User talk:Emir Arven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Srebrenica article in need of vigilance 2 Osli's vandalism 3 vandals 4 Welcome 5 Archives 6 Discussion 7 Emir 8 The problem... 9 STOP propagating... 10 Hej 11 I see your problem 12 HolyRomanEmporer's RFA 13 My last reply to you 14 HRE's passing away to a better place 15 disputed map 16 massacre article 17 What's your point Emire 18 Srebrenica Massacre and Osli73 19 Replika koju sam ti ostavio na svojoj talk page 20 blocked 21 WikiProject BiH 22 check Srebrenica article 23 Serb nationalists on the go, again!

[edit] Srebrenica article in need of vigilance

KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski have all teamed up to do a major renovation of the Srebrenica Massacre article. Since they are working in concert, it is easy to make a single user go past their three reverts. It is not clear how administrators will see this. I will hold out as long as I can, but the original editors of this article will need to be vigilant if is not to be lost to nationalist revisionists. All of the above mentioned editors are from the WikiSerbia forum... whatever they call it. 128.253.56.185 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that vandalism, so I asked some admins to stop them. --Emir Arven 22:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osli's vandalism

Emir Arven, Live Forever, Bosniak, Bosoni, HanzoHattori, Dado, Haris M:

I would like to protect the Srebrenica massacre introduction from any further vandalism by Osli. He repeatedly deletes sentences from the intro that are accurate, true, relevant, and well referenced.

If we can all agree on the text of the intro, then it will become entirely clear to administrators that Osli is a vandal.

Please look at the intro as it stands now. It would be great if we could all leave it as it is now or quickly come to an introduction that we all can agree to. Currently, it explains in stark terms what happened. That is why Osli wants to delete the sentences. Make the truth less clear in the beginning, so that he can then throw in his “Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!” propaganda and potentially confuse some of the readers.

Please all take a look at the intro. Let’s all come to an agreed upon intro and let it stand. Then if Osli continues to delete sentences from the intro it will clearly be vandalism and if he continues, perhaps he can be banned. Then we can concentrate on the article and let our own differences of opinion be a source for constructive conversation and continuing improvement of the article.

What do you think? Fairview360 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandals

Emir, sorry for the intrusion here but still learning how to send messages. The Bosniak article just got severely vandalized by an ultra-nationalist Serb. Needs help from someone who knows how to quickly revert extensive edits. --Fairview360 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi...just don't be vulgar.

[edit] Archives

/Archives 1

/Archives 2 Nationalism by HolyRomanEmperor. Always comes uninvited.

/Archives 3

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Emir

Looks like you have abandond wikipedia, finally realised what a complete waste of time it is? ;). In that case I agree with you, every reasonable change that one tries to make is being reverted the very same minute, and here's the shock, not by serbs or croats but by bosniaks themselves. Looks like this people seriously don't know what is good for them and how to protect their interests, hell they don't even know what interest they have. I say let everything go to hell, it just ain't worth it anymore, but one thing is sure the future does not look bright for this poor people :( Damir Mišić

Unfortunately, there are many craze nationalists here, not all, but most of them come from Serbia, so it is not so strange, that even Montenegro, declared independence from Serbia who wants to impose its POV to all other nations in the Balkans. So other normal people, are fed up with all this crap that comes from fascists and don't care much about their edits...History will record their actions as it always does.--Emir Arven 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, our little beloved homeland is now free to be self-governed again (like it was, before the annexation of 1918). --HolyRomanEmperor 09:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The problem...

...is that you can't really follow Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Aside from that, you should know that Wikipedia is not truth, but Verifiability. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about Wikipedia:Verifiability? Hahaha. You are the one that put false source in Stjepan II article, to verify your theses?! You are the one who goes from user to user to ask for a source/help, to verify your theses that you write, and you are not even sure about them. Come on, man, don't be ridiculous anymore. I mean really, what is enough is enough. If you have problem with Bosniaks, then this is not right place to solve it. Good day. --Emir Arven 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi....

I suppose that nothing will make you chill off - or stop with Personal attacks like the one you made here. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

you're a very, very violent person :( Why do you hold so much anger and hatred from within? Is it because you suffered before? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP propagating...

