User talk:Kirker

Ustase lead section

My issue with the lead sentence of the Ustase article is about form, not content. If there are factual and POV problems, that is for you and other editors to hash out. However, Wikipedia cannot have lead sentences that are a total mess, such as:

The Ustaše - as per The New Oxford American Dictionary [1] - "(also Ustashas or Ustashi) ... the members of a Croatian extreme nationalist movement that engaged in terrorist activity before World War II and ruled Croatia with Nazi support after Yugoslavia was invaded and divided by Germans in 1941 > from Serbo-Croat Ustaše 'rebels' ". After the Axis powers withdrew from Yugoslavia, the Ustaše was subsequently defeated and expelled by the communist Yugoslav partisans in 1945.

That is not how lead sections (or anything for that matter) are supposed to be written. They are not proper sentences written in clear English.Spylab 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is users which now think that I am Croatian nationalist user but my rules of editing are simple. Delete Serbian myths about Croats and protect statement with sources which are easy confirmed with links. When I speak about Prebilovci Massacre now is possible to accept that people there is killed because in time of war end there have been only 172 person (from around 1000 in 1941) [1]. On other side I will not accept deleting of Einstein statement in NDH article because it is showing why Croats has been thinking bad of Serbs in 1941. Rjecina 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not problem can you put both (Maček and Einstein) comments on right place in article. Like you can see my english is not best for great changes Rjecina 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not possible to agree about that. When Einstein has attacked regime of king Alexander in League of Nations letter for killings defense of Yugoslav goverment has been that he is bad informed by Croatian rebels (Ustaša ??). Similar answers have been always given from any other dictator regime when they have been under pressure because of state crimes. We are having fact that Einstein has writen letter and Yugoslav goverment comments are without any question POV. --Rjecina 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, sorry - I should have been more clear. I do understand the point you have made here. But if Einstein is to be cited, I think we should also say that when he wrote to the League he was already on record as a supporter of Pavelić. In other words his view of the whole situation was perhaps a little bit naive. I assume your main concern is for the article to say that the Kingdom had become a terrorising dictatorship in the period after Radić was murdered. I would not put it so strongly myself (neither did Maček, although he was put in prison), but you have a fair point and I will try to deal with it, as you asked. I will try to reach agreement with you about how to do it, before I make the changes. In the meantime (it will take me a few days) may I suggest that you leave the Maček stuff alone. It is not appropriate to delete views attributed to him with proper citation and replace them with views for which you have no source. I appreciate that you are having to cope with a language that is not your own, but if you just keep reverting stuff without clear explanation you will begin to lose credibility as an editor, even though I am sure you do everything in good faith. Kirker 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi Kirker, First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, I would appreciate if you don't prejudge people because of their national or ethnic origin, as you seem to do at Talk:Croatia. If you have concerns, feel free to express them at the article's talk page but don't assume malice on anyone. Regards, --Asterion^talk 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user was posting a screed all over people's user and talk pages, and when I blocked him and consulted with a few others we decided to revert the last few. Sorry if this caused any offence. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I come from Prebilovci, therefor I wounder where you come from? And what more do you know about my village?

HELLO!

Hello! I come from Prebilovci and therefor I wounder where you come from? What more do ypu know about my village —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about events surrounding WWII, and are doing a very good job of walking the tightrope between the two different POVs on the page for Ante Pavelić‎ especially. So, well done, and keep up the good work. AniMate 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted deleted comments of banned user User:Velebit puppet . Comments and answers has been writen when this user has not been allowed to write. It is very ease to find puppets of banned users in articles which are speaking about coutries of ex Yugoslavia.User:Velebit is writing fantasy stuff good Serbs and evil Croats. User Afrika Paprika is writing similar stuff about good Croats and evil Serbs. In my thinking AP1929 is puppet of user Brkic (because of his Ustaše thinking) or Afrika Paprika. For now it is not possible to do anything. Users Stagalj/Standshown/Smerdyakoff has edited 4 months before first has been blocked --Rjecina (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed Standshown=Smerdyakoff and Stagalj is not cleared (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff) . My reading english is ulmost perfect but even my croato-serbian writings are bad. I have never been interested in this but only that people understand me --Rjecina (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina is the son of Tito (rolls eyes), I hold way more substance then any of the users you think I am. AP1929 is my first wikipedia account, and will remain so.AP1929 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All puppet write that they are first time on wikipedia--Rjecina (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent State of Croatia

