man väljer att utveckla, osv, det borde röra sig om en encyklopedisk artikel, inte en tidningsartikel), vad man väljer att presentera och inte presentera i artikel samt de slutsatser som dras eller alluderas till.

Enklast tillvägagångsättet är väl egentligen att börja från toppen med ingressen/inledningen och sedan arbeta sig nedåt.

Som jag ser det borde ingressen/inledningen i en encyclopedisk artikel vara en sammanfattning av de viktigaste innehållet i artikeln. I detta fall borde det i princip vara att det rörde sig om en massaker på omkring 8,000 personer (ICTY talar om 7-8000 och den bosniska regeringen om över 8000, inge är dock helt säker), huvudsakligen män inom loppet av en dryg vecka i samband med det bosnienserbiska intagandet av Srebrenica-enklaven. Sen bör man lägga till att ICTY dömt ett antal personer för detta, bl.a. för brottet folkmord (act of genocide) och att Mladic och andra efterlyses.

Tacksam för allt du kan/hinner/orkar göra. Förstår om du tvekar, för det är ett riktigt getingbo (men inte desto mindre viktigt för det).

Hälsningar Osli73 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.

ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .

Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are unaware on the term diaspora, but it is a word originally used for Jews not living in Israel, and in the later half of the 20th century came to mean other peoples forced from their homes. To quote as you have, it "refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands." If you review the history of Israel and Judah, you will see in 586 BC Jews for forced from Judea by the Babylonians, and Jerusalem in AD 136 by the Roman Empire. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and Jews are not of European orgin by the very least. Epson291 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora today, also refers to any peoples living outside their homeland, forced or not, see Indian Diaspora. Epson291 06:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epson, after having looked around in various dictionaries it is apparent that 'diaspora' refers to all peoples living outside their original homeland. So, I'm OK with that. After looking through various sources on Jewish populations on the internet I see that the term Diaspora to describe Jews living outside Israel has become commonplace since the advent of Zionism. So, while I think the use of the term 'Diaspora' is ideologically motivated, I'll accept its use. Regards Osli73 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73, you raise issues that you ask me to respond to without ever bothering to deal with points that I have raised and in particular you ignore some information I posted at the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page specifically relating to a topic that appeared to be of considerable concern to you previously.

I posted the information about the ICTY's position on copyright after investigating the issue when you made a fuss about possible "plagiarism" and copyright infringement if quotes from ICTY judgments were used. You might have investigated the matter yourself but for whatever reason did not, you preferred simply to raise controversy.

Now in your post to my User Talk page you mention having read what you call my "very well written comment" regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations and then without challenging the point I was making about the legitimacy of mentioning the allegations you sum them up as "one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article".

You move on to interrogate me over the issue of the number of victims. As usual, the apparent reasonableness of some of the points you raise is belied by the way you carry them forward. You seem to be calling the figure of 8300 into question "as it refers to total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for". You are implying that those "killed in fighting" on the march and those "not accounted for" should not be counted towards the Federal Commission for Missing Persons's list of 8373 names of the dead and missing of Srebrenica.

The majority of those in the column led by members of the 28th Division that set out for Tuzla rather than rely on the protection of Dutchbat at Potocari were unarmed civilians who anticipated the fate that befell those who remained in the enclave. Even the 28th Division soldiers were carrying fairly basic weaponry. The column was ambushed by a well-armed military force as part of an action that was part of an operation with genocidal intent. So the description "killed in fighting" does not

You are obviously aware there was a deliberate and carefully planned plan to conceal the evidence of the massacre by excavating the mass graves, mixing the bodies and reburying elsewhere. The missing not "just not accounted for". They are those whose identities and fate have not been confirmed. You don't factor in your thoughts on the underestimation of numbers that might arise because some of those who died for one reason or another, including the extermination of their families and friends, had no-one to report their disappearance to the authorities making lists and counts.

I'd also argue that it would be legitimate to expand the number of victims of the Massacre to include those who committed suicide or died as a result of the inhumane conditions they endured in the context of the fall of Srebrenica, since these deaths were directly attributable to the genocidal project of imposing conditions that would made the survival of the Bosniaks of Srebrenica impossible. --Opbeith 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opbeith,

• I'm not sure what your answer was. I'm simply saying that if the article is to use the most commonly used figure, this would not be "at least 8300" as most sources (see the archives) refer to 7-8000. The ICTY certainly uses this number, as does the BBC and most other major news agencies. Of course we are free to speculate about what the number should be, which I believe the current ">8300" figure to be. However, as I understand it, the article should present the generally accepted number, which the ICTY figure should be.
• Whether the casualties in the Tuzla column should be included can of course be discussed - though, again, the editors of the article aren't really the ones who should make that judgement. Attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre" (e.g. the Desert Storm Road of Death in souther Iraq).
• Regarding MacKenzie, to mention that a Bosnian state prosecutor is investigating the old charges here in the article is obviously an attempt to discredit him on an unrelated topic - what do the old rape accusations have to do with his views on the Srebrenica massacre?
• As for not responding to your points raised on the Talk page, sorry, I've been busy (or rather, travelling).

Regards Osli73 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously "read" my "long and well written" comments about MacKenzie and the rape allegations and paid absolutely no attention to what I said. Same goes for what I said about the Tuzla column and unarmed civilians fleeing from part of the massacre plan and being intercepted by another part. Same for my comments about the numbers. Never mind, you carry on doing your thing. --Opbeith 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The post I made at the Srebrenica Massacre Discussion page gave the ICTY's reply to me after I followed up the objections you were making to quotations from ICTY judgments on the grounds of possible "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement" when published ICTY judgments are quoted. To save you the bother of reading it the ICTY confirm that the text of judgments is in the public domain and they are happy to have it quoted. They would like to have it suitably referenced and say how. --Opbeith 09:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opbeith, calm down! Why are you so rude? I've been nothing but civil.

• Regarding the Tuzla column, you obviously see them as unarmed refugees while I see it as the poorly armed remnants of the 28th Division. Whether they where killed in combat or not is a matter of opinion. I'm simply arguing that since the icty judgement is the most respected source of information on the massacre (indeed, much of it has been copied word by word in the article) there is no reason not to use its interpretation of the numbers killed (7-8000 rage). Especially since this range is most commonly used in other sources.
• As for the 'quotations' from the ICTY judgement, it was a case where the entire text or blocks of text were copied from the judgement, not just 'quotations'. I'm happy you contacted the ICTY and checked what their policy was. Does this mean that you will follow through and state in the article what parts of it are lifted from the icty judgement?

Regards Osli73 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73, I apologise for letting myself get exasperated and not maintaining the same level of civility that you always display. It's hard to try and maintain a dialogue when your partner's always changing step whenever you tell them you're familiar with the music. Sadly like others before me eventually I let the frustration of trying to keep up with your fast footwork get to me.

So I'm simply going to say that you misrepresent me when you say that I consider the Tuzla column a group of unarmed refugees. As you well know that's not what I said. I am aware that this was a mixed group of fairly lightly armed soldiers, without their commander, and unarmed civilians. According to the UN Secretary General's report on the Fall of Srebrenica " The men, who may have numbered up to 15,000, were divided roughly into brigade groups, with the strongest units moving out first, to act as a spearhead for those that followed. Perhaps a third of the group was armed."

They all knew from their experienceof the ethnic cleansing of the Central Podrinje what was likely to happen to them if they fell into the hands of the Bosnian Serb army. Rightly as it turned out rhey were reluctant to rely on the UN presence to protect them. " The vast majority of them [the men of military age], including the civilian and military authorities, as well as some of their families, decided instead that they would risk making their way on foot to Tuzla, some 50 km away, through Serb lines and through forested, partly mined territory. They decided that they would fight their way through if they had to." Not unreasonably, given the likely fate that awaited them, soldiers and civilians alike.

Many were killed. But that's not the same as saying as you do "they were killed in fighting". The VRS attacked the column with artillery and possibly with chemical weapons. They ambushed the middle section of the column which included many of the unarmed civilians and slaughtered hundreds of them. And then the men who were captured were taken away, not for treatment as prisoners in accordance with the rules of war, with which the former JNA officers would have been quite familiar, but for mass execution.

This killing was part of the genocidal arrangement, the other part of which was put into effect as the Bosnian Serbs moved through Srebrenica and then at Potocari. This genocidal intent is something you seem reluctant to contemplate. As I'm sure you'll find some way of moving onto another issue rather than consider the ICTY evidence you are so familiar with I won't spend more time on this. I have limited time and energy to dedicate to the points you raise so perhaps now that I have resolved your scruples about plagiarism and given your reasserted familiarity with the ICTY judgments from which the information contained in the article comes, you'll be happy to take on part of the task of referencing the sources.

In return here are the relevant portions of the Secretary General's report to the General Assembly, Doc. A/54/549, dated 15 November 1999, paras 310, 316-317, 343-344 and 369.

310. The majority of Srebrenica’s men of military age did not seek refuge in Potogari. The vast majority of them, including the civilian and military authorities, as well as some of their families, decided instead that they would risk making their way on foot to Tuzla, some 50 km away, through Serb lines and through forested, partly mined territory. They decided that they would fight their way through if they had to. By mid-afternoon on 11 July, the men who were preparing to make the journey began to gather in the hamlet of Šušnjari, located in the northwestern portion of the enclave.

...

316. The Bosniac men gathered in Šušnjari began to move out of the enclave into surrounding Serb territory shortly after midnight on 12 July. The men, who may have numbered up to 15,000, were divided roughly into brigade groups, with the strongest units moving out first, to act as a spearhead for those that followed. Perhaps a third of the group was armed. Progress out of the enclave was initially slow, with the men having to pass in single file through the Serb minefields that lay beyond the perimeter of the enclave. The last units left Šušnjari in the early afternoon of 12 July, more than 12 hours after the first.

317. Despite this slow progress, the Serbs did not immediately engage the column of Bosniac men. Darkness, forest cover and surprise appear to have provided some initial protection for the Bosniacs. Sometime before dawn, however, the Serbs began to engage the column with heavy weapons. Several survivors interviewed in connection with this report have given accounts of what they believe to have been chemical weapons attacks. They described artillery shells impacting and then leaving a lingering plume of white smoke or gas. Those nearest to the impact were not killed, but became disoriented, and some appear to have wandered away from the main column into the surrounding Serb territory. Two medical doctors present in the column witnessed these events, and are of the belief that those affected were under the influence of non-lethal chemical agents.