...against me. You repeat that thing about Vladimir Corovic so desperatly, acting like a man that's bent only on fighting a war with all means (like Hitler tried). I haven't presented Vladimir Corovic's book as a source for his Serbian Orthodox religion - but Latinus mistakengly did. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

...and let me not even begin about your aggressive, xenophobic, nationalistic behaviour. Here you called Vladimir's book "...that book is nationalist crap" and other loads of your mistakes - here claiming that the Congress doesn't call him Orthodox - when it does, or here, when you mysticly claimed that the Nemanjici are not Serbs (for no appearent reason - out of the blue), and here refusing to admit obvious facts and calling people pathetic.

However, your behaviour reached the culmination of negativity here. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And you accuding me for vandalism in the edit summary - but instead conducting yourself vandalism is not funny at all. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See earlier discussions, you are just repeating yourself.--Emir Arven 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you - you're repeating yourself by continuously conducting propaganda against me (without any basis whatsoever)... --HolyRomanEmperor 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hej

Emire, sjećam se kako si mi rekao da ti kažem ako namjeravam ići u Bosnu preko ljeta. Evo sada sam sve skontao: bit ću u Bosni od 25-og jula do 15-og augusta (mada se nadam da neču cijelo vrijeme provesti u Sarajevu). Live Forever 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I see your problem

You have a bad attitude towards the presence of the word "Serb" on the list of historical categories - I realized that now. Is that the reason why you replaced that with "Bosniak". I think you totally misinterpreted that - I do not know why you keep adding that, the ethnicity of Bosnia isn't disputed at all - since it cannot be disputed, especially in places like Bosnia where ancient civiliations died out (in the shame of all three - Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats who fight over Bosnia, not seeing that it actually "belongs" to not one of them). The "History of the Serbs" category has nothing to do with Stephen's "ethnicity" (if that term can actually be applied to the Middle ages), but to the fact that Bosnia was subjected to Serbia. the Croatian history, on the other hand, is present because Bosnia was a vassalage of Croatia. It's the same as the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina Category. However, if you think that the categories are slightly confusing - do you suggest that we implace the Category History of Serbia in its place? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you some of your propaganda my dear frined, I also wrote this in you 4th nomination for admin here Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_4: This 4th nomination is rediculous. HRE is one of the greatest Serb nationalist here, ready to lie in order to achive his goals. Here is the example of his Serb propagand. He keeps replacing word Bosniak with Serb. That is his main role here to prove that some historical person from the Balkans belongs to Serbs, like Mehmed-paša Sokolović even Husein Gradaščević, native Bosniak general.He doesn't know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism. He goes from article to article and put the term "Serb" where it should belong and where it shouldnt belong. His strategy is to make friends among Wikipedians in order to become admin. About his lies: For instance he was even trying to connect Bosnian native ruler Stjepan II Kotromanić with "Serb Othodox roots" based on Serb nationalistic site called Serbian unity, that supports war criminals. It says that Draža Mihajlović, was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commited in eastern Bosnia. He was nazi supporter and collaborator. This site also supports Slobodan Milošević, accused for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. Also for instance he put his thesis in the article (smth about Serb origins etc), when I asked him to provide the source that would support his thesis, he gave me the source, and when I checked it,I found nothing there.[1] As you can see the source was (Istorija srpskog naroda/History of Serb people, by Vladimir Ćorović), and HRE was so self-confident that he said: this is a proof that you don't even care one bit about this article; if you did, you would've read it and noticed the source;. So I checked it and found that he lied. He also had fights with Croat, Albanian and Bosniak user. So he isnt a good choice.--Emir Arven 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HolyRomanEmporer's RFA

Please try to remain civil and not make personal attacks again please. Thanks! — The King of Kings 00:14 July 03 '06

Hi. I just explained it in his RFA.--Emir Arven 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My last reply to you