I have edited this article. Because my english s not very good can you please edit my english language mistakes in part of article background (which is new). --Rjecina (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will try! Sometimes your English is VERY hard to follow, LOL. (I hope you are watching my page, as I didn't want to say this on your page.) One of these days I'd like to meet you for a chat, and then I am sure I would understand you better. If you are agreeable to that, you could send an email to r.vrbas@spamgourmet.com, which is not my direct address but but which should work for two or three messages maximum. Kirker (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think to rewrite articles destroyed by user:Velebit. My intention is to do that with small steps so that other editors can say what they think about changes.

In article Ante Pavelić I have created neutral version with which everybody has been OK but not AP1929. For now I do not want to start edit warring with AP1929, but I am sure that he will be blocked in near future.

If you want you can call RFC about Ante Pavelić article (Oops. I need to delete 1 RFC) so AP1929 problem will be solved.--Rjecina (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen only now that there is RFC but nobody want to write comments. All in all RFC question from begining of February is wrong.--Rjecina (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pavelić

Copied from Rjecina's talk page)

I don't know if it was you (Rjecina) who had put in those words once before, but maybe I should not have changed them without discussion. My problems with your version are:

1) A statement that Pavelić directly ordered everything would need be sourced. I changed it because AP1929 challenged it in one of the discussions. I hardly need add that I hope there is a source!

2) Genocide is a much more specifically defined term than terror, and the Ustaša policy certainly qualifies.

3) I don't know whether you are arguing for every word of your editing or whether you have just brought back someone else's words, so.... Are you really insisting on Gypsies? I changed it because for English speakers this term is sometimes derogatory. Kirker (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word Genocide in articles Independent State of Croatia and Ante Pavelić is not internationally accepted. Sources outside ex Yugoslavia are speaking about persecution but not about genocide so this is serbian POV or original research because it is not confirmed by international sources. Because of this reasons every time when is writen genocide in this articles I will revert.--Rjecina (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that says "international acceptance" should decide what goes in Wikipedia. The Armenian genocide has a whole article, although it has been recognised as genocide by fewer than 30 countries. You yourself have referred to an Ustaša campaign of terror, but there has been no international acceptance of that. Genocide is much more precisely defined than terror. Lemkin (who invented the word) and the UN have defined genocide in similar terms. Lemkin said it was "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups". The UN says it can be any of five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. One such act is "killing members of the group." Even some Pavelić apologists acknowledge that there was Ustaša behaviour that would qualify under either definition. They just question whether Pavelić ordered it. Kirker (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia definition of Genocide is: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group"

We are having many similar definitions but fact which we must accept is that Ustaše have not tried to do that because they have wanted to kill "only" 1/3 of Serbs in NDH. You must agree that destruction of 1/3 of ethnic, racial, religious or national group is not genocide, but because of other Ustaše plans this has been ethnic cleansing. All in all my definition that this is ethnic cleansing and your definition that this is genocide is original research which is forbidden on wikipedia. --Rjecina (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article quotes in the intro from the UN legal definition: "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." (I had already emphasised the "in part" bit.) Read on and you will see that the "internationally accepted" definitions cover much more than killing. The article also refers to the ICTY judgment against Krstić, in which Srebrenica was deemed to be genocide on the tenuous basis that 7-8,000 Muslim men were killed. (It's a strange genocide that leaves the women and children unscathed LOL). How many Muslims are there in BiH? (Actually the ICTY decided that the ethnic group in that case was not all of BiH's muslims, but only the 40,000 or so who were in the way of RS linking two parts of its territory. But 8,000 is still a lot less than a third of 40,000.) How can "terror" be a more legitimate description? Kirker (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make long story short if you find international accepted sources that this has been genocide, then we will write that. I hope that you will agree that we need neutral sources with internet links because this is controversial topic ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