...

343. Also on the night of 12 July, as the front of the column of the approximately 15,000 men proceeded north and then west from Srebrenica, Serb fighters began to close in on them, using not only longer-range heavy weapons, but also mortars, bazookas and small arms. The Serbs established a cordon along the paved road that passed through Konjevie Polje and Nova Kasaba and across which the Bosniacs would have to pass. The first Bosniac units crossed the road before the cordon was fully established, just south of Konjevie Polje. Crossing the road, the Bosniacs heard Serb patrols hailing them with megaphones, urging them to surrender. They also saw UNPROFOR vehicles (which had been commandeered by the Serbs) and soldiers in blue helmets.

344. Behind this first group of Bosniacs, the middle section of the column was being ambushed. A large section of the column had stopped to rest at a clearing near Kamenica, known locally as Kamenigko Brdo. Survivors recalled that a group of at least 1,000 Bosniacs were engaged at close range by small arms. Hundreds appear to have been killed as they fled the clearing. The skeletonized remains of some of those killed in this ambush remained clearly visible to Tribunal investigators and United Nations staff members passing through in 1996. Survivors recalled how many wounded were left behind, some of whom shot themselves or detonated grenades in order to escape capture. Some wounded were carried along with the survivors, later surrendering.

...

369. On 16 July, the column of Bosniac men that had set out from Srebrenica and Šušnjari was still trying to make its way to ARBiH-held territory. Many of these men surrendered and were apparently loaded on buses and trucks and taken to the Cerska Valley. One Srebrenica survivor later recalled realizing that he was walking on blood as he arrived there, and that one week later others passing through the Cerska Valley could smell corpses. One hundred and fifty bodies with their hands bound were subsequently found at a mass grave near this location.

--Opbeith 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, "attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre" (e.g. the Desert Storm Road of Death in souther Iraq)." I think that there are grounds for arguing that what happened on the Mitla Road during Desert Storm was a massacre. What it was not was an act of genocide. The ICTY has found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica. While members of the 28th Division might have sought to escape the over-running of the enclave in the manner they did simply to ensure their ability to continue fighting for the Army of BiH, it is reasonable to assume that the civilians would not have taken the risks they did in following the soldiers if they hadn't faced the likely prospect of ethnically-motivated extermination. --Opbeith 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opbeith, back to the issue at hand. I was simply saying that to say that all of the 8300 people missing and unaccounted for in and around Srebrenica at around the time of the takeover of the town were "massacred" (which would seem to be the requirement for being counted as a victim of a massacre) is far from proven or, indeed, the generally held view. In the 8300 figure there are possibly people who were killed in action (before or after the takeover of the town) or died or are missing for other reasons. This is precisely why the vast majority of sources mention figures within the range of 7-8000. I don't believe that the editors of Wikipedia should draw their own, in my opinion, politically motivated, conclusions. Regards Osli73 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[12] -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, thank's for the heads up. Yes, I did replace my current user name (osli73) with another as I had recieved some very nasty emails on my personal email address related to my activities here on Wikipedia and therefore felt it would be better if I 'changed' identities. Sweden is quite a small place were it is not too difficult to find personal information (street address, etc). Unfortunately, this did not work. Regards Osli73 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, don't bull shit! I mean, be honest. You were sockpuppet, I can find your edits when you pretended to be Karl, but you were also Osli (to help each other). It is enough to check history of Srebrenica massacre article. It is obvious that you don't even read the article (according to you last edits on Izetbegović article) but push your POV. Emir Arven 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions and reverts are ongoing:

1. Special:Contributions/89.146.145.110 [13]
2. Special:Contributions/89.146.136.242 [14]
3. Special:Contributions/89.146.128.58 [15]
4. Special:Contributions/89.146.148.169 [16]
5. Special:Contributions/89.146.133.82 [17]

Apparently someone in Sarajevo doesn't want you editing that article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 12:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I can understand that the Srebrenica massacre will be a very sensitive issue ot most Bosniaks. However, my personal opinion is that if they are going to contribute to the article here on Wikipedia they should try to put those passions aside and discuss it in a rational manner. Ever since I began to challenge some of the edits made by the 'Bosniak' (which I'm only assuming that they are) editors I have been met with bullying and personal attacks, both on and off Wikipedia. I'm not about to give in to bullying, so, do you have any suggestion for an alternative route? Mediation? Comes accross as quite difficult since it's not just about including or excluding rape allegations against Mackenzie or the figure "an estimated 8000" or "at least 8300", it's a tendentiousness accross large parts of the article (not to mention the lenght of it). Regards Osli73 12:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion about numbers is particularly baffling to me. All reliable sources quote a figure in the range 7000-8000. I'm at a loss, to be honest. I stumbled into that article when User:Bosniak posted a nonsense message to my talk page; I removed the rape allegation as a simple violation of WP:BLP and thought that was the end of it. I'm still a bit shell shocked that I spent a week going through points about that rape allegation that have apparently been covered in the past. It seems to be an article of faith in some circles that MacKenzie is a pro-serb, anti-bosniak rapist; and apparently his love of car racing indicates mental instability. In an environment like this, I don't know how to keep any discussion focused on verifiable facts. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I also don't quite know how to reach an acceptable solution. The whole article is more or less peppered with the same types of allegations and insinuations as in the Mackenzie case. On one hand I want to leave it all, on the other I don't like giving in to bullying. I don't see why it should be so difficult to agree on a 'compromise' solution based on the icty findings (without copying entire sections of the text, without credits being given, as is now the case). Regards Osli73 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly are the rules you're working under in that article? User:El C asked me for a synopsis, but I'm not sure that I have a clear grasp of the situation: User talk:El C#This thread might interest you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I posted a reply at El_C's talk page here. I presume that was what you were asking. Regards Osli73 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Like a lost bird repeatedly crashing into windows in a vain attempt to get to the other side, Osli73 returns." Well said. Well said indeed!

Hi Osli. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, I had some other problems in my life. Why not just get rid off whole revisionist section? They are not central players in the massacre. Lets just delete the whole category, and maybe we could open another article espousing their agenda? Or maybe, we could add new categories to their articles (e.g. Lewis Mackenzie article, etc) and espouse their opinions? I just don't see how can we improve this article if we waste another 6 months discussing revisionist views. If deletion of category is not plausible, then we could do mix of your and my suggestions. You proposed we "simply say that there are a number of 'observers' with dissenting views regarding the massacre". I propose we also mention that their views are viewed as revisionist by some. In fact, their views are clearly revisionist. But, does it really matter? Should we continue wasting our energy on "revisionist", "alternative", "controversial", "dissenting", "leftist" views? Let's find quick compromise and move on with improving other aspects of the article. Let's just work together objectively, and let's stop edit wars; it's counterproductive, and we are all tired of it. I don't have a problem with using "estimated 8,000" missing/killed, as long as we mention (somewhere in the article) which source stated 8,300 missing/killed. I think listing more reliable source will create better understanding of the issue. Also, I propose we somehow incorporate hardship associated with DNA identification (which is painstankingly slow process). Bosniak 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak, I'll respond on the Srebrenica massacre talk page, as this should be in the public domain. Regards Osli73 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli! It's Jonathan Mills here (yes, my real name! :-) Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure exactly where to respond to your message to me on the Srebrenica discussion-edit page -- (you wrote)

Jonathan, as I see it, it's not for the editors of this article to analyse the nature of the ICTY or any alleged complicity or bias of 'western' media. We should simply summarize and report the prevailing understanding of the event. As I see it, the view presented by the ICTY is accepted by the majority of other sources. as there is a minority (or rather, minorities, since they don't appear to be a coherent block) who dispute various parts of the massacre as presnted by the ICTY/majority, their views should also be presented, thouth, of course, with much less weight/space allocated to them. in both cases, the icty/majority view and the minority view, there is no need to label either of them as "revisionists", "alleged rapist", "fundamentalist", "Nato created" or other. Just say that the ICTY view is the view accepted by the vast majority and that the minority view is, well... a minority view. Since the article currently strays somewhat from the ICTY/majority view, eg with the case of MacKenzie, the Scorpions and the >8300 killed, I agree with you that it is contested. In my opinion, the selection of information presented, the wording and conclusions drawn also means that in some cases the article is POV. Regards Osli73 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with you on this. I put up the tag because it was calling dissenting views 'revisionist', as well as the other points you've mentioned, and was clearly not NPOV. I think the reason I got perhaps a bit off the topic vis-a-vis the Western media etc was to try and argue that it wasn't fair to tar the dissenting views as inherently false. Not to mention that it is against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. I will join you later on some of the specifics of the debate, but for right now I have to go to work... :-( Cheers Jonathanmills 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I agree completely that the type of 'labelling' and 'tarring' by association which appears in this article, of which the "revisionist" label is an example of, is not NPOV and should be removed. As I wrote in my reply to you (above), I do believe that the article in its present form deserves a "POV" and/or "Contested" tag. However, as you will see from the Talk page, I am now hoping, proposing, even, to get a fresh start with the article. As these types of tags are seen by many as a provocation I think that we should put them on hold until we see what kind of response the "A Fresh Start" initiative will get. Regards Osli73 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I think starting the article afresh is a very good idea. Cheers for your reply.

Jonathanmills 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you complain about editors gang up on you

Jitse, as you will know, I feel that I have been and continue to be harassed by some of the editors active on the Srebrenica massacre page. This includes a certain amount of 'ganging up' amongst the editors who disagree with me. This is only the most recent example of this type of behavior. I'm not sure wether or not this is strictly against Wikipedia etiquette but I do feel that it is uncomfortable. Especially so since I have received an anonymous threatening email (explained here). As the administrator most involved with the article I would appreciate if you could notify, in this case Bosniak, that this is not acceptable and that it should be stopped. Regards Osli73 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but here you are part of the group of editors and the sockpuppets that gang up on editors.

How you explain that you are part of group of editors and sockpuppets gang up on people, many are who banned -- Nikola Smolenski, Bormalagurski, Medule, KOCOBO, Srbijanković -- but now you complain??? Editors have right to see your history here and you have right to respond. What do you have to say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&offset=20061106120813&limit=500&action=history scroll down to Sept 1 thourgh 4.

