User talk:Rochass

Talk to me :)

OK, I'll talk to you.

From your contributions, I can safely say that 90% of your edits are erasing texts that you don't believe is suitable for an article. Let me remind you that removing referenced text is considered vandalism. If you have a problem with a reference and would like the Wikipedia community to consider removing it, discuss it on the talk page of that article - simply removing it will mean that eventually someone on Wikipedia will revert it. Edit descriptions is not enough when removing such large chunks of text, or clearly pushing a pro-Croatian point of view. This is not a Public Relations web-site, it's an encyclopaedia, so please have some respect for the opposing side in the argument. If you keep vandalizing articles, I will have no choice but to report you to the administrators. Stop edit warring and discuss your opinion, don't push it. --Cinéma C 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed any of my comments to you, and have rather decided to continue edit warring. I am sorry we could not resolve this, and now I will report you to the administrators. --Cinéma C 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your vandalistic edits in edit summaries.Rochass (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, "Edit descriptions is not enough when removing such large chunks of text", so you have to understand that removing large chunks of text has to be discussed by the Wikipedia community. Just writing short excuses like "rv propaganda" or "not true" won't cut it. --Cinéma C 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for your comment "ok, BORIS, why are you promoting yourself here?!", if you are suggesting that I am this individual, I have to disappoint you as everyone who actually did some constructive work on that article was already accused of being "Boris", which was never proven by a Checkuser, so I'm starting to get tired of those accusations. It shows me that users who disagree with this guy's politics like to attack the users who edit the article and make false accusations, as well as the individual for "self-promotion", etc. even though the article is referenced with reputable second-hand sources, something I have, among others, worked hard on finding as I will not allow people to butcher an article just because they personally don't like the guy's films or have personal issues with him.

So, if you plan on continuing adding banners, removing chunks of text, making huge changes without logical explanations that address specific article parts that you find controversial, you will be reverted. If you would like to engage in a constructive discussion and help make that, or any other article, better - you'll find me to be more than cooperative with those who are here in good faith. So far, you have shown little evidence that you are here in good faith, but I hope that will change. --Cinéma C 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Boris Boris. You're so transparent. Rochass (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? You're just going to make false accusations without addressing any of my comments? This is clearly not in good faith. --Cinéma C 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lašva Valley

OK let's address this now.

First of all, the article on English Wikipedia deals with the period between May 1992 and approximately April 1993, with background information dealing with events in 1991. Correct?

In the Croatian article, I can find the year "1994" only 3 times in the article, and it doesn't really discuss any big events, but rather giving a historical context to the event. On the other hand, "1995" is not mentioned even once, while the entire period it covers is from May 1992 to April 1993, same as the English article. Correct?

The title of the Croatian article is "Bosnian-Croat conflict: Lasva Valley". Correct? So, it's not an article about the entire Bosnian-Croat conflict, but about the Lasva Valley specifics. From what I can see, the Bosnian-Croat conflict in general is covered here. So what is the problem with the InterWiki link then? You said, "as you can see Lasva Case is related to specific period of time, but Lasva War is not". Both articles talk about the same period of time!

Either give me good arguments or revert your removal of the IW link. --Cinéma C 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is related to ICTY case. IW link is related to the article of B-C war in the Lasva Valley, not to the ethnic cleansing as a crime against humanity established in ICTY. War is different from war crime. War is more general term. Rochass (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuzla column case

The text in question is

"The attack was a response to a provocation ten days previous called the Tuzla column case, where JNA troops under retreat in accordance with UN declaration of Tuzla as a safe zone were fired upon by Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces, resulting in 94 casualties. Since the Croatian and Boanian Muslim forces were firing from a UN safe zone, JNA could not legally respond. A commander in the Army of Republika Srpska took it upon himself to exact vigilante justice by firing artillery shells into Tuzla at long range, without knowledge that the militants had already escaped the city by that time. The attack on retreating JNA forces is celebrated as a holiday in Tuzla, agents responsible remain at large and Bosnian courts have dismissed it as an unrelated event."