No problem --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent State of Croatia

The User that added "minor state" to the text actually named himself after the Crna Legija of the Ustaška Vojnica. I strongly suggest all his edits be carefully monitored.
I was referring to the replacement of the NDH Minister of the Armed Forces, Slavko Kvaternik, on Hitler's order (September, 1942). The sources for this are present in the text of the article: Jozo Tomasevich: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration,Stanford University Press, 2001 page 440.
Weather the term may be considered derogatory or not in some contexts is besides the point, the term is: 1) FAR more frequently used to describe the NDH (according to Google), 2) more correct and accurate than "client state", which is a more general term. Furthermore, "client state" appears only to haver been included in the text to appease Croatian neo-nazi affiliates and/or sympathizers. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Crimen

To end edit warring in this article I am calling all editors of this article for vote on talk page--Rjecina (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today article will be rewriten by User:SoWhy. Look my comments and translation of serbian wiki on his talk page--Rjecina (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki break

It is possible to say that I have became famous in Balkan wiki community because of User:PaxEquilibrium. I am still in shock after finding that he is puppet master behind harass accounts, but now situation is becaming clear. All this years on wiki he has created many puppets to write Greater Serbia propaganda, but his number 1 account has played role of "OK" user (we have discovered his puppets from 2003 ????)

On other side you will agree that we have edited many articles, many times but you have entered discussion ulmost always after me (or my "edit warring"). Because of this my comments has been that you edits are strange.... If Kubura think that you are Pax puppet he can go to user:Thatcher talk page and ask for fast check and answer will come in 1 hour. I am sure that Kubura will read this so I will not write nothing on his talk page.

Around 5 hours from now I am going on 2 day wiki break :)--Rjecina (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirker, I'm not hiding behind Rjecina.
I've just drawn his attention to few strange coincidences.
Why have I informed Rjecina? He worked previously on the case of Justiceinwiki, that's why. He knows the matter much better than me.
There's no need for two persons doing the same job and starting two RFCU's for the same suspicious user.
Bye, Kubura (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Regarding your comments on User talk:Rjecina: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. _Gb^T/c 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While the insinuations that you are a sock are ridiculous, calling someone a "snide arsehole" is probably not the best way to go about venting your frustrations. I'd refactor. A ni Mate 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice

There's a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirker, I would highly suggest that you explain yourself in some way there. You were warned about incivility a few days ago? Did you really think that going to User talk:Kubura and asking him why he doesn't want to talk with you again was the best idea? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I'm sorry if I was perceived as being condescending, you have every right to be angry and annoyed. However, if I learned anything on Wiki its that the "rooder" guy usually ends up looking like he's wrong and generally like he's the "bad guy". I noticed that you were being hasseled not for being a sock, but for being irritated. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock investigations