First of all - I wasn't replacing Bosniak with Serb - you were replacing the original Serb with Bosniak. I was simply reverting what in truth was according to Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Vandalism considered as such - aside from your continous refusal to discuss at the corresponding talk pages. I'm not saying that I'm correct - maybe I'm not - but neither should you have such strong confidence in yourself, and rather begin to discuss peacefully, and not using POV wording like that, aimed at avoiding conversation. So, from one point of view, changing the category "Bosniak to Serb" would be Serbian nationalistic propaganda - but when the histories are reviewsed, it is concluded that you were changing Serb to Bosniak, rather, and I simply reverting on the basis of vandalism and denial of discussion - tell me, wouldn't that make "Bosniak nationalist propaganda". This what I am trying to explain to is called NPOV. It's reviewing one action from two or more points of view - and not presently one single - as (if I'm not mistaken) you were doing over there. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One interesting thing that I noticed is that even after I leave a perfect explaination on all the talk pages that we have had arguements (including Your own, personal), you just repeat yourself, just as if I said nothing. This can mean only one of the two: 1) You mistakingly don't read what I say or 2) You don't want to read it. If the case is the latter - I'm afraid I cannot help you. For instance - I put the History of the Serb People by Vladimir Corovic as a source for the whole article - as its parts were written/sourced by that book. It had nothing to do with sourcing that historical fact - never did I say such a thing. On the other hand, this is a proof that you don't even care one bit about this article; if you did, you would've read it and noticed the source is just my proof that you have no desire to read/check sources, but rather name them like you did in the corresponding Edit Summary: Serb nationalist Vladimir Corovic, and his history of Serb people. That book is nationalistic crap. and latter you even used that book to source a latter claim of yours (after such wording).

I have tried everything - you had to be blocked because of your aggressiveness several times, and I have filed requests for a self-block (which, appearently, got me into troubles) out of solidarization with you - I have tried sweettalking to you, and as shameful as I admit - I have even tried "harshtalking" to you (which apearently, got me into troubles too) - all have failed. I'm sorry for ever trying to show you Wikipedia's policy and my sole desire is to open a discussion with you - a thing that you so harshly refused (as shown around 32 times by now). --HolyRomanEmperor 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and not make personal attacks again please. Thanks! I have an archive of your nationalism, sneaky vandalism etc. You even came here to talk against Mir Harven, then you go to him to talk against me and not in English so that other Wikipedians can't see what you are doing. Very pathetic. I explained everything about your so called source. I asked you to show me at least the section of the book which would support your made-up thesis about his alleged Serb Othodox origins, and you could't. Even in the Serbian Unity Congress, a nationalistic site, there is nothing about Stjepan's mother wishes for his baptism. Good day, and as I said, try to remain civil.--Emir Arven 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HRE's passing away to a better place

---

Greetings. I am the cousin of the User HolyRomanEmperor. According to his brother, you two have had more arguements than... uhh, this pains me (us) enough to write this, so I am just going to point to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HolyRomanEmperor#As_per_Your_.28Our.29_brother.27s_request. I have no idea if you're happy or share the pain - but I was asked to inform you, and whatever arguements you two have had - they are now closed (forever). --Sad News 20:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, do I look so naive to you, or what? Please give me a break. I don't believe you, dear friend.--Emir Arven 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed map

Hi,

Where did you find this map: Image talk:Bosniak Croat territories1993.GIF? It's far from reality. --Ante Perkovic 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] massacre article

When I read the article three days ago, anon users had added unreferenced pov, and most of it was unsourced. Today, there has been improvenent in certain areas of word choice and sources. I could be completely clueless about the article, but I can recognize when pov is used, and that is what I am doing from a purely stylistic critique. I don't care one way or the other.

Guy Montag 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article at hand is absolutely huge, and so is the wikipedia article. For such a large article I would expect more than a hundred sources. It doesn't mean that what you have is "false." It just means it needs to be sourced.

I completely understand that it is impossible to make a perfect article. But please note that much of the article is still unsourced. It is important to also note that if you do not let said nationalists ( I didn't notice anyone else editing it) to at least weed it of blatant pov, the article can quickly lose its legitimacy to a soapbox. Hence I urge you to police those individuals who insert such material. Guy Montag 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright,

The article has significantly changed in the last three days. I will give it a rest and come back later to review it. Guy Montag 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's your point Emire

Bosnia is a tough topic. This is my view OK... Old historians said that Bosnians were ethnic Croats who took up Islam when Turks came to the Balkans...eg a name like Begovic that was Croatian became Izetbegovic under Turkish rule. "izet" is Turkish and not Slav. Some Croats who fled the Turks made it to and settled in Dalmatia and Istra. These Vacant Croatian houses in Bosnia over time were settled by Serbs. This is where the problem is and the misunderstanding comes in. Who settled Bosnia???...Croats did first...people who call themselves Bosnians are Croatians who converted to Islam...but a minority are also of Serb origin. Is there such a think as a Bosniak???...today yes but maybe not in the 6-7th Century when the Croats and Serbs came to the Balkans.

However today new theory has come up (POV)...Serbs argue that Bosnians are ethnic Serbs and not Croats...Bosnians argue they are a different ethnic group to Serbs and Croats and say they are Bosniaks. Who is right??? Whats is know is the Croats were know to be in Bosnia..they had Kings there and a known population who were called Croats. The Serbs also had some link to Bosnia but on a smaller scale.