Hi, to begin with, it would be much better if you signed your entries, so that I know who'm I'm talking to. Regarding your comment above, I have looked through the entries I made 1-4 September and find only embarassing examples of edit warring, which I can't see would constitute any canvassing or 'ganging up' (although I see that you, presumably, made those accusations at the time.[18][19][20][21] ). Since I haven't had any contact with the other editors you name I can't see how it could be an example of 'ganging up' or 'canvassing'.

• adding a POV tag [22]
• adding a POV tag [23]
• adding a POV tag [24]
• adding POV tag [25]
• adding POV tag [26]
• removing MacKenzie slander [27]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report[28]
• adding POV tag [29]
• adding POV tag [30]
• removing MacKenzie slander [31]
• adding POV tag [32]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report on 4 Sept. [33]
• adding POV tag [34]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report [35]
• adding POV tag [36]
• adding POV tag [37]
• reverting to last version by Fairview [38]
• adding POV tag [39]
• adding POV tag [40]

Osli73 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli -- Thanks for the good information added recently to Sweden.[41]. I thought I'd ask, though, were there any sources you could add for the information? It seems in order to get the article listed as good, we need to get as many sources as possible. Thanks in any case, Mackan79 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, I though the information was common knowledge and therefore didn't think any 'source' was needed. A couple easily accessible and widely accepted references which could be used are:

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online's article on the History of Sweden [42]
• US Department of State's site on Sweden [43]
• Columbia Encyclopedia's article on Sweden [44]
• EuroDocs also has a quite good link library (in English) to sources on Swedish history (in English) [45]

I'd be glad to cooperate in improving the article on Sweden. I've made som attempts in the past with the Economy section (since I'm an economist) but nothing sustained. I've added this reply also on the Sweden Talk page. Cheers Osli73 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know; I will carefully study the situation, and if I feel confident enough to do so, will leave my comments/vote on the motion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, but I'm still familiarizing myself with the case. If and when I feel confident enough to comment, I will do so; in the meantime, thanks for your patience - I understand it must be frustrating. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still didn't get your response to my latest comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#disputed_tag (scroll down, it's in bold) Bosniak 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not an admin... just a regular old editor. However, I have been involved in editing the guideline for a while, so I am familiar with the concensus relating to it. Blueboar 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73, I have no desire to get bogged down in your wilful initiatives or take responsibility for the complications resulting from your arbitrary interventions, particularly when the cause, as so often, is your inaccurate and misleading representation of a situation involving other people. Passing the buck is not the same as discussion or consultation. --Opbeith 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me.Osli73 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73, your violations of parole have been reported at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Fairview360 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests[reply]

Osli73, you have been blocked for violation of your Arbcom parole: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Osli73. As this is the second time you have violated the parole, the block has been increased from one week to two weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you appreciate the amount of flak I'm receiving for taking your suggestions seriously :-(

Best regards,

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12, that the article needs to be pruned and reduced in size shouldn't be that controversial at all. The difficult part is of course how it should be done.

The extremely long article we have today is the result of various editors expounding on their favorite piece of detail on the massacre, be it the finer points of the Sandici massacre, the nature of 'alternative' views or feelig the need to inform the reader extensively about the thoughts of the US Congress on the massacre. The long text is also a result of copying the description of the massacre from the ICTY judgement against Krstic and pasting it into the article. This provides a very detailed description of the massacre but does it a the price of 'conciseness'.

I'm not sure why you would not take my suggestions seriously. Yes, the group of editors who see this article (and in some cases, I believe, the massacre itself) as being primarily a too with which to beat various political opponents (Serbs and their real or alleged supporters) over the head with will oppose any changes. To them it is more important that the articles name be changed to Srebrenica genocide than to try to produce a concise and clear article about the actual massacre.

Finally, yes, of course I appreciate that there are other editors involved in the article who don't have a political agenda. Cheers Osli73 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		To Osli73, for continued attempts to improve Srebrenica massacre despite heavy personal abuse. Djma12 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: I have blocked you for 2 weeks for violating your one revert per week parole at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo by edit warring over the claim that the "Scorpions" were involved in the massacre. [46] [47] [48] [49]. I am also banning you from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months ending 22 June 2007. You may edit the talk page, but you are banned from editing the article and this ban may be enforced by any admin by further blocking. Likewise, ban evasion with sockpuppets will earn you an extension on both your editing block and article ban. Thatcher131 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tack men det var snart ett år sedan vi förlovade oss. :) - Litany 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Såg att du hade en "This user is engaged" tag på din sida. Kom inte ihåg att den var där sist. Osli73 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really tired of story on wikipedia how Serbia has nothing with "civil wars" in Croatia and Bosnia. Poor Serbs nobody understand them ... User Panonian is accepting that army from Serbia has attacked Croatia but in his words this is Yugoslav army which is having nothing with Serbia. My comments on that are: Yes they have really, really nothing. Only 90 % soldiers are from Serbia and all money, ammunition and other similar stuff.

You want sources that Serbia is guilty from BBC and others :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4997380.stm

"By 1992 the Yugoslav Federation was falling apart. Nationalism had once again replaced communism as the dominant force in the Balkans.

Slovenia and then Croatia were the first to break away, but only at the cost of renewed conflict with Serbia."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30345042.htm (reuters)

"The newspaper said any armed Serb group would be "chased out like rabbits" by the 16,000-strong NATO force in the province, with "disastrous" consequences for Serbia.

Vasiljevic is a member of parliament allied to the Socialist Party of the late Slobodan Milosevic, whose nationalist policies led Serbia into one war after another in the 1990s."

Court in Hague:

"The Hague tribunal has indicted former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic for atrocities in Croatia, saying he was the head of a conspiracy to commit war crimes there between August 1991 and 1992.

The tribunal's latest indictment also names 15 other members of the plot. Apart from Milosevic and two alleged members who have been killed, all those listed are still under investigation for involvement in the conspiracy.

According to the indictment, the war against Croatia, at least formally, was not waged by Yugoslavia, then in process of dissolution, nor by Serbia, but by Milosevic and his fellow conspirators who had hijacked the country's institutions and used them for the purpose of a joint criminal enterprise."

Do you need something more about Serbia guilt in Croatia and Bosnia war ?

Rjecina 1:21, 3 June 2007 (CET)

Rjecina, I'm fully aware that Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro were deeply involved in the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. However, the Wiki articles should try to describe the nature of this 'involvement' as factually and neutrally as possible. Also, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make their own analyses or draw their own conclusions (which would be original research). Finally, I'd be glad to cooperate with you on this on the condition that you stop the type of cynic commentary you used above. Cheers Osli73 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and sorry for cynic commentary. Simple I have become angry after reading article. Few minutes ago I have accepted sugestion of AgentCDE to put this question for mediation from WP:RFM . I know that my text is not very good because I know my knowledge of english. You can change article without problem. My only wish(demand ?) is that there is no text which speak that Serbia has nothing to do with war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina because of which UN has put sanctions ! Rjecina 0:35, 4 June 2007 (CET)

Rjecina, I agree that it would be wrong to say that Serbia was not involved with these wars. However, I feel that the current text doesn't deny this. It does say:

Serbia was not directly involved in the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1995 in Bosnia and Croatia. However, the Serbian government did support the interests of Serbian people in Croatia and supported giving military equipment to the Bosnian Serbs.

This makes it clear that Serbia was involved in the war in Croatia and supported the Bosnian Serbs. I would have no problem in expanding on this involvement in the text. There must be lots of information available on just what support was given (equipment, personnel, logistical, financial, etc.) which could be included and sourced. I'll take a look.Osli73 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To not look very long for sources I will give you 3 of them from english wikipedia. Articles are Battle of Vukovar, Ratko Mladić and War in Bosnia and Herzegovina

• In first is written how JNA has come from Serbia to attack Vukovar. During "trip" they have commited ethnic cleansing so that only Serbs stay in taken territory. Do you agree that doing this JNA has become Serbian army ?
• In second is written On May 2, 1992, one month after the Bosnian Republic's declaration of independence, Mladić and his generals, acting under orders from Belgrade, blockaded the city of Sarajevo, shutting off all traffic in and out of the city, as well as water and electricity.
• 3rd article is must important. There is writen how in perion march - may 1992 Bosnian Serb Army was able to take over 70% of the country during these months. . This is another Serbian POV which I will now change. Why ?

Bosnian Serb Army is created only in middle of may 1992. Before that name has been JNA which is under total control of Belgrade and Serbian president Slobodan Milošević. My point is that Serbian army under name of JNA (they are making ethnic cleansing of non serbian population)has taken 70 % of Bosnia and now somebody tell that they have not been in war ??? Only after that conquest they have started to give only "supplies". Conclusion: Serbia has been in war with Croatia and Bosnia between september 1991 and may of 1992 !!Rjecina 2:20, 4 June 2007 (CET)

Rjecina, I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion (or, rather, the latter parts of it) to the Serbia Talk page so that all can participate. Cheers Osli73 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plz respond to Talk:Chetniks‎.
The Spanish Inquisitor 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Osli, Jonathan here -- don't know if you remember me, but I was on the (dreaded!) Srebrenica page a few months back. (And got accused of being your sockpuppet, actually :-)

Just wanted to say I saw you had been blocked and that I think it is absolute $%&!! Everything I've ever read of your edits has been incredibly civil, unbiased (and probably correct, although I guess I don't know enough to know that for sure :-)

And some of your detractors are incredibly rude -- I think in a way rude people get away with it because polite people do, well, the polite thing and don't respond -- or respond politely.