The only foolproof way to clear someone of a sockpuppet allegation is to run a checkuser (well as foolproof as anything can be in this fool place). Unfortunately, the ckeckusers won't accept cases filed by someone trying to clear their name. I'm fairly certain that they don't like to use the tool like that as it is essentially an invasion of privacy of the targets, so they only use it when their is reasonable evidence of guilt rather than an attempt to prove evidence. My advice: Ignore the petty allegations and continue to edit as you like. If they continue to accuse you, it's on them to prove it or shut the fuck up. Endless allegations without evidence are personal attacks, and if they can't prove them and continue, then your detractors should be blocked. A ni Mate 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've told Kubura his options, as you probably can see. Other than waiting for him to respond, there's not a lot you can do. I'm not sure what you're looking for from him, but if he chooses not to respond or redact there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I suppose you could harass him about it until you are blocked or banned, and though you profess to not care about possible blockings, I do as I think we'd lose a great contributor. My advice is still to ignore what was said in the past, focus on editing, and wait and see if he makes other accusations. Honestly, if getting called a sockpuppet is the worst insult you get here, you should count yourself lucky. I've gotten some real doozies from banned users via my email that bothered me much more than the sock tags that were placed on my user/talk page. A ni Mate 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you both want I will write on Kirker talk page checkuser demand but then for example User:AniMate or user:DIREKTOR will give this case in hands of checkuser (you will leave Kubura in peace because this must end)--Rjecina (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. You want to compile a checkuser case then have either me or Direktor file it. No! Neither of us think he's a sock and I have no intention of lending any legitimacy to Kubura's accusations by filing a case I don't believe in. A ni Mate 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to file it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article

I and Kirker has edited before articles and always come to compromise. With this I want to call Kirker so that we two on this place start discussion about improving article without comments of other users.

1) My thinking is that we must include reason for Ustaše attack on Drakulići. Yes Ustaše are bad guys, yes they like to kill Serbs but why this village and not other. Answer is because of this village support for rebels. Wikipedia is Encyclopedia and not american movie in which we can write that bad guys are killing because they like to kill !
2) I will like to change "The first of these reports gives death tolls at the mine, the school and the three villages which together total 2,287".... with "The first of these reports gives death tolls at the mine, the school and the three villages which together total of more of 1,600"... [2] or "church report from April 1942 gives death tolls at the mine, the school and the three villages which together total of more of 1,600...."[3]. We are having this report and in my thinking because of that we must use this data and link.

Maybe I am making mistake but on talk page of article there is 3 August consensus about use of this sources in article.

Now about quotations

You have asked about rules and Quotations and so:

1) WP:NPOV: "You won't even need to say he was evil (about Saddam). That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary"
2) Wikipedia:Quotations rule about when not to use Quotations:"the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject"

In my thinking if you want to use quotations best example of editorial style is article Rudolf Höß. You will see that article is having quotations but this are always his words. We are having agreement that we can use Filipović words in article because he has "admited his involvement in very serious crimes" (your words). Nobody can protest using of his words in article.

Maybe is even possible to use Šunjić words (quotations):"during Filipović trial Drakulići massacre survivor has declared....", but for me words of Martinović or out of question. She has not spoken during trial, it is question is she has ever spoken about events before 1956 which is 14 years after massacre.

Last great problem in my thinking is section Notes. My proposition for you is to see section references in article Rudolf Höß and then you will understand my problem with this section.

Last small problem is use of words sadistic, cruelty. We must avoid this and similar words in writing articles.--Rjecina (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like banging you head against the wall.... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, this isn't a collaboration between just you and Kirker. Even if he agrees with all of your suggestions, likely Alasdair, DIREKTOR, and I will not. Your arguments about overusing quotes hasn't changed from the first time you made them, and as there is a clear consensus against your proposed changes I suggest you let them go. The referencing in this article is much better than the article on Hoess, as the majority of the references are easily identified and traceable. Personally, I have no problem with tempering some of the adjectives. For some time you've been promising to get administrators or arbiters to weigh in. I suggest that rather than force us to listen to the same arguments over and over and over again, you take one of the actions listed in the dispute resolution process, because this has gone beyond tiring. A ni Mate 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in other words: we've said everything there is to say, twice. You are quite clearly wrong on all points. Stop annoying people with this, and go to ArbCom or wherever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My english is bad but that you 2 can't understand this words:With this I want to call Kirker so that we two on this place start discussion about improving article without comments of other users. ???? Sorry Kirker can't discuss this in peace--Rjecina (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, we have NOT always reached compromise. Sometimes I have just given up because your mind is sometimes closed to reason. For instance, no-one in his right mind could read the Lempkin and UN definitions of genocide and claim that what happened in NDH was NOT genocide. But you evidently get some sort of buzz out of pretending it was just a bit of over-ethusiastic murdering. So what the hell. You had it your way, but no consensus was reached with me.

