User talk:Sh3

Unspecified source for Image:DarkoT.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DarkoT.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Darko Trifunovic[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Darko Trifunovic, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Darko Trifunovic seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Darko Trifunovic, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove validly-sourced material. And don't remove the cleanup tag until you actually clean up. Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OWN. You do not own the article. You do not get a say as to what can and cannot be added to the article. You cannot unilateally remove the cleanup tag without actually doing cleanup. You cannot put a protected tag on the article, since you are not an admin and do not have rights to protect articles. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reverted and protected briefly[edit]

I have reverted the article to an earlier version by Corvus Cornix and protected the article for 24 hours.

Your recent editing violates Wikipedia standards and poliicies against trying to control content on articles (WP:OWN) and constitutes edit warring (see for example WP:3RR). In addition, all signs indicate that you and the other editors removing material were all sockpuppets of the same underlying individual.

The article protection will expire a day from now and everyone can edit the article again. However, please be aware that many administrators are now paying attention to this article, and if you continue your prior activities in violation of Wikipedia policy, your accounts will all be blocked to prevent further policy violation.

This behavior has been unacceptable. Further violations will be responded to by prompt blocks.

If you intend to remove content which is sourced but you find objectionable, you need zto discuss it on the article's talk page first, and demonstrate how the information is not compatible with Wikipedia policy (see WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:BLP). To date the information added appears to comply with those policies. If you want it removed you need to demonstrate how or why it is not, or obtain consensus on the article talk page among editors who care about the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok I dont understand now. You guys first accused me for having multiple accounts and then deleted the version of my updated article where I added all publications and links as well as references to support all the information. This is so unfair. If you didnt notice the user Corvus Cornix has changed multiple times the information adding 'genocide denial' section and moreover never giving reference or link to support that claim. I think that this is very unfair and unjustifible decision.

I am asking you kindly to place back the version which contains all books, publications, and links to support every information claimed in the aricle itself. Please chek before you decide to delete anything, and not bring the decision on someones accusations.

also please look at the article's talk page where I wrote about updating the article accordig to the admin's suggestion.

thank you.Sh3 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please list out the references you want added back in, on the article talk page.

The primary problem is with the accusations of genocide denial section, which you keep deleting. That is not OK without discussion and consensus. If you want to add other material such as lists of publications that should be fine. Please list the specific changes you want made there on the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot edit the page! Sh3 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is not welcome[edit]

Darko Trifunovic, why don't you stop editing your own page and promoting yourself? Stop it man. Nobody likes spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccountInquiry (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

listen I am not Darko Trifunovic, and I dont know why you are continuously changing my page. I left some links in the article and you can see various publications he wrote in case you are concerned about the validity of infomration. Please leave my article alone and stop posting unverified information in order to sabotage antiterrorist intelectuals. This is not the way to do that.

thanks again. Sh3 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Darko Trifunovic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the SSP report. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Trifunovic[edit]

Please stop posting Blogs as references, they are just your personal opinions. Yes you are Darko Trifunovic, I was in touch with you through your email and you confirmed that you are the person behind these nicknames. In my last email I told you what I had to say to you and I ceased contact with you. You should really stop playing those games, it's so obvious and doesnt help your credibility. Bosniak (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats[edit]

You recently made what appeared to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Darko Trifunovic. I would like to notify you that making legal threats is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the content of a Wikipedia article, you can use our dispute resolution processes. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

This account has been indefinitely blocked due to ongoing legal threats, made on-wiki and in email. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

If you feel that you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation regarding what you believe are legal problems with this article, you can do so by email to info-en@wikimedia.org . Further activity on-wiki is not advised. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2007 (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).

Sh3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin Georgewilliamherbert has blocked me because I complained to him privately for the inapopriate content added to Dr. Darko Trifunovic page. He did not respond to my request neither wrote back to me. There is legal problem with content of the article which someone is adding and it containes false accusations for genocide denial. You cannot accuse lawyer who works in the defense for such thing. Dr. Trifunovic will have to start process against wikipedia if they allow such content being added to his page. I previously asked to protect the page so that these muslim terrorist who operate online would not add this false, unsourced information to his biography page, but all I got is ban, and now I am tottally blocked. Sh3 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Indeed. Legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia; making one in an unblock request is not likely to work. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is then spread of misinformation allowed and personal attack on a lawyer? No one can have right to accuse lawyer of such things and all I wanted is you guys to clarify this and prevent such a misuse of Wikipedia. I see that is not possible and after multiple efforts to contact administrators, I did not recieve positive response from you guys. I dont think that this is in the vision and idea of wikipedia. And by the way, it is not me who are trhetnig, Dr. Trifunovic has no choice but to take action against you guys since you don't want to remove false information from his biography page. Correct me if I am wrong, but he should have right to ask for that and you should take action if such misuse of your website occurs. Sh3 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is said on Wikipedia:No legal threats, "if you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so." But threatening to do so doesn't do anything to support your position and disrupts any attempt to resolve the dispute. It is therefore a blockable offense.A ecis^Brievenbus 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be missing something. I did so on the request of the person who the article is about, AND ONLY AFTER TRYING TO TALK TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES AND REQUESTED UNDERSTANDING. I really feel that you uys dont even go into the subject but do your admin jobs just as a procedure. Ask yourself if you really want to be admin.. Sh3 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you may have done so on the request of someone else is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that you made legal threats, even after you had been warned not to do so. That is why you were blocked. The content of your complaint is irrelevant to the block. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how strict policies you have for this, and not for something like people adding false information about someone and being protected by some admins. Bosniak for example who himself is distributing the propaganda material against Dr. Trifunovic on his own blog and is porbably himself taking part in editing the page in his own interest. Why are all resources deleted? All of them are valid and strong. Where is his supportive evidence and explanation on what bases he is accusing a lawyer for such a crime?? I would be more careful when choosing who is going to be admin, especially when it comes to managing such cases where the decision can be biased and like we that or not, in this case religious/terrorist related. He is certainly not the one to administer and influence such article whatsoever.