So just wanted to offer some moral support. I can't believe you manage to keep up the good fight so determinedly -- I bagged out after a couple weeks! Jonathanmills 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, thank you for your moral support. Yes, some of the editors at the Srebrenica massacre article are difficult to work with. About the block, I'm not too upset. I'm working on other articles in the meantime. Hope all is well with you. Cheers Osli73 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll notify you of future AfDs. Thanks :) - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove my edits since they were not added by me but an anonymous user. I only add reliable references. The edit is not controversial. From before we a have a very controversial and false quote of Mustafa Kruja. Unlike this quote the quotes I referenced are original. Albanianhistory is a site maintained not by Albanians but a Canadian expert in Albanian issues. He has published several books on Albanians and Balkans. He is definitely not biased. Please understand this. --Noah30 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit on Kosovo since Robert Elsie who has written more than 15 books is a reliable source and he has not written the text. He only presented the document in a website maintained by him. What about the Mustafa Kruja quote? Why did you not remove it? Every one here knows that you are pro-Serb and have been banned from editing Srebrenica massacre article. Stop with disruptive, biased edits. We can use primary sources at Wikipedia. --Noah30 16:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/0031606.htm

Books:

• Genocide After Emotion: The Postemotional Balkan War edited by Stjepan G. Mestrovi'c
• Milosevic: The People's Tyrant By Vidosav Stevanović

Elsie writes:

"[Taken from Iseljavanje Arnauta. Manuscript in the Institute of Military History of the Yugoslav People's Army (Vojno Istorijski Institut JNA). Archives of the former Yugoslav Army (Arhiv Bivše Jugoslovenske Vojske), Belgrade, 7 March 1937, No. 2, Fasc. 4, Box 69, 19 pp. Retranslated from the Serbo-Croatian by Robert Elsie, on the basis of an existing English version. First published in R. Elsie, Gathering Clouds: the Roots of Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo and Macedonia, Dukagjini Balkan Books (Peja 2002), p. 97-130.]"

If you are offended by my comments I apologize! But I will still work for including Cubrilovic memorandums --Noah30 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Kosovo are biased towards Serbs. You have removed my quotes and added Kruja quote which I think and know is a fabrication. We should not use SANU as a source since they are anti-Albanian and not reliable according to WP. Since you have made all the edits, please go and remove the Kruja quote for the same reason you removed Cubriliovic quotes. You have also toned down what Cubrilovic wrote in his memorandums. He did not only suggest to force Albanians to Albania and Turkey but also to make it impossible to live in Kosovo and use brutal force. Add this too. Besides Cubrilovic wrote two memorandums, one in 1937 and another in 1944. Go and read them. In the and why did you only add fact templates to sentences about expel and abuse of Albanians. Yet another biased edit in my opinion. --Noah30 17:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, comments on your entry above:

1. I don't believe that my edits are "biased towards Serbs". I'm trying to stick to the presentation made in the sources which I mentioned (BBC, etc.).
2. I didn't add the Kruja quote. Someone else added it before I became involved in the article. I simply adjusted it's position in the article. However, regardless of whether it's a fabrication or not, I don't think it warrents specific mention in the article and should be removed. See my point on below.
3. I'm sure Cubrilovic suggested some very nasty things, just as Kruja and lots of other people did. Instead of including quotes (included mainly, I suspect, to show 'the other side' in as bad a light as possible) I think the text should describe the policies and events as they are described by reliable and reasonably unbiased sources, such as the BBC.
4. I don't see how could find the fact-tags to be 'biased' in any way. I added them to all kinds of statements which I believed needed to be verified/referenced. Both those concerning abuses of Albanians and Serbs. Please read it again (link to my edits).
5. It would be very good if you could help me in finding good on-line sources on the history of Kosovo which we could all agree on to base the article on. I think adding quotes from prime sources risks turning into endless discussions about WP:POV.

Happy MidsummerOsli73 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I am waiting for you to remove the Musafa Kruja quote for the same reason you removed Cubrilovic. I can do it myself but wants to be kind and not destroy the things you wrote. Go a head! Wish you a nice summer --Noah30 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once again, I didn't write/enter the Kruja quote. It was there before. You are welcome to remove it. I would want to change the entire text. Given teh difficulty of finding internet sources I just purchased Tim Judah's hisotory of the Serbs which I think could provide some good answers. Am also looking for the "History of Kosovo" book, but haven't been able to find it in my bookstore yet. CheersOsli73 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... can be found here (with reference, of course) Bosniak 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be deleted, here is my compromise:

Serbophobia is a controversial term meaning a "historic fear, hatred or jealousy of Serbs".[1] The term is controversial inside Serbia and the Balkans and has differing histories and connotations based on the origins of the user. According to outside commentators, the term was popularised in the 1980s and 1990s during the re-analysis of Serbian history.[2] The term was often likened to anti-Semitism, and expressed itself as a re-analysis of history where every event that had a negative effect on the Serbs was likened to a "tragedy".[3] Often associated with the politics of Serbian victimization of late 1980s and 1990s[4], the term is used to justify the aggressive Serbian politics of the 1980s and 1990s; these associations are reportedly exemplified in Slobodan Milošević's historic speech at Kosovo in 1989.

According to Serbian nationalists, the term is justified as Serbs have been the victims of centuries long oppression,[5] first by the Turks, then by the Croats, and now by Muslims in Bosnia and Albania.[6] Neighbours of the Serbs, except the Greeks, Bulgarians and Montenegrins have long hated their Christian Orthodoxy and freedom,[7] and thus have committed Serbophobic acts like knocking down monasteries and shouting at Cyrillic newspapers.[8]

Btw, the [5], [6], [7], [8] should be links to reliable sources which state that "Serbophobia is as a result of centuries long oppression", "Serbophobia has been used by Turks, Croats and Bosniaks/Albanians", "Part of Serbophobia is a hatred of Christian Orthodoxy" etc. etc. And yes, I'm being flippant :) The second paragraph needs re-writing, but the compromise is in the format. What say you? - Francis Tyers · 08:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, a couple of comments on your suggested text:

1. saying that the term is "controversial" in the intro as a statement of fact isn't exactly NPOV
2. it's not the "origin of the user" which determines the connotation, but rather the viewpoint.

   Ok, we can say "viewpoint"

3. the term as such can't have more than one meaning. However, there can be differing views as to how the term has come to be used

   The meaning is the same, the history and the connotations can vary. The meaning is "historic fear, hatred or jealousy of Serbs". And there is only one meaning specified.

4. presenting the view of the 'detractors' of the term first, before the view of those who use it, is neither logical nor NPOV. I'd think the normal way would be to present the meaning of the term, how it is used by those who use it and then, maybe, in the end present the comments made by some about how it has come to be used.

   We can put what reliable sources say about it first, then what non-reliable sources say.

5. I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the second or third paragraphs.

I'll post a suggestion soon. CheersOsli73 09:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a third paragraph, the second paragraph gives my (flippant) take on it, and should be replaced by yours, or whatever the Serbian nationalists think. Gaaah... I really didn't want to debate this... How about we just revert back to Nikola's version and AfD it again? - Francis Tyers · 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, please don't get started with personal attacks about me and "Serbian nationalists". As I've written before, I'd prefer to delete it. Here's a suggestion of texts that could be included:

Serbophobia refers to a fear, hatred or jealousy of Serbs or Serbia.

Hatred toward Serbs is a dominant theme in the writings of many Serbian intellectuals. This theme in Serbian ressentiment contends that in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) the Serbian republic had to endure "the unequal and humiliating position of the Serbian people in the present-day Yugoslavia under the rule of an anti-Serb coalition, especially of `Serbophobia,' which in the last decades has grabbed wide layers of Slovenian, Croatian, Albanian peoples, and some parts of the Macedonian intelligentsia and Moslems. . . . The Albanian national minority for longer than two decades from its motherland hounds the most populous Yugoslav people." The Serbian nation is "surrounded by hatred, which made its peace more tormenting than the war." The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts also contributed by organizing a conference on the Croatian war memorial at Jasenovac, once more heating up the unavoidable theme of the Croatian genocide of the Serbs; an accompanying tract accused Croatia of assimilating Serbs living in the republic. The Serbian Writers Association also organized a meeting in 1989 with the theme of "Serbophobia," where Croatian genocide was once again featured prominently.[50]

During the 1990s the term has also come to be applied to 'Western' criticism of Serbia's role in the conflict the former Yugoslavia.[51]

According to some commentators, the belief in Serbophobia is an ingridient in Serbian victimization and nationalism.[52]

How about it? CheersOsli73 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it wasn't a personal attack. I apologise if it seemed that way. Its actually pretty funny how accurate my version is without me actually read much about it! :D Except the bit about shouting at newspapers. Anyway, can you give a concrete lead that we could work with? - Francis Tyers · 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I'm not sure what you meant by "give a concrete lead that we could work with". The small text above was my suggestion. CheersOsli73 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Osli,

just saying hi, and that it's nice to have someone in the trenches beside me :-)

Funny how we both say 'cheers' at the end of our posts -- I'm sure that won't help in terms of people thinking we're sockpuppets!

Cheers Jonathanmills 09:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, used to work in the UK for a couple of years, picked up the "Cheers" habit there. About the article, it is very frustrating indeed. In theory it could be a very good article, there's lots of good material and interest among editors. However, in a way it's been hijacked by, in my opinion, extremists, who see it as a tool for Serb-bashing rather than an encyclopedic article (though selective presentation and interpretation of data, selective wording, etc.). This is also one of the reasons the article keeps expanding. As I've said before, I'd be more than happy to cut it down to the recommended size (or thereabouts) and letting the rest of the info be in separate articles or 'further reading' links (heck, since a lot of the stuff in the article is a copy paste, more or less, from the ICTY judgement, why not put that in the 'further reading' links?). As I said, I've tried suggesting to cut it down before but have been met with hostility or silece. CheersOsli73 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is even better evidence of sockpuppetery. Believe me I am a law student. Because this is the way people are trying to camouflage their actions, implying that they communicate, that they are different persons. But it is not about communication, it is about check-user statistic. Cheers :D The Dragon of Bosnia 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon of Bosnia, you're getting very tiring. For a law student you seem much more interested in throwing around loose accusations and pejorative words than in discussing legal findings and sources. Please, try to stick to the matter at hand. It's not all some great 'Serb conspiracy'. I accept that as a Bosniak you probably have a very emotional involvement in the Srebrenica massacre, however, that to participate productively in editing this article, you have to be able to leave those feelings behind.Osli73 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I insulted you, I just want fair editing by you and other Serbs, not sockpuppet games. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon of Bosnia:

1. I can't see that you are sincerely "sorry" about an insult of sockpuppetry if you then go on to repeat it.
2. Please state what you believe to be "fair editing". I posted a proposal for a "Fresh start" to editing the article back in February. Without such a fresh start I see little chance of creating a good article and ending edit wars and such ugliness. However, as you'll see, there was little/no interest in this. I would welcome any comments you had on my proposal.

CheersOsli73 10:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Christ. Dragon, if you're reading, why don't you just wait for the results of your investigation (you *will* be proved wrong, so you're only going to look like more of a fool when the truth comes out).