The amendment you are now suggesting is just plain crazy, but I can't stop you doing it. You will be setting aside the evidence of an Ustaša inquiry and the work of a guy who has documented the full names, home villages and birth years of every victim. Instead you prefer figures produced by some remote clerics, for whom the exact death toll was not the most important matter they were considering anyway. Unbelievable. Incidentally when I went to Banja Luka to see the UNS documents, I also looked up the birth records of 80 victims whom I picked out at random. I found unequivocal proof that those people had existed, that their births had been recorded and that they have not been seen since 7 February 1942. None of which can be used to support the article, because it is original research. But knowing what I know, I have to say I find your whole attitude small-minded, childish and rather disgusting.

If you want to give a reason why those people were murdered then just DO IT for God's sake. You have a source. But be careful how you use the term "rebel." A large part of the international community at that time recognised Yugoslavia, not NDH, as the sovereign state, and the Axis Powers as illegal occupiers. Also I will cite alternative sources to show that the raids were inspired by Gutić, knowing that Pavelić had long ago chosen Banja Luka as the ideal capital city for the NDH and thinking it would be appreciated if he disposed of the Serbs in the surrounding area. (Mercifully German intervention put a stop to it.) Your question about why it was those villages that suffered the massacres is just laughable. Or did you really not know that the Ustaša did the same thing in dozens more villages?

Re the quotes: they are reasonable and proportionate within a thoroughly sourced article. The rules you've quoted don't come into it. I won't be coming back to this topic. There is a consensus against you, you have attracted NO support from any quarter (Kubura and you seem to have deserted each other), and you have locked yourself into a mindset that is beyond the reach of reason. Also I would defend the use of the adjectives you have challenged. The article is not saying the subject was "sadistic" etc, it is stating, with sources, people who used those terms - usually to show how Filipović compared with other criminals. That is perfectly fair.

Sorry if this response sounds harsh, but I have tried many times over the months to understand you and all I succeeded in doing was arousing your suspicions about who I am. What is a "SPA account" by the way? Kirker (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA=Single purpose account. Can I just say that I love how Rjecina thinks by coming here and attempting to cut everyone else out of this conversation that he may get his way. Even if the two of you come to an agreement, it doesn't invalidate the opinions of the other editors. Rjecina, should you attempt to initiate the changes you've suggested, I fully intend to revert you. A ni Mate 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That much goes without saying, I'd revert on sight. That being said, I'm starting to feel its about my turn to get irritated. Do not presume to dictate who may or may not edit another Users talkpage. FFS! why won't you accept that you are simply defying all reason in this!? You have no argument. The stuff you keep repeating over and over again are not arguments, its just plain rule-twisting and misunderstod nonsense. It has nothing to do with real Wiki policy. Oh, and the sentence "the village was supporting rebels" would insult the intelligence of even the most uninformed reader, while its impications would probably make him/her sick. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War II persecution of Serbs

Your comment on talk page is removed because there is no edit warring. Edit warring is when "individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits". Pax is not user or editor so there is no edit warring or you will start that ? In the end you have writen comments about editor which do not exist so comments are deleted because it is not possible to comment actions of non existing user.

From 4 November 2007 until now nobody has asked that article be moved to name World War II persecution and genocide of Serbs so maybe I am mistaking but we are having consensus about name ?

Why I am not surprised by your action ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me there is no difference between WWII and Yugoslav articles. I will not protest statements confirmed by wikipedia respected internet sources. When we speak about Holocaust we all are knowing which are Holocaust respected sources and they are not in Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia.