I did not add this text to the article, all I did was revert unexplained (on the TALK PAGE) removal of it. True, it did not happen 10 days before the 1995 incident, but why not change the wording of the first sentence, instead of removing the entire text? Is it not true that the 1992 Tuzla column case preceded the 1995 incident? This can not be disregarded as it is an important detail regarding the Bosnian war in Tuzla. I agree that the text should be greatly re-worded, or actually, if it is properly discussed, removed altogether - but not in the way you are doing it. If someone added that text, at least it could be discussed whether it should be kept or not. Don't you agree? --Cinéma C 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Tuzla Case, is not related to this event at all. I know for people like you, who are trying to justify massacres, that would be very normal thing to do, but there are other people as well, who don't like advocates of war crimes. Rochass (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in the Kosovo War

You are removing text that is referenced by the New York Times, but also EuroHeritage. You can't do that, so please revert that back. As for Tim Judah's book, I did not add that reference, and I agree that it's not quite the reliable reference, but I'm sure you'd agree that the State Department considered the KLA a terrorist organization up until 1998. I can find you a ton of reliable references for that, if you'd like.

Also, changing the order of crimes, what are you trying to do with that? The KLA were the first to start attacking Serbian civilians and security forces, which caused the Serbian brutal reaction and attacks on the KLA and Albanian civilians. Why do you believe the Serbian crimes should go before the Albanian ones? If we're doing it in order, I think it should be the other way around. --Cinéma C 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaž Kraljević

You said "Cinemas edit is silly, I corrected grammar, he reverted?!"

Grammar? Where?

You changed "an Ustaša salute" to "Croatian salute from the 19th century".

Grammarwise, you forgot to write "a" in front of "Croatian". Second of all, "Za dom spremni" is a known Ustasi salute. Could you please provide a reference that proves that the salute comes from the 19th century and that it's not in any way connected to the Ustasi? --Cinéma C 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss you edits on the talk page. Rochass (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea fellas. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article discussion should not be done via user talk pages

While it is fine to ask for clarification on a matter, full discussion of matters pertaining to article content should not be done via user talk pages. I must ask you to stop this sort of editing practice because it's not helpful to others who want to edit articles that you are disputing. It also tends to make things harder for admins to review, and also harder for others to understand the problems in the articles. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Rochass, as i see that you are new to Wikipedia, please, read some basic rules of Wikipedia before you continue with your edits. Deleting wast sections of referenced text may lead you to a block, so please, if you have any question or anything that you would love to know, ask me, or some admin's. I will help you as much as i know, as i see that you were deleting lot of data from other articles also. Just to inform you, deleting referenced text in edit warring style is considered vandalism by wiki rules. All best, --Tadija (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to War crimes in the Kosovo War, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tadija (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was an attempt of compromise, but u in cooperation with Cinema, reverted it to Serbian accepted version. Thats called nationalistic action. Rochass (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeated edit warring with no regard for WP:V, one of our core policies. This policy is non-negotiable; if you cannot source your additions, do not add them. Tan | 39 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will source my additions. Rochass (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak COA

Is this good? --DzWiki (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Boris Malagurski

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Boris Malagurski. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Boris Malagurski (3rd nomination). 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) 01:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Izetbegovic Article

I am contacting you instead of reverting your edits once more. You have removed:

historical information (the original birth country)
changed "Bosnian mujahideen" for "Arab Volunteers" when there is already an article on the former
Removed two "citation needed" notices
Removed a quote by Richard Holbrooke about the issue of the aforementionned Bosnian mujahideen
Added "Serb Nationalists" as those who petitioned the ICTY to indict Izetbegovic so as to make it seem unjustified when in reality he died before the investigation ended.

If you wish to continue to push your POV, we can contact an admin to take a look at the issue. As for the name calling, go see my contributions and you'll see that I am not pro-Serbian but have a disdain for any pro-nationalist camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperoverman (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you statement of "you missed the right article." What do you mean by this? As to how it is relevant: much like Tudjman and Milosevic, Izetbegovic was not without his flaws. And therefore, just like their articles, I think this one deserves as much transparency as possible.

Please you have talk page of that article to discuss about it. Not here. Rochass (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:EAR

Just to let you know that an incident in which you are mentioned is being discussed at WP:EAR#Jajce & Alija Izetbegovic. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars, you will be blocked from editing. Tadija (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rochass (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. The truth is, I've seen Kruško Mortale's comment about Ivan Kričančić (history page of Bosniaks), a neo-nazi supporter from Australia who is removing content related to Bosnia, and someone connected me with Kruško Mortale, i.e. Historičar. I request that you check me first with check user right.

Decline reason:

Checkuser isn't really used for proving innocence. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Bosniaks. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 20:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.