Yeah, Osli, I totally agree with you about the size, as you're probably aware from my contributions on the talk page. Is there any way (I don't really have any idea about how we might possibly do this) that we could perhaps work together to make a pared-down version and then present it to the wider group? That's just a thought that occurred to me. Because it seems clear to me that none of the Bosniak-partisan editors are at all interested in cleaning up and shortening the article. We could leave the contentious facts in the existing article more-or-less as they are in order to get it accepted, and then work from there to try and clean those up (the things like Scorpions and all the POV, etc). Any thoughts? Jonathanmills 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, yes, I think that might be a good idea. I guess a good start would be a, what is it called, a "Sandbox"? I guess for there to be any chance of getting it accepted, we should try to recruit some more editors. Even then, in the end I can't imagine it being accepted by some of the more passionate editors on the article. Is it possible to present two different versions of articles for some kind of arbitration? CheersOsli73 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli, I don't know much (well, anything, actually) about 'sandboxes', but I can look into it, I guess. You know anything about how they work/ where we could start one?

As for getting more editors involved, I don't know -- I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but to be honest I'm not sure if there's *anyone* else on there that I view as neutral enough (basically, interested in writing a good Wiki article rather than just banging on about how bad the Serbs are); also, some of the English-language skills over there are not the best.

Like I say, if we simply shortened it and left some of the pro-Bosniak POV in there, we might get it accepted and *then* be able to (try to) work on that -- which is annoying, but if we don't do it that way, I can't see it getting accepted.

And, yeah, I wonder if there isn't some sort of arbitration process we could look into (after the new version is done). I don't know anything about how arbitration works, though, or what it deals with exactly. Cheers Jonathanmills 07:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, Ok, I think this might be a way forward. So, a couple of points:

• Sandbox: I've started one here, on my userspace. Maybe there are better ways of doing it, but at least this is a start (and we can always change 'address' later).
• More editors: I still think it would be good if we could get some more editors onto the project. How about Djma12, El_C, Duja,Dado and Jitse Niesen? Any of the 'Bosniaks' whom you think we should consider?
• Arbitration process: El_C has been knowledgeable about such things in the past. I'll ask him.

CheersOsli73 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds good. I'll try to get started on your sandbox, but my contributions might be somewhat intermittent as I'm going to be a bit busy over, well, actually the next two weeks, probably -- don't take it as a lack of interest; I've got a holiday planned and I also really need to find employment at the moment (however, I'm more inspired to spend time on this than over at the actual page).

As for the Bosniak editors, I'm not sure -- I thought Fairview possibly seemed reasonable enough, but then I noticed he seemed to be making some smarmy personal attacks on you (I actually went over to his talk page and asked him why he had such a problem with you -- not to rush to your defence or anything, just to know what his objections were, but I haven't received a response yet); as for the others, you probably know them (and which ones you think you can work with productively) a lot better than I do. So your call, I'd say.

Yeah, I saw his answer. I think he first got pissed off because he couldn't grasp that someone could support including "revisionist views" in the article but not necessarily support those views himself. It's as if anyone who thinks dissenting views should be included, also of Serbian nationalists, must be a Serb nationalist himself. Finally, I think he gets pissed of because I don't like to back down when intimidated. I finally did though, by changing my id, after receiving some very nasty messages on my personal email address (non-Wiki) with abuse related to my edits on the Srebrenica article. He's one of the better 'Bosniak' editors, but still very ideological in his frame-of-mind - you're either for or against. CheersOsli73 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nikola Smolenski guy could be a useful guy to at least consult, as he seems to know quite a bit about the facts and details. (It might seem biased to exclude Bosniaks and bring on a Serb, I guess, but I think he would be easy enough to work with and wouldn't be pushing POV all the time -- but again, I don't really know him; you've had a lot more experience with all the editors). Although actually, I must admit I did mention it to him earlier on today -- sorry if that was inappropriate, I wasn't really thinking it through. I don't know if he'd be interested anyway.

Would definitely be good to find out about the arbitration details (as you said you'll do) before we put too much effort into it, too. Although I think even trimming the article down to size (regardless of content) would be a useful project -- and if it was a similar POV but just smaller, I don't see why they (the Bosniaks) would object. (Actually, maybe that's far too optimistic, but hope springs eternal, as they say :-) Cheers Osli Jonathanmills 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing: I'm just wondering if it might be worthwhile to dump the existing page into your sandbox and work from there at paring it down? Two reasons: 1) I don't know enough about the events to work from the top of my head, and also editing down comes quite naturally to me; and 2) It will give us an idea of the existing POV and how far we can change things but still end up getting it accepted by the Bosniak editors. Think that's a good idea at all? Jonathanmills 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan,

1. I'll check out the arbitration opportunities (I've contacted User:El_C, see here)
2. I would much prefer to start with a blank page. Otherwise, I find I too easily get stuck in the same rut as the previous article. However, I have no problems with adding back/adapting entire sections from the existing article which are good.
3. No problems if this takes time. I'll be out travelling for much of August and so will have little time to work. But we might as well get started.
4. Since this is a cooperative effort feel free to invite the editors you feel are appropriate. See what Nikola's reponse is.

Thank's for your contributions. Much appreciated. CheersOsli73 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli,

that's fine about not wanting to cut and paste the article. I was thinking I might make my own sandbox to do that, and then bring my completed (trimmed-down) portions over to this one.

Yeah, the main reason I'd like Nikola's input is, I haven't read all the ICTY stuff (there's a lot of stuff!) and I don't really trust that what's in the existing article necessarily even follows it precisely, so it would be good to have someone like him looking things over. (I'm not actually sure if he's interested; I haven't seen whether he's responded to my message to him yet)

As for inviting other editors (ie the Bosniaks), I'd still kind of like to run the names by you as there appears to be so much ill-will and hostility on their part towards you that I don't know who (if any) you think you could work with. (I don't mind disagreement and debate, but I'd rather avoid total edit-warring and abuse, not to mention blatant POV-pushing)

So, that said, I did think Fairview seemed one of the more reasonable Bosniak editors, but he does seem to have a lot of hostility towards you and says he 'can't be bothered corresponding with you any more' or something (in response to my question to him about what his problem was with you).

Other Bosniaks - maybe Hanzo? (actually I'm not sure he's a Bosniak per se, but he obviously takes that side of the debates). I'm really not sure about Opbeith -- he comes across as one of the more reasonable ones in some ways, but there's something I kind of don't like about him and I can't quite put my finger on it.

Actually, I seem to be able to personally get along (pretty much) with even some of the more extreme Bosniak editors -- eg, 'Bosniak' himself, Dragon of Bosnia -- but that cordiality might collapse if some serious disagreements arise on the article, I'm not sure.

The only other thing -- and this is important -- is that if we do invite any of them individually, don't you think they'll just inform all the others? And then the whole thing might collapse. This is something very important to consider.

Cheers, will await your response/ thoughts. Jonathanmills 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, you need really to learn how wiki works. Anything you ever write on wikipedia is part of public record and can be tracked. So, if you want to have confidential conversation with Osli, you need to have it outside of wikipedia.

More important, think again about who appears reasonable to you. You are now seeing Nikola as reasonable reliable user. Nikola supports Radovan Karadzic. I believe you do know who Karadzic is. After making it very clear that he gives no credibility to ICTY, Nikola posed this rhetorical question at 17:07 on 24 February 2007: "What is wrong with Karadzic's character and record other than things ICTY accuses him of?".

Hey anon-user,

1. why are you adressing User:Jonathanmills on my talk page?
2. who ever said anything about having "confidential conversations", do you think there is a reason the above discussion should be hidden?
3. I completely agree - Karadzic is a war crimina, convicted or not.

CheersOsli73 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Anon-user', whoever you are -- I've responded to your points on my talk page.

Osli, I'm sorry to hear about your being banned. Hope things are going OK with you. Jonathanmills 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm on vacation (which means a very expensive intl. mobile roaming connection) for about a month. See ya.Osli73 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide and User talk:Addhoc#Ping --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide#Formal mediation --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advice you to stop reverting articles - 3RR (Bosnian war and other) and to stop making things up.

Read: Wikipedia:No original research:

1. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
2. Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
3. Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [53] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research.

You shouldn't misuse Wikipedia by uploading unverified photos, too. The war is over, propaganda should be over too. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon,

1. the sources I cite (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the Bosnian Mujahideen
2. yes, the Bosnian Mujahideen were often referred to as El Mujahid or El Mujaheed, as I state in the article.
3. the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources (pls note the list of references)
4. I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propagande during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist.
5. 'your' article on the 7th Muslim Brigade is, in my opinion, considerably less NPOV, less well sourced (and not verifiable sources either) and deals more with the Mujahideen as they were used in Serb propaganda than the actual unit.
6. although you may perceive the article to be "Serb propaganda" I do not use a singe 'Serbian' source in it, precisely to avoid this type of accusation. If you review the sources you will see that they are mainly US media, government reports or ICTY documents.

I can't see why you should be so dismissive of this article given the above. Osli73 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles called 7th Muslim Brigade, and The role of foreign volunteers. This is just redundant WP:OR article, based on unrelaible sources per WP:RS. On the other hand my sources are International court findings. The sources should be relaible, such as verdicts, verified documents, not blog, websites or unverified pictures/photo montague. You also tried to delete the cause of foreign volunteers arrival, and the cause were mass war crimes committed by Serb forces. This is the ICTY conclusion. So when you talk about NPOV, I juct can't understand your earlier actions. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon, I've already explained why I don't agree with your motives for deleting these pages/links. From your reply I realize you don't understand/agree with my answers. So, since we're obviously not on the same wavelenght here I suggest that instead of edit warring, we let the administrators have their say or, if that doesn't work, enter into some kind of arbitration process. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you stopped your deletions.Osli73 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:A rare photo of the mujahedeen unit in the Bosnian Muslim Army on parade in downtown Zenica in 1995.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:A rare photo of the mujahedeen unit in the Bosnian Muslim Army on parade in downtown Zenica in 1995.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[54][55]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:A rare photo of the mujahedeen unit in the Bosnian Muslim Army on parade in downtown Zenica in 1995.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at it. In the meantime, please remain calm to avoid further blocks.