This are not respected sources: Jared Israel (site:The Emperor’s New Clothes), site Serbianunity.net, site jasenovac-info.com , or books added by banned editors.

For me best free respected internet source about events in 20 century is New York Times, but about Holocaust you are having USHMM, Jevish virtual library and Yad Vashem center. Nobody can question statements from this sources.

For Serbian sources about Ustaše crimes I will only repeat words of Serbia foreign minister:"Serbs are thirteenth, lost and must illfated tribe of Israel". In my thinking this is saying enough about problems of myths and reality in Balkan sources.

This foreign minister statement is connected with article World War II persecution of Serbs. Croats (Ustaše) are guilty for must of crimes against Serbs in WWII, but Serbian users must have 1 article for all myths (or reality ?). This is article World War II persecution of Serbs and because of that can't be deleted. In that article they are trying to write about Serbs massacres in Kosovo (??), drop of Serbs number in Bosnia and Croatia and Hungarian 1941 census of Bačka. With all this there is only 1 small problem: Ulmost everything is myth !! If we look census number Serbs on Kosovo have gone up 80 % between 1921 and 1948, number of Serbs in Bosnia has gone up between last prewar and first postwar (WWII) census (it is not possible to look Croatia because of border changes). Like I have been saying this article is myth but if Serbian users are happy with that I am happy.

I have writen about census because you are interested in WWII Bosnia--Rjecina (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, really nice.

Can you please explain census data for Bosnia if there has been Serbs genocide. Ustaše have tried genocide but they have failed and please show me international organization which has accepted Serbs claims of WWII genocide ?

Using like article sources web sites (example www.jasenovac-info.com [4]) controled by [5]: genocide denier Milan Bulajić [6] [7], Arie Livne economy representative of Republika Srpska in Israel [8] and member of corrupt World Jewish Congress , Atanasije Jevtić priest and Bosnian genocide supporter [9] , Savo Štrbac high ranking Krajina official [10] and confirmed, never convicted murderer of Krajina policemen [11]..... is saying enought about user bias.--Rjecina (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say:"Genocide is the attempt to rid an area of a racial/ethnic group, in whole or in part" and when you latter claim that Ustaše actions are genocide then you are acting against wiki rules. Wikipedia rules are clear:Wikipedia:No original research.

If you use this definition for old crimes then all nations or states are guilty of genocide.

Around 15 - 20 % of Serbs in NDH are victims of Ustaše. For me question if this is enough to declare genocide ?? Nothing more of nothing less. Maybe 20 years from now international organizations will accept that this killings are genocide but for now they are not.

Maybe you are not born in ex Yugoslavia but I am sure that your parents are from this country. You will be surprised but I am Yugoslav (Croat and Serb). --Rjecina (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am old wiki user and I have seen many editors claiming false about parentage or any other similar stuff (do you want to see examples of similar statements ?), but only "expert" users which are writing about WWII in Croatia are from ex Yugoslavia. If you, your parents or grandparents are not from Yugoslavia this will be great surprise which I can't trust because of my wiki experience

I am historian and there are problems (for me) when today people use today morale to write about events in history. You are wrong because if we use today morale ulmost all today countries are guilty of genocide. Spain and Italy are guilty of Arabs genocide, Croatia of Serbs, Serbia of muslims (19 century), UK of catholics, France of hugenots, USA of Indians,......

When you write that 99.9 of Serbs are killed in this region during 1941-45 my answer is for you too look demography of this region today ? In Banja Luka municipality during 1991 Serbs are 54.58 % of population. Today they are 92 %. Is this genocide ? International court has declared that this is not genocide.

I will never understand people which enyoy writing about sadistic killings and similar stuff. Tell me what is point in this ? I can write about Serbs sadistic killings, ethnic cleansing, rape and similar in Foča (see article history) or other places but what is point in this ? For me only point is another example to the world that Balkan nations are full of crazy nationalists. In my thinking any normal person (from ex Yugoslavia) must feel shame about this sorts of edits and only happy people can be members of extreme right groups.

ps. if you use modern thinking of genocide Foča is best example that genocide is official Serbia state policy towards this region because of events in 1942 and 1992, but what is point in writing this stuff ??--Rjecina (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to speak about nationality it is important to notice that I am Croat, Montenegrin and Serbs. So What ?