My guess would be if Croats and Serbs are said to be of same origin (came from Iran and are non Slavic)....all 3 people are the same and only changed religion and tribe name over time. So I guess were all the same so no point arguing who is what. What is know is that there is mention of Croats in Bosnia..there is also mention of Serbs there too...Bosniaks is a new name and some ague it was given by Tito himslef. Yugoslav history never showed that Bosniaks were a different group to Croats and Serbs.

Javi se Jagoda 1 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesil ti neki bolesnik ili šta već? Bolnica za nacional-genetičare nije ovdje, sorry. Također ovo nije ni škola, pa da ti dajem besplatne lekcije iz historije. Balkan su naselila plemena Slavena. Hrvati i Srbi su došli u drugom valu selidbi na Balkan, do tada je hereza u Bosni uveliko zaživjela, pa tako i Crkva bosanska, bosanski jezik i Bošnjani kao narod koji se identificirao sa nečim što se zvala Bosna. A sad bih te zamolio da se fino skidaš sa moje strane za razgovor, jer te niko nije zvao, a ti si došao kao neki padobranac i počeo da sereš o nacijima kao i većina kretena opterećenih brojanjem krvih zrnaca.--Emir Arven 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Također ako hoćeš da nešto naučiš pročitaj Noela Malcolma, Bosnia: Short History, a ne neka balkanska guslarska sranja o tome ko je veći arijevac. --Emir Arven 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Massacre and Osli73

Osli73 is a Serb propagandist who vandalizes Srebrenica massacre article. He removes factual elements of the cases and substitutes them with already discredited Serbian sources. We should report him to Wikipedia administrators sho they can warn him or possibly ban him.

[edit] Replika koju sam ti ostavio na svojoj talk page

Dobro Emire. Ali nemozemo dozvoliti da Osli razvaljuje clanak i mijenja cinjenicne izvore sa diskreditovanim srbijanskim izvorima. Slazes li se? --Bosniak 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dao sam mu moj odgovor na stranici za diskusiju o Srebrenickom genocidu. Bitno je da su svi izvori pobrojani u clanku, koji su relevantni. To ce diskreditovati svaki propagandisticki pokusaj. Verziju koju sam ostavio je sasvim uredu, a poenta je da ne stvori prostora za vandale koji ce sitnice iskoristiti za stavljanje POV taga. --Emir Arven 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir, if it says "a Serb Army of RS", that means that RS has more than one army. If it said "a Serb army participating in the conflict" then it would mean there were more than one Serb army participating in the conflict. Given what I have read but have forgotten who said it, the argument is that there were indeed two "Serb armies" one was the JNA which had been effectively commandeered by Serb ultra-nationalists (cetniks) and one cobbled together to represent the "RS". Hence, two armies. O.K. But even if one subscribes to this verbiage of "Serb armies" which is verbiage contrary to all the supporting documents and less precise than stating exactly which command structure the units were a part of, "a Serb army of RS" is not correct. The only way it could be correct is if RS had more than one army. The reason it is not correct gets into articles (a vs the), which is difficult to explain.

Ultimately, I want this article to be persuasive and use language that is most effective and precise and accurate. In English text, most importantly the ICTY, UN, and international documents that the article depends upon, the Vojska Republike Srpske if referred to as the Bosnian Serb Army. Also, I understand that one wants to convey that the Scorpions were not just mercenary opportunists but part of Serbia's MUP. "Special forces" is the best way to convey that. "Special state forces" makes no sense. People don't express it that way. And people get it if they read "special forces". If it were other than part of the official state structure of Serbia, then people would say "militia", "para-military", "mercernary", "volunteers". "Special forces" conveys what you want. If one wants to make it even more clear then add a section on the Scorpions and Red Berets who participated in the Srebrenica massacre. --Fairview360 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, I forgot to sign in when leaving the above comment. I have been away from the internet for a few days. --Fairview360 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