Fred-J 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I appreciate your involvement in this. Please not that I have requested mediation on this dispute. RegardsOsli73 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a recently-closed arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm actually not an admin, so I can't help you. Sorry. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock removed or expired. Request handled by: Stifle (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why I'm still blocket since the original block should have expired over an hour ago.Osli73 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to be blocked anymore. I tried to remove the autoblock and got an error. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made in Srebrenica massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. NeutralBosnian (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB, no, but you certainly do seem to be doing a lot of reverts on that topic:

• 13:19, 7 December 2007
• 12:17, 7 December 2007
• 00:02, 7 December 2007
• 11:24, 6 December 2007
• 10:16, 4 December 2007
• 14:44, 3 December 2007
• 14:20, 3 December 2007

I see at least a couple of 24h periods in there. I suggest that we ask for some 3rd party opinions on this matter. Could you set up a Request for Mediation (WP:RFM)Osli73 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already some very brief discussion on in the article talk page concerning your edit [56]. I've restored the other half of your edit, but recommend you join the discussion about the "South Slavic" issue on the talk page. To me, it seems a very strange thing to remove from the article, but no one has argued for its inclusion yet. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to your version. Still, it's always helpful to check the talk page for relevant discussions. Thanks for your help, or I probably wouldn't have looked into this deeper. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Dragon is up to be assured that people are looking in to it and too many reverts will only harm your side. Clearly those tags are justified but maybe you aren't the best person to make the case given your history. I'm an uninvolved editor with no POV baggage (in fact, most of my POV baggage relates to being seen as defending Muslim militants) and I'm watching it. <eleland/talkedits> 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to warn you to stop reverting articles such as 7th Muslim Brigade according to 3RR. I would also advise both of you not to make clans in Wikipedia, as it is against the rules, and I will adress it to the right place if this continues. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know there are other editors interested in the issue. I will lay off it. The 3RR situations I have gotten myself into in the past are due my edits being attacked by Bosnian editors with very much the same type of behavior as The DoB's. I dislike being bullied.Osli73 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, learned better. Since every single 3RR violated believes that their edits are being attacked by disruptive POV pushers, admins are unlikely to investigate your defense further. In any case edit-warring is considered much more disruptive than temporarily leaving a bad article in place. <eleland/talkedits> 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jag är ledsen. Jag har tyvärr inte tid att sätta mig in i det här just nu. Jag har för mycket att göra i skolan. Mvh --Litany (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to warn you to stop reverting Serbian propaganda article, because of 3RR rule. You are redirecting it to wrong article, because propaganda isn't the same term as media role. If you have smth else on your mind use discussion page of related article. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-02-02/Orals-1.html

http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/bosnia2.htm

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/07753/sample/9780521807753ws.pdf

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36969

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/wtb/wtb12.incl

http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Rights/94/Bosnia94.html

http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/2/598.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1482296.stm

http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&P=49460

http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=6415&kat=3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3255208.stm

http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&P=39478

http://iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=337293&apc_state=henh

http://www.un.org/icty/transe14/981030IT.html

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/had-ii010713e.htm

http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/tele.htm

:: Are you trying to spoil the good name of Bosniaks and defend nazi fascist past of Serbia? Read the judgments, not "excerpts" from proceedings and accusations. It is very unfortunate that most people do not have intelligence to understand that allegations are not the same as judgments. And stop quoting Srebrenica Genocide deniers such as Global Research, Emperor's Clothes, and other nonsense. Bosniak (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Osli: Hi, it's not about you - it was a response to person who posted those garbage links. All the best, ... PS: You are not denying Srebrenica genocide, don't you? I haven't read your latest edits. Bosniak (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osli73, regarding this edit, I had opened up two tabs of vandalism at once, both were mass blankings and also opened the tab with that edit. Your edit removed large amounts of sourced, cited information, and I tagged it as vandalism. My apologies, as this is clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. However, I would like to suggest that instead of mass-removing and re-writing an article, you discuss your changes on the article's talk page, especially with an article that may be controversial. It appears there is a bit of history there of reverting back and forth, so I will leave it to you to sort it out, as I would imagine that you know more of the history and the issues than I do, and again I do apologize, feel free to revert me with an edit summary of "content changes, see talk page please" so it does not trigger recent changes as a mass blanking. Thank you so much, Ariel♥Gold 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Bosnian genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I have been busy. I'm back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdirrim (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asserting that claim in the Kosovo article, just reverting an IP deleting a section of text without explanation. Looking at it more carefully I can see why it is contentious. Green Giant (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the Macedonia decision allows admins to impose virtually any sanctions needed on anyone editing on Balkan-related topics. Please make use of that before coming to the Committee with repeat cases. Kirill 16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Evric ,Anarchia, Zetawoof, Double Blue, SatyaTN, Meanwhile, I have already added two newspaper translated reveiws on Naresh Sonee page as per your instruction.Consider it as Natobility or Reliable Sourse. In day or two I will be adding more. Your goodself were the Editors who were looking after my page. I have also requested Graeme, Kindly when ever your good selves feel free or have time, you'll feel free to edit Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan pages. I again request you'll to edit, improve & beautiyfy the same more.I can also email or post here scanned copies of newspaers of India. If there still exist some doubt in you in my integrity. or for my Guru Naresh Sonee. Please also see that the page sustain / exist for good global noble reasons and reactions. I am not here to spread hatred in world. Regarding the lines you object 'contraversial poet' - 'aroused reaction' on my page etc . Some editor must have changed my original script. Genuinely I have nothing to do with all that. If you check my first day page,of Dec 2007. My original lines says-

Naresh Sonee Sohum Sutra is an Indian poet-author born on 11th February 1958 in Phagwara- Punjab . He is a commerce college drop out. At the age of four he and his three sisters along with his parents shifted their base to Mumbai . His father was a small time ‘wrist watch parts’ business man. Naresh Sonee enjoyed an in built quality of scribbling rhymes since the age of eleven. He writes in his country language Hindi as well as English . -'

Some editors must had done changes of words, sentences for the sake of improvement. such change and added contraversial line 'aroused reaction etc... were not put by me.If you can check with your tools , check it out.I am innocent. Those are not my line. Any way I will re put to original line. But 'You all Dear' please also guide how can one keep constant tract on it done pages reading, verfying them time & again. You too will agree , It is not possible for me to guard my page every hour. if some new editor add such line innocently or ignorantly to improve the compostion. What can I do? Pls help me all of you. In due course I also fear that rigid religious or LGBT group/individual can also jump / interfere with my page to play mischief in editing in the name of improving or cleaning up. So guide me the right way as you all are all expert. Save rescue me please. -Alan Sun---Dralansun (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you will know, I'm having problems with The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy on a wide number of related articles. These, to varying degrees, include: 7th Muslim Brigade, Bosnian Mujahideen, Serb propaganda, Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia, Alija Izetbegovic, Mujahideen, Bosnian War and Srebrenica massacre. These conflict are all related to, what I perceive to be, these editors' use of these articles (and potentially others) for the purpose of pushing nationalist views, with glaring examples of WP:POV, WP:COAT, WP:SOURCES and WP:OR, to name a few. He has also deleted articles or links to articles which which he does not agree with. I feel that I have raised these issues (POV, etc) with him but have met with no understanding. I have also nominated the articles Serb propaganda and 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion. The latter is still pending while the outcome of the afd process on the Serb propaganda article was no consensus. While I agree that the subject deserves an article, Serb propaganda certainly was an important factor in the Yugoslav Wars, I, as did most of the non-Bosniak editors who participated in the afd debate, feel that the current article is grossly POV.

My question is, rather than engaging in never ending reverts and engaging in lengthy and extremely time consuming mediation processes for each and every one of these articles / conflict, is there a way to deal with what is the underlying problem with all of them, namely WP:POV, in one single mediation/arbitration process? All the other problems are merely symptoms/results of the underlying nationalist POV being pushed in these articles? You recently mentioned that there was a precedent for dealing with conflict where an "editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process" (where I take the first two to also cover POV issues) related to the Balkans. Could this be used as a basis for such an arbitration process?Osli73 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was already an arbitration case, and a new one will be declined with the instruction to use the discretionary sanctions.

What you need to do is list at WP:AE, not here a history of four or five diffs that indicate how one or more specific editors has/have disrupted at one or more specific articles, then an uninvolved administrator will be able to apply the discretionary sanctions such as an article ban, block, or other limitation. Please stop making these requests on my talk page as

1. it may make me an involved administrator and unable to help out
2. listings on the noticeboards will be dealt with quicker, and
3. I am going on vacation next week and won't be able to deal with it anyway