About NDH genocide you must read Wikipedia:No original research policy which is saying: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Using genocide definition , Ustaše crimes and latter declare that they are guilty of genocide is original thought.

This is 5th time that you are invited to wikipedia noticeboard because of insults [12]--Rjecina (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice again

Kirker, there is another discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. == Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Repeated incivility and refusal to explain yourself. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Kirker, I have asked you to explain and respond to other people's complaints. Instead, you ignore me and make fun of my grammar to others. I don't care about that but the fact that you've decided to continue is enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirker, I protested against your block at AN/I last night, but it seems nobody's willing to take into account the fact that you are a good editor and Rjecina isn't. It seems Rjecina can delete whatever he likes for his own personal POV reasons and anyone that gets annoyed about it is likely to get blocked. I hope this does not make you throw in the towel. You are a good editor, and your contributions are valued and respected. See you around, best AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to that discussion Ricky81682, and allowing me ten minutes in which to respond before proceeding to the block. I know that if you are committed to "happy families" at any price, and want to see former-SFRY articles on English Wikipedia descend ever deeper into the mire, you must sometimes need to act quickly - even more so if you are intent on pursuing your own interests rather that doing what is best for the encyclopaedia. You accuse me of not replying to complaints, but I would like to see the evidence for that. As far as I recall I did respond the one time you alerted me. Indeed I put to you one or two salient points that you chose to ignore. I don't know what COI is, but Alistair raised it as a factor and you seemed to accept the point. Does that mean that some other editor is now on the case, and for the record has it been finalised that my timeout is 31 hours?

Rjecina's whinings frankly don't warrant the time of day. I can get on with Rjecina OK for as long as I pretend I'm dealing with a child, but every so often that becomes tiresome. Within the past two or three weeks Rjecina arbitrarily deleted a lengthy and reasoned comment of mine from a talk page; he suppported Kubura's brainless insinuation that I am someone's sockpuppet (but with neither of them having the guts to get that checked - behaviour which I am apparently not supposed to describe as "spineless" LOL); he has tried to deny my detached perspective of Balkan matters by claiming that my parents were born in Yugoslavia, and he has said that he is disinclined to trust any response I make on that point. His activities are overwhelmingly negative and so far as he ever contributes anything, his edits are recklessly incoherent - a reasonable description, since when I discussed with him his inadequate English and offered to help, he proudly told me he was similarly clumsy when using his native Croatian.

Rjecina's lack of good faith is widely evident, not least in his present complaint where he refers - as you too have done Ricky81682 - to the only previous complaint against me, which was in November 2007. That complaint, which was never drawn to my attention, was utterly groundless as he knows full well - in fact it was the complainant who got banned. Indeed that complainant may well have fallen victim to action initiated by Rjecina himself. I am most interested to see that Rjecina has undertaken to follow through with his latest idiotic accusation, namely that Animate is a sockpuppet. When that complaint falls flat on its face, we will face an intriguing question. What is the correct term for one who knowingly behaves idiotically?