you the admin Aecis - please read the case again. I think you misunderstood. I am not threthening whatsoever. I copied the letter from Dr. Trifunovic himself intended for you guys. If you would really care about the case you would probabaly think about what is written and not just to try do defend your admins. Not everyone who is admin is rigth.

anyways... some reasonable person did edit properly article, deleting the accusing content. Thanks god someone is realistic here. My account is still banned though...

Sh3 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John254 definitely did the right thing by removing barely sourced negative content about a living person. Yes. That policy is very strict, more strict than Wikipedia:No legal threats. I am willing to propose unblocking your account, but on one condition: that you stop making legal threats in discussions. If you feel that suing Wikipedia or Wikipedians is the right way forward, we obviously can't stop you from doing so, but there's no need to use it in a discussion. As I said, it doesn't improve your point and it restricts the discussion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to sue you and will not. I said that Dr. Trifunovic was pretty pissed off for not being able to gain the support from you admins for removing the inapropriate content (genocide denial accusations) and said that unless you dont do that he will have to take legal actions. Now this is not the threat as I see it since it was triggered by your approach to not let me delete the conflicting content.

So, now that everything is ok with the article, you may be safe - neither me nor him will sue you. Also dont misunderstand that I am trying to control the content of the article (and I think this is what you believed to be truth), everyone is welcome to add new stuff, but propaganda material as part of the muslims' internet campaign against any distinguieshed proffesional or politically active person should not be tolerated from you in the first place. It is very dangerous to allow such activities on such popular website as wikipedia is. It may do great deal of damage which you can imagine yourself. One of your admins with nickname Bosnjak I think is supporting this propaganda by posting such accusing material on his blog to which you can get from his user page on wikipedia. Anyways, thanks for understanding, and be sure that no one is suing wikipedia as long as fairness persists. Sh3 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (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.

I don't think you understand the policy. You just threatened implicitly to sue if the material comes back in, which it could under our policies (WP:BLP and WP:RS and WP:V) if properly sourced to reliable sources. His blog isn't a reliable source, but other publications would be. Reviewing actual writings of Mr. Trifunovic, it appears that "Bosniac" is not misrepresenting what Mr. Trifunovic has previously said, though he may be taking elements out of context.

We do not whitewash Wikipedia - if there is legitimate referenced verifyable controversy, it's acceptable material. Threatening to sue (explicitly or implicitly) if we allow the content back in is not acceptable. Asking that we enforce or reliable sources and BLP policies is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say, but the case WAS just as you said. The material put by that person (I would not be surprised if it is Bonsniak himself - just look at his blog and you will see that these accusations come precisely from him) is unreferenced and that is naturaly because it is untrue. This is the reason why I reacted and Dr. Trifunovic himself as well. IN any other case, I would not complain for you guys putting that on his page. I also wanted to reference current article with proper, valid references which validate all infomration stated in the article so far, but since I am banned I cannot do that. Anyhow, I hope you understand why I acted the way I did. Sh3 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contraversial section re-appeared again. Admins, please remove.Sh3 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Weinglass[edit]

Sh3, Darko Trifunovic is a Srebrenica genocide denier and there is nothing you can do about it. In Western countries we have a right to the freedom of speech, and you won't change it. Freedom of speech is not against the law (maybe in your twisted mind, but not in Western countries). I support Bosniak's exercise of freedom of speech, as I support everybody's freedom of expression. LeeCorrie (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please present some references that support your claim? I am not against freedom of speech but I am against misuse of it which is here the case.

Please present the evidence that support what you just said. thanks. Sh3 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the actual Ilan Weinglass. I have no idea why my name is a section heading here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanmw (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know. It wasnt me who put it there,and I didnt pay attention. All I know is that I am banned from posting, allegedly becuase I was trying to prevent some bosniak muslims from editing Darko Trifunovic's page where they are accusing him of genocide denial. I really dont know why your name is here. :)Sh3 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So?[edit]

I was told that once I revoke the threat I will be freed from ban. So,I did that, and nothing happened yet. I was banned by Georgewilliamherbert. Sh3 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, I am still waiting for my account to be unblocked so that I can discuss the matter on Darko Trifunovic's talk page with others. I think that by now you got the idea who is here to be watched and banned from editing pages while spreading misinformation. I was just trying to stop those bosniak terrorist from doing that. I still didnt recieve response from any admin about unblocking my account, even after I explained to you guys about the accusation issue and clarified the statement. thanks. Sh3 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Darko Trifunović[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Darko Trifunović, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No reliable sources found to verify notability. None of the verifiable references in the article are about the subject of the article, thus there is no significant, verifiable coverage about the subject.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — X S G 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]