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not about you - it was a response to person who posted those garbage links. All the best, ... PS: You are not denying Srebrenica genocide, don't you? I haven't read your latest edits. Bosniak (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli73, I would like to inform you, that this is my last warning. I am going to start request for comment because of you past behaviour. I collected all your disruptive edits, so I decided to inform you before I start it. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the request for comment, according to the rules I have to warn you not to revert articles such as: Al Qaeda, Mujahideen, Bosnian Genocide, Serb propaganda and others. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoB, my perception is that you (et al) are reverting my NPOV edits with your own POV edits. I realize you must be frustrated that I do not agree what I believe are Bosnian nationalist views. I'm not quite sure what you are warning me of though.Osli73 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have volunteered to help out with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen. Please indicate on the case page if you agree to my assistance. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Osli73. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war over multiple articles regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornix_talk 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make this revert to the Bosnian Genocide article using the IP address 83.250.232.71? Please reply on my talk page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war over multiple articles--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I sign all my edits.Osli73 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@OSLI73, will you stop vandalising AI and Bosnian Genocide? Read WP:3RR for more info! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been "vandalizing" it. I am removing edits which I believe are oompletely out of line and which you, for some reason, have not been willing to bring to formal mediation. If you are not willing to bring the conflict to mediation, I don't see why you persist in insisting on "your" version?Osli73 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SWik78, thank you for your input regarding Coatrack on the Serb propaganda article. I've long felt the article is a mix of different alleged and real individual cases of Serb propaganda in general rather than a coherent article based on a proper source. I've suggested the article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda) and proposed an alternative, more focused, article on Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia based on research by a Prof. Renaud De la Brosse. I don't think this edit conflict is likely to be resolved without help from outside mediation. I've asked Vassyana, who is mediating a conflict I have with the same editors involved here (The Dragon of Bosnia and Gandy Gandy), to take a look at mediating edit conflict with these two persons on a wider set of articles: including the Serb propaganda article. First, a question: do you think it worthwhile to treat these edit conflict as a group rather than individually? Second, your engagement in these articles/mediation processes would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in my opinion, the Serb propaganda article is very problematic for several reasons, one of them being that it opens the possibility for nationalistic edit warring from all sides. I whole-heartedly agree about merging this entire article with Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia. I think that these and other edit conflicts should be handled separately. I believe that if you decided to pursue a resolution to this problematic article by naming it in a group of other articles that are topically related or that have the same major contributors it might be fairly easy for someone on the outside of this debate to label this as a content dispute from 2 POV sides. The better way to go, in my opinion, is to show yourself to be objective and neutral by focusing on 1 problematic article at a time. Equally as important is to try and steer clear of implicating opposing editors as POV pushers or anything along the lines of commenting on the editor rather than content. I just think that would be the safer way to go if we're to be taken seriously on this issue. Also, I would be more than happy to participate in the process. SWik78 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to help out in mediating the disagreement across all of the relevant articles. Please make sure the involved disputants agree. Also, please understand that some individual articles may have solutions and issues that are not applicable to the entire group of articles. I am happy to do my best to assist all of you in finding agreeable solutions to your conflict. I have taken a good look over the history of, and discussion about, Bosnian Mujahideen. I will look into the other articles to get a feel for the broader issues involved, along with ascertaining what is limited to individual articles and what seems to be common to the group. Regarding the other parties, you could let them know my assistance is available for the group of articles or if you let me know who is principally involved I can contact them myself. Let me know either way. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, great. I fully understand that it will take some time. However, please note that I've gone ahead with a separate request for mediation on the Bosnian genocide article as the matter of the dispute differs from that in the others (which are all related to the Bosnian Mujahideen article). Of course, you are welcome to take on that as well.Osli73 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not pick up an additional case unless I am sure I could devote enough time to the task. I apologize, but I'm unsure if I could manage the additional load at the current time. Regarding the "fighter" set of articles, will you be contacting the other parties or would you prefer if I did so? Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, I fully understand if you would rather concentrate on the articles related to the Bosnian Mujahideen article. As emtions are rather high I would prefer if you contacted the other editors involved. Regarding the Bosnian Genocide article, I would appreciate if could contact some of the other mediators to ensure that it is picked up by someone.Osli73 (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, please leave a list of involved parties on my talk page. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broader mediation has been rejected at the current time. I will be nominating Bosnian Mujahideen for deletion as a neutral party. This is based on the concerns of some editors that the title is a neologism and that the article itself inherently violates NPOV and no original research. This will allow the community to consider those concerns. We can move forward after the AfD, based on its results. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide Denial is not libelious or POV, just as Holocaust Denial is not libelious or POV, so don't twist facts with your own agenda. This is not your personal page, please do not remove references and please do not vandalize pages with constant same edits. You have had anti-Srebrenica genocide agenda on wikipedia for a long time, and you have been blocked a couple of times. Please stay civil and don't vandalize factual references and paragraphs. LeeCorrie (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeeCorrie, I don't agree:

1. calling someone a genocide denier without the support of reliable and widely accepted sources claiming precisely that, is libelous and Original Research. It is you who are calling him a "genocide denier". You don't provide references showing that he is widely accepted as such. By calling him a "genocide denier" you are not providing facts but views.
2. I am not "vandalizing" the article, I am trying to provide a NPOV presentation of Trifunovic's views. I resent you accusation.
3. I am nothing but civil.
4. What, exactly, do you mean by "You have had anti-Srebrenica genocide agenda on wikipedia for a long time"?

Osli73 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli73, I've accepted the Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case, and the discussion is going to be on the article talk page.--Addhoc (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc, glad to hear that. I have already stated my main thoughts on the talk page. Let me know if you need anything else.Osli73 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Bosnian Mujahideen, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osli, you are contradicting yourself. How about EVAN KOHLMAN, Serbian propagandist activist who wrote lies about Bosnian Mujahedeen and you opened Wikipedia article about Bosnian Mujahadeen based on lies propagated by pro-Serbian activist who is celebrated on Serbian Chetnik sites? You are using double standard. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh uh uh, block shopping isn't the way to go. If you think HanzoHattori is violating one of the remedies of RFAR/Macedonia, WP:AE is what you're looking for. east.718 at 19:38, February 1, 2008

Hi Osli,

It's your old edit buddy Jonathan here! Hey I took a (very long) break from Wikipedia editing and have only just logged in for the first time in probably six months are more. Really sorry to do that when we had a bit of a side project going on re the Srebrenica article as I recall, but I just got totally exhausted with the whole thing, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I see you dropped me a line asking for help on some article (happily that wasn't TOO long ago)... What is the situation on that now? Did you still want some help, and of what sort? And how are things going in general, Wikipedia-wise?

Kind regards

Jonathan Jonathanmills (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a page move from Bosnian mujahideen to El-Mudžahid? If so, why? FYI, Bosnian mujahideen would remain a redirect to the article, per the result of a normal move. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would strongly oppose such a move. Two main reasons:

1. El Mudzahid was the name of one of the units and therefore is inappropriate if the article is to cover the wider phenomenon
2. Bosnian mujahideen (ie not capital M) is the a far clearer and more easily understandable word and will more clearly convey to the reader what the article is about (ie Bosnian mujahideen). El Mudzahid, just as 7th Muslim Batallion, is much more limited and difficult to understand.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked two of the other editors who were contributing to the edit war on that article.

I also need to notify you here, you are hereby on notice that your edits are being investigated for NPOV issues, perhaps minimizing the controversy on the other side, on the article.

WP:BLP concerns are legitimate (and others have clearly violated the policy). But our biographical articles are not whitewashes, either.

WP:BATTLE applies both directions.

I am not reverting anything you've done without further review; however, please be advised that I and other administrators are paying more focused attention on this article and problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Koridor 92 did happen. Few weeks before the operation, 12 babies died in Banja Luka. One surviving baby, Slađana Kobas died in 2005. Are these sources OK?-- Bojan  05:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan, no, I'm sorry, but the source you give does not support what you claim. It states (quote from the IHT article on the total death toll in the war being about 100,000 persons):

The figures include both the missing and those who died due to military activities or torture. The project does not include people who died during the war in accidents, through reckless handling of weapons, due to starvation or lack of medication. "What comes to mind are 12 babies that died in Banja Luka because the hospital had no oxygen or six civilians in Gorazde who died because an airdropped American humanitarian aid package fell right on them," Tokaca said. "Such cases were not counted as they are regarded indirect deaths."

So, the source does not support your claim about a "Operation Koridor 92" causing the death of 12 babies at a hospital. In fact, the source just states that 12 babies died, not why. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree it was badly written, but I'll try explain here, if You don't mind. After JNA's retreating from Bosnia, Bosniask cut Republika Srpska on two parts, thus breaking supply lines from Belgrade through Bosnia to Republic of Serbian Krajina. Both Serb and Muslim/Bosniak infants in incubators in Banja Luka hospitals start dying due to lack of oxygen in May. 12 babies died, majority died in weeks before the operation. Hospital couldn't get oxygen from Belgrade because flights were forbidden. Only syrviving baby from this period, Sladjana Kobas, died three years ago. I didn't want to say deaths were the only motive for Operation Koridor, but I surely think that this sad event was one of motives and that deserves its place in the article. -- Bojan  20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I think the best thing to do here is to ban both Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month, and encourage them to discuss the article on the talk page and engage formal mediation (WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM) if necessary, rather than the current informal mediation. [57] Thatcher 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A report of a violation has been made. (I moved it from WP:ANI to WP:AE#Osli73.) If you wish to comment before sanctions are imposed, now is your chance. GRBerry 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your revert parole is extended for 2 weeks from now, following this report. GRBerry 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea of a redirect is very good and I will endorse it on the discussion page.
I disagree with your conclusion that the term propaganda by itself is inherently POV because propaganda can be defined and there are proper ways to apply the term. It is, however, heavily misued in the article in question and many examples that are listed in the article have nothing to do with propaganda. I do think that you are absolutely 100% right when you speak of the selection of incidents being made by editors rather than a reliable third party source and thereby making the majority of the article OR.
I'll try to take the discussion in that direction and see if any progress is made.
Thanks for participating.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've noticed you are one of the editors who has edited the Bosniaks article. I was wondering if you would have any input into a few "revert wars" happening lately over there. Here's a diff. Personally, I think the changes are biased, a little racist/xenophobic, but mostly, they are wrong.

P.S, I've sent this message to a few of the users I've seen in the page history to try to get a discussion started. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe that the "current" version is the correct one (ie the one which states that Bosniaks are a south Slavic group). Unfortunately, there is quite a lot misunderstanding of genetics/race/ethnic group going around, especially in the Balkan pages. Let me know if I can help. CheersOsli73 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an edit war is again in risk of breaking out in a number of Bosnia related articles:

• Bosnian war
• Bosnian mujahideen
• Mujahideen
• Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war

Basically User:HarisM has been reverting back to the versions of these articles previously proposed by now banned User:Grandy Grandy / User:The Dragon of Bosnia. After my calls for discussion on the talk page regarding these edits have been unanswered I have in turn reverted to 'my' version of the articles. I have now left a message on the talk page[58] of User:HarisM, however, since he has not been willing to discuss edits before (and appears to be canvassing support for his edits[59][60]) I would like to ask you to protect these pages. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected Bosnian War. The edits on the other pages are not sufficient to justify protection at this time. Please make all future requests for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Could you take a look at University of Priština also? Nikola (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request to Mujahideen but the edits since you made the request do not justify protecting it, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent violations of parole have been reported as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator

Fairview360 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14: diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73 violating parole, repeat violator has been transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Osli73 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the reasons for the block. There really isn't any excuse other than that I had forgotten about the 1 month restriction still being active and got caught up in it. I think it is pretty clear that I do seek to discuss edit conflict and do seek conflict resolution. However, it is very difficult to do so when other editors use anonymous and multiple IP addresses to continuously thwart due process. Aggressive language and personal attacks (which was the reason why I attempted to change login last year after some very nasty off-Wikipedia emails) by other editors also do not help. Best regardsOsli73 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the article Alija Izetbegović to my notice. It is my intention to place a block on IP addresses editing that page. However you are well aware of the WP:3R rules and although you did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours you did revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and 28 minutes which breaks the spirit of WP:3RR. If you were not already blocked by Stifle I would have blocked your account. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been to Prishtina? You should realize that UP has been there since 1970.--Getoar (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much activity... I posed a small question on talk, and am waiting for HarisM to reply. Will this take off, or has the problem escalated? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli, me old china (you lived in England for a time as I recall, so I'm hoping you understand my use of Cockney rhyming slang! :-)

Been off WP for a fair while and recently revisited the dreaded Srebrenica Massacre page. Unfortunately lost my cool a bit, but that's another story.