I am extremely appreciative of the support from Animate and Alistair, both of whom are trying, as I have tried, to bring some of the Balkans articles up to an acceptable standard. But I am away from Wikipedia for long stretches anyway, so getting banned is not a hassle. I just thought it would be useful to throw some light here on the roles of Rjecina and Ricky81682. It helps explain why Wikipedia's articles about the western Balkans are often shameful while so much else in the encyclopaedia is truly worth celebrating. Kirker (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{|decline=I'm sorry, I didn't read all of this, as it was too long and seemed to focus mainly on the actions of others rather than your own. The most recent discussion was not the only one started about your behavior; a quick scan of your talk page shows you ignored at least one other. Please see this guide for some tips on how to better format your unblock request. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Response

First of all, if you have something to say about User:Rjecina, please be specific. Complaints that your conduct or other people's conduct is appropriate simply because the other person is "biased" are going to be ignored. If you want to claim "Croat parentage" or something similar, you should read my user page. I happen to be of Indian heritage and have no interest in whatever you guys are disputing. You are, however, continuing to be uncivil. You need to read our assume good faith doctrine, and stop with the insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your msg

Hi Kirker, you are more than welcome. It was an unsuccessful effort to right an undoubted wrong. Regarding subsequent developments, I agree that Ricky and Eric are now listening, as I think both have, in the meantime, looked into your and Rjecina's respective contributions (if I may generously term those of the latter party as such). Anyway, today is Monday, when our friend has it on his agenda to file his report or whatever it is going to be about you, me, DIREKTOR and AniMate. Needless to say, I await developments with breathless anticipation. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

checkuser case --Rjecina (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. You're an angel.Kirker (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=237104743&oldid=237104510

My (future) proposal

What I'm going to eventually be proposing isn't unique. Take a look at Wikipedia:ECCN#See_also. It's a list of groups and projects specifically designed to help editors edit productively in contentious areas involving ethnic or cultural conflicts. Looking through the history of Wikipedia confrontations involving the Balkans, it's clear that something needs to happen to make editing these areas easier and less volatile. Recently, User:EdJohnston put it best when he said Enter this realm only if you are willing to be very patient. Getting a project like this together will take both patience and compromise and also commitment to some ground rules. Looking at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, for example, you'll see that some editors were put on editing/reversion restrictions. I'd also take a gander at WP:WORKINGGROUP and look at some of their ideas, suggestions, and conclusions. This is extremely preliminary, but it is becoming obvious that it is necessary.

I also must say I'm glad you're attempting to keep cool. I'm honestly rather pissed the Rjecina has grouped every single editor who has disagreed with him in a fishing expedition masquerading as a sock-puppet case, but it's best just to let that little comedy play out. It's going to be a few days before I actually sit down and start working on a proposal, as I'm swamped with teaching right now. (Who would've thought teaching technical/practical fine arts a second rate college would be so time intensive?) Keep up the good work, and I'll keep peeking in over the next couple of days. A ni Mate 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop incivility

In my thinking, as a Rijeka-established Historian and respected member of the local bowling pub, helped by the allmighty bottle genies of the Roman Epmperors, I am certain your parents must be Chetnik immigrants to UK and that you threaten Rijeka people all over wikipedias out of sheer meetpuptetry. Today Rijeka river flows uphill becaus of your insults and pupptetry. Stop this immediatly this ist your last only warnig. Blok yourself or you will be bloked immediately by Thatcher. He and other admins say Rijeka citizns are very NPOV accounts who never is wrong. I file report Tusday and then you see! Rjecka-budala (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!! If I get any more messages like this, I'll turn Kvarner Bay into blood. You have been warned.... Kirker (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL This is probably coming from Montenegro, not Kvarner. Smells like Pax ;) Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants

You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reverted--Rjecina (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread

Since it has seemingly slipped your dear friend Rjecina's mind to do you the common courtesy of letting you know, I'll just point out that he's back at AN/I about you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#again_Kirker. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar section Recent History discussion

I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section in order to achieve a more NPOV version. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Spelling

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was on a sort of wikibreak. The thing is, I learned my English in the states and always spoke that particular variant. I'm not quite sure which variant is "official", though I believe American is preferred judging from past experiences. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sefer Halilović. Hope that you will stop from making Wikipedia "your opinion" blog, that is not in the rules of this community, and you as a long time member should know that. If you still wish to discuss the matter, you can do that at the talk page of the desired article. Thanks again for understanding. Hazbulator™ 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]