This edit [2], which refers to Serbian editors as being involved in genocide, has resulted in a three day block. Please refrain from personal attacks WP:NPABlnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even Serbian.Osli73 06:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are a Serb.--Emir Arven 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Emir, what do you base this on? Does anyone who disagrees with you on a topic regarding the conflict in former YU have to be a Serb? I became interested in the conflict in Bosnia as Carl Bildt (who's political party, the Moderates, I supported) became involved on behalf of the EU. Cheers Osli73 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure. And I am from Mars. --Emir Arven 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blame Emir Arven for his reactions. Any denial, or diminution, or palliation (sorry for my bad English, I'm not a lawyer) of facts of Srebrenica massacre means encouraging the aggressors to do it again. How would Jews reacts if somebody denied Auschwitz? How would Poles react if someone denied the crime in Katyn forest? BTW, don't use Carl Bildt as example. C.Bildt's officially persona non grata in Bosnia and Herzegovina; not by the decision of High Representatives for B&H, but by the decision of local authorities (Croat-Muslim Federation). C.Bildt's unofficially persona non grata in Croatia (unfortunately, Croatian authorities haven't respected the feelings of Croatian people, unlike B&H authorities, that protect the dignity of their people). Carl Bildt deserved that status because of his pro-Serb, anti-Croat, anti-Bosniac attitudes. Now, let's turn to the other topics. Emir Arven said proper words here. The actions of certain users - removal of sourced information on Srebrenica massacre article ARE the continuation of genocide. Instead of blocking those extreme nationalist vandals that spread greaterserbian propaganda and persistently defend and justify Serbian expansionist military campaign in 1990's against Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (though they don't name it as expansionist, they call it "the defence", just like Nazi ideologists spoke about the defence of Aryans), you block member of the people that was victim in Srebrenica. Dutch government resigned 10 years later, because they screwed up there. Should some admins here resign because of theirs obvious omission? Kubura 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kabura, A couple of comments on your entry above:

• No-one here is denying that the Srebrenica massacre took place. So please calm down. However, since there is some uncertainty about the exact numbers killed it must be permissible to include the various estimates in the article. Which is what I am proposing.
• I think we can all agree that there are those who have different opinions on various aspects of the massacre (ranging from motives to the numbers killed) from that of the ICTY. Presenting these views in the article doesn't mean that the editor (in this case, me) supports them. It only means that there are different view on this. One such view may be that of the Bosnian government in some cases.
• I too think that the ICTY is a good source. I also think that the Dutch NIOD report represents another good source on what happened in Srebrenica. However, that does not mean we should include everything or anything we want from these or that should use them indiscriminately. E.g. including lenghty quotes (or in some cases simply copying entire sections into the article) is not appopriate.
• What has Carl Bildt to do with this? I mentioned him to explain my initial interest in the Balkans. In this context it is completeley uninteresting if he is disliked by certain Bosniak or Croatian nationalists. Bill Clinton is disliked by certain Serb nationalists, how is that relevant?
• What is all this talk about Nazis and Aryans? What is the relevance to this topic?
• Is it me or Blnguyen that you are referring to when you say that "just like Nazi ideologists spoke about the defence of Aryans), you block member of the people that was victim in Srebrenica"? I would like an answer.

Regards Osli73 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that those nationalists were continuing genocide, removing sourced information. They removed important parts of the article, and after that you protected it without returning removed part. Aren't you ashamed? --Emir Arven 07:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No I am not ashamed. Protection of a page is not an endorsement of its current contents. Apart from obvious vandalism, an admins should not "fix up" a page and then lock it as it will bring claims of impropriety or bias. Your comment that they are "contiuning genocide" proves my point. And please refrain from claims of "vandalism" in the case of a content dispute.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then tell me, how do you call people who remove sourced part of the article, and then lie that they don't do it? --Emir Arven 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you call people who remove photos donated to Wikipedia? For instance the following photos:

Can you explain me that? Are those users who keep destroying the article removing valuable informations, phostos, links (all sourced) vandals? --Emir Arven 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject BiH

Ovo su gadovi na ovoj Wikipediji. Sramato da se protive o Srebrenici. Slusaj, Uclani se na projekt koji sam poceo: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hvala, Kseferovic 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check Srebrenica article

KarlXII who might be a reincarnation of Osli73 and Jitse are deleting the intro to the Srebrenica article. I believe the intro -- the way it was before these latest deletions -- very accurately communicates a clear and comprehensive picture of what actually happened. To stop the Srebrenica article from spinning out of control again, I am writing notes to all the editors who have an interest in the article and asking that you visit the site more often. Thank you. Fairview360 04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serb nationalists on the go, again!

Please help, there's problems with the article List of Serb war criminals, serbs are calling it POV just because it lists! And are voting for deletion because they obviously want to hide the crimes. Ancient Land of Bosoni