But I was just going to ask you, as I seem to remember you having a series of criticisms/complaints regarding matters of fact on the article... If you have time (no rush, as I've no idea when, if ever, I'll get round to doing anything about it), would you mind briefly summing these up for me?

I've been thinking about trying to make some changes/improvements.. and realised I would probably need to read the entire Krstic ICTY judgement, for starters. Interestingly, while large portions of the article are simply lifted verbatim from the judgement, in one of the few segments I did read, the judgement had been carefully 'pruned' to remove statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side, while emphasising those unfavourable to the Serbian side (surprise! Look at the talk page under 'POV pruning' if you're interested).

Anyway, as part of the fact-gathering process, I thought I'd ask you about your past criticisms, and whether you believe they are still valid or have been resolved. (Answer on my talk page, if you'd like).

In any event, I hope life is treating you well. Still doing any editing? What page/s?

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, sorry for not responding. I've been off Wiki for a while (long vacation) and am now busy on a new job. About the Sreb article. Yes, I've long argued that the article is to a large part a subjective cut and paste job from the icty Krstic judgement. Should definately be worth raising. However, the Krstic judgement IS one of the best sources out there. The other extensive and serious source is the NIOD report. I think any rewrite of the article would require agreeing on a set of basic rules/guidelines as well as which sources to use. Unfortunately, I have not the time to get involved in that article at the moment (have already had to give up work on the Bosnian mujahideen article I have been involved with). best of luck. Osli73 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009

• Bosnian mujahideen New users and unregistered users blocked from editing the page for six months as user:Osli73 has been using IP addresses in a slow revert war with User:Kruško Mortale and they do not seem able to compromise on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Osli73 restricted to one revert a week (1RR) on the page Bosnian mujahideen for six months (or until the page protection is taken off). -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kruško Mortale restricted to one revert a week (1RR) on the page Bosnian mujahideen for six months (or until the page protection is taken off). -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited a week for a constructive discussion to start on the talk page. But as one has not started, I am trying another approach which will allow others to edit the page while the two of you sort out your differences. If you can come to an agreement with your nemesis and both of you agree, then I'll take the restrictions off and unblock the page. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR a week includes vandalism. If you see vandalism and need it fixed then ask me and/or ask at WP:ANI. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you salami slice the problem. Take each point you have raised the least important first and edit the page to add or remove the text you think is appropriate/inappropriate. If it is reversed then start a conversation about it on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a discussion (in fact, I think I've proven that I'm more than willing to enter into constructive discussions). However, as KM and the Bosniaks are the ones who wish to change the article from the original version, I think they are the ones who should put forth the arguments and justify changes - not me. As it is now, they simply refuse to enter into any discussion/propose any arguements and just revert the article to their preferred version. Given this history, I think the chances of us two agreeing as being very small. I'd prefer to involve more outside editors, how do I go about doing that?Osli73 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above: Six months not six weeks --PBS (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Osli73 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made more than one partial reversion to the Bosnian mujahideen in the last week. I am blocking you account for 24 hours. --PBS (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that if I only edited one section at a time this did not entail breaking the limit. Was I wrong?Osli73 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not include changes to text that is over a week old, but in this case you fell foul of editing the heading ==Terrorism allegation== twice.[61], [62] which means that you reverted one of Historičar's edits (Revision as of 21:13, 2 February 2009) and you reverted Historičar's change to the lead Revision as of 20:23, 2 February 2009. So AFAICT as the last edit was the breach, I'll revert to you second last revert. --PBS (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, missed that. In general, though, the whole editing process feels very tedious. Basically, I feel that the editors on the other side (KM, Historicar, et al) don't seem to be interested in or respect serious arguments. Discussions and presentation of fact on the Talk page (which I have tried God knows how many times) seem futile. I've initiated a formal mediation process before. Is that the best way to take? Grateful for your advice.Osli73 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osli,

First off, season's greetings! Hope life is treating you well.

I just wanted to say, firstly, I did have a look at the Bosnian Mujahedin page you mentioned a while ago (I see the edit-conflict is ongoing) but really didn't feel I had much to offer, beyond 'I agree with Osli' -- as I basically did, on pretty much every point. I've got my own slow-edit-war going on with Krusko, as it happens, over at the Celibici prison camp page, so I found it difficult to muster any enthusiasm for entering another one..

Secondly, I was going to ask you if you had the time and inclination (there's no particular time-frame) to join me and perhaps one other editor (who I haven't asked yet) on a sandbox regarding the Srebrenica Massacre page. The other editor is a guy called Mondeo, he's also Scandinavian incidentally (Danish, I think) and a very reasonable, clear-headed contributor at the existing page.

My idea would just be to tap away at it in our spare time and see where we got -- it wouldn't have to be a big drain on your time. On the other hand, I won't be at all offended if you decline; I totally understand why you might be totally over anything to do with the SM article. In any event, I actually started on the intro in a sandbox over at my User Page (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathanmills/Srebrenica_Massacre_sandbox); it was originally meant as an adjunct to the actual talk-page discussions, but was apparently spurned by others (clearly because they are happy with the article as it stands, although 'Fair'view said it was because I 'lacked credibility' or some such nonsense).

Anyway, let me know if you're at all interested. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, first of all, my apologies for the late reply - the financial crisis and family are keeping me busy/away from Wikipedia. I completely understand if you're not willing to get into a slow edit war with Krusko in the Bosnian mujahideen article, it is not very uplifting dealing with nationalist diehards with very different motives. This, and that I'm quite busy at work (12h + days) means I'm going to turn down your offer to get more involved in the SM article (for now anyways). However, I want you to know I appreciate your effort and persistency. All the best!Osli73 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the word "often" and put in a range for the numbers who fought ASAP to show good will and as a start towards a compromise version. There is no need to make the larger change you have suggested until a few days have passed or until Kruško Mortale replies to your last posting to the Bm talk page. --PBS (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, absolutely. No prob. Just one question, what lower range should we use? I cannot find any reference for KM's 300 figure - the SENSE-Agency article he previously used as a reference doesn't mention the figure. The statement "According to the witness, some two hundred Mujahideen fighters from Abu Zubeir’s unit fought in Vozuca in September 1995" in no way implies that it is an estimate of the total number of Bosnian mujahideen. It is simply an estimate of the number of fighters in one unit. The "Predrag Matvejević analysis" is just not a reliable source (for the reasons I've mentioned on the Talk page).Osli73 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bosniaks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73 --PBS (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the articles in question for a month and blocked 3 IP addresses that I believe that you were using to hide your edits, Osli.

At this point there is sufficient evidence here that you are sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting (new IP user shows up out of nowhere and does a sterile revert which supports your prior edit warring on an article, when you doing so logged in would violate your 1RR parole). The IPs all trace back to the same city in Sweden. There's no credible argument why it's not you, or someone you have asked for help, doing this for you.

Per existing policy you can be blocked for abusively sockpuppeting. Do you have anything to say in your defense regarding these incidents?

Please reply on the ANI discussion - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73 - to explain your actions here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto --PBS (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my apology. The edits were made from a mobile phone which doesn't always log in. I realize I violated the 1RR parole but I felt I was provoked by the unchecked editing/reverting of a group of other editors. PBS will be aware of the situation.Osli73 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Osli73, you have not replied to my question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73. I am placing an injunction on you editing any article on Wikipedia until you do. If you break this injunction and edit an article, I will block your access. The only reason I have not done so yet (although the 24 hours are up) is to give you a chance to answer on WP:ANI --PBS (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This ANI discussion has now been archived see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Osli73.

User:Osli73 open up a new ANI discussion. Ask an administrator to read the archive and give you permission to edit any page other than ANI and this one, before you edit those pages. Also leave a message on my talk page so that I know that you are about again and I will join in the discussion. --PBS (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of PBS:

Hi, thank's for helping out with the 'legalities' of the process. Sorry, I haven't replied, I've been out travelling and logging in through the mobile phone is a bit difficult (not to say expensive when you're abroad). As I wrote earlier, I'm sorry I reacted so childishly, but I felt provoked. Frankly, I'm tired of the constant fighting with editors who are driven by nationalist agendas rather than by rational arguments. I will let them have 'their' articles and focus on Swedish Wikipedia or something else. I should have done so a long time ago but I've never liked being bullied... Just as in politics vocal, persistent and well organized minorities are able to dominate marginal issues. All the best. CheersOsli73 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Osli73 under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009 I am placing a ban on you editing any "entire range of articles concerning the Balkans" until April 1st 2009. You may then edit Balkans articles but only if you have explicitly agreed not to use IP addresses when editing Balkans articles. If you agree to these terms and edit a Balkans article accidentally with an IP address, then you must agree to reverts out those edits as soon as possible. --PBS (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Bosnian mujahideen "Until such time as Osli73 agrees not to use IP addresses, I would not consider it appropriate for him to edit Balkans article talk pages." --PBS (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73 I see that you have started to edit Balkans articles without first making the promise I demanded. I am blocking your account under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Area of conflict until you agree not to not to use IP addresses when editing Balkans articles as specified above. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --PBS (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was from my mobile unit where logging in is not so easy. I will only do so while logged in in the future.Osli73 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73 I need you to state on this talk page that you will not use IP addresses when editing Balkans articles and that you will reverse out any accidental edits that you do make with an IP address immediately. If you then violate that promise I suspect that you will be blocked for a long period or even indefinitely. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK: In the future I will not use IP adresses when editing Balkan articles.Osli73 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have now agreed, I have unblocked your account and I have struck out the my entry against your name on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#June 2009 –. --PBS (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Draža Mihailović, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rasim Delic indictment. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasim Delic indictment. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have contributed to the Edward S. Herman page. Would it be possible for you to help build a POV consensus on the page? There is currently an NPOV dispute. Prop9 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]