User talk:Lamijahodzic

Stari most[edit]

Regarding your recent edits at Stari most, please, dicuss before editing, since you don't back up your statements with any sources. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

Bosniak‘s have been facing dangerous propaganda for the last hundred years at the hands of Croatian and Serbian forces …to write about a historical monument like the old bridge and focus on the justification of its destruction rather than of the repercussions of that destruction, only highlights the desire to eliminate the Bosniak people and their culture. It is a well-known fact, and does not need to be cited, that Croatia wishes to take parts of Mostar and claim it as their own ..destroying historical monuments is a crime against humanity, and to write on a wiki page in the first few lines that it was justified is an intentional cover-up of that crime. The Bosniak people are fighting back, and we will not allow our history to be rewritten at the hands of our oppressors. Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources supporting these claims in particular? Also, please note that you might break Wikipedia:3RR. Try not to revert other users more than 3 times in a day, otherwise you could face some consequences from the administrators, including a block. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that justify the destruction of the bridge? Literally on another wiki page it says:

The ICTY Trial Chamber in its judgment from 2013 stated that the bridge was a military target, but its destruction was "disproportionate to the military gains achieved", hence it was an illegal act of a "war crime and a crime against humanity"

it is a known fact that destroying historical monuments is a war crime!!! Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the 2017 verdict which stated that the bridge was a legitimate military target? Please, read the article and the sources that are already cited. Check them and see if they're reliable. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may have been a legitimate military attack but the problem is why is that the first thing listed about the bridge? Why isn’t it then said that regardless the attack was a war crime then I will change it to that. Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for to your information. It is difficult to navigate this page and we are simply looking to spread truth. Our people have been through a lot already and we want truth and justice.

Why is it that my information can be changed x10 per day however? Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because, you're adding your own original claims without any reference. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am highlighting the importance of what we share and why. Let’s remove the point about the justification of the shelling and simply discuss the bridge. Why is that an important point? Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to remove anything. It was a major event in Bosnia and Herzegovina's history. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first point that the Croatian attack was justified?

There is no justification for destroying a historical monument. Even after it was claimed justified it was recognized as a war crime. Why can’t that point be added? Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court said there was a point, the Bosnian Muslim army used it as a military supply line. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the court also stated that it was still a war crime. Let’s add that. Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court corrected itself. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you. Truth is always on the side of the oppressed. Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Governor Sheng (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the language written as Serbo-Croatian and not Bosnian Bosnian is a recognize language do you have citations that prove that only Serbo-Croatian exist? Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian is a standardised variety of Serbo-Croatian. Since all three nationalities use their own standardised versions, the best solution is to just leave Serbo-Croatian. It's the common language for all of the nationalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to what information? Bosnians do not recognize this. Who deemed this correct? Where is to your citation that says that the Bosnian official language is Serbo Croatian? You are spreading misinformation. Lamijahodzic (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnians speak Bosnian. You are blatantly and arrogantly erasing our language.

you can add Serbo Croatian but Bosnian too.

There is a Bosnian language and you are openly denying that. Again - propaganda. Lamijahodzic (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks do speak Bosnian, but in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina there are no official languages. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So please - include Bosnian as well as Serbo Croatian since there are no official languages and since you are not trying to spread misinformation. Thank you! And free Bosnia. Lamijahodzic (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian is not distinct from Serbo-Croatian. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, everyone knows that this information is false and bias… your arrogance is very telling and you critique us for not using citations yet you do not cite yourself.

Any other website you look at from UNESCO to history channel does not highlight the justification for shelling of this historical monument.

That is the issue that we have with your page - that you spend more time rationalizing the destruction of the old Bridge, then the implications of that destruction, but once again, most people know if they want real information they will do further research themselves and find the truth.

Good luck to you 24.87.46.214 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.