User talk:Osli73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome all! Please feel free to leave comments on my Talk page, especially since I edit a lot of very controversial and sensitive articles. First, though, a couple of guidelines which I would appreciate if you could read through first:

1. Stay civil
2. If you are responding to a comment made by me, please do so where I made it
3. Please sign your entries

Contents 1 Ghegs and Tosks 2 Summaries and "minor edits" 3 Alanians 4 Kosovo 5 Presidents of Kosovo 6 Template:Kosovo 7 Kosovo Vote 8 Naser Orić 9 Bosniak page move 10 Kosovo 11 Wonderful 12 Svar angeånde Kosovo 13 Mediation time on Kosovo 14 About massacre 15 Balkan Update 16 STOP VANDALISING SREBRENICA GENOCIDE ARTICLE 17 Final Notice to Osli73 18 Edit by 87.86.8.3 19 Osli73 is dead wrong 20 Ferick RfC 21 Care to comment? 22 Hello 23 3rr 24 Block requested 25 Arbitration request on Kosovo 26 Srebrenica Massacre 27 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo 28 Srebrenica massacre 29 Regarding reversions[10] made on September 4, 2006 to Srebrenica_massacre 30 Angående Srebrenica massacre 31 Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration 32 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo 33 Jews 34 Comments concerning the Srebrenica Massacre article 35 FYI 36 Hi Osli 37 An opportunity for Osli to respond 38 Sweden 39 Re: revoking decision 40 Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre 41 Still no response? 42 Blogs and Reliable Sources 43 Request for Comments 44 parole violation notification 45 Blocked for violation of Arbcom parole 46 Srebrenica article 47 Blocked

[edit] Ghegs and Tosks

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Additionally, I noticed your questions in Kosovo war talk page, and for the sake of having others read through it, I will post my opinion there. Thanks for showing interest. Ilir pz 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two major dialect groups, the Ghegs, to the north of the Shkumbin River, and the Tosks, to the south. Kosovar Albanians are Ghegs. The Ghegs, who make up two-thirds of Albanians, are less intermarried with non-Albanians than the Tosks, who throughout history were more often subjected to foreign rule and other foreign influences. In the past, the Ghegs were organized in clans and the Tosks in a semifeudal society. Before World War II the Ghegs dominated Albanian politics, but after the war many Tosks came to power because the new Communist government drew most of its support from Tosks

It loocks that is not dialect? the Ghegs were organized in clans and the Tosks in a semifeudal society or you meam the north and west beacose the line at Shkumbim is not a strict line. Only a know that in north Albanian (Montenegro, Kosovo) was organisedit in clans, but in Macedonien (they are gege too) hey was ogranisedet not in clans? The gege dialec hase more spoked wariants nothing eles. You can not seperet in gege and tosk the cultur, politic ... the only differe is that the tosk dialect is more uninificat that gege dialect nothing eles. The officel langege is not tosk but, beacose that tosk dialect was more unificatet they have taket the sistem from tosk dialect.

[edit] Summaries and "minor edits"

Please don't make use of misleading edit summaries, and inappropriate use of the "minor edit" box, especially on articles as well-known to be controversial as Kosovo. Alai 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alanians

This [1] is your personal view (opinion) and has nothing to do with Enciklopedi.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Witch is the alfabet (leters) of Tosks dialect? (see tradicional greece and arvanitas)--Hipi Zhdripi 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, I've sourced this information from The Encyclopeda Britannica [2] the Albanian site Albinfo.com [3] and the Minnesota State University site (emuseum) on world cultures [4]. What is it you object to?Osli73 07:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

I noticed you expressed your opinion about the definition of Kosovo's status, in Kosovo page. Calling it a province in the central Balkans describes best what its situation is. One, it is descriptive, it shows its status and location in the region. Two, it does not predict its status. It might be easy just like that for you to call it a province of Serbia, but to someone it might be offensive...due to many many reasons, which you may know as well. Regards, ilir_pz 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I realize that the future status of Kosovo is yet to be determined. However, what I wanted to describe in the Kosovo article is its de facto current status. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, although under UN administration. Negotiations about its status are ongoing. If it might be offensive to some to state the obvious doesn't seem to be pertinent. Just saying that it's "a province in the cental Balkans" doesn't answer the question, "province of what". Better to say it like it is. There's no politics in that.Osli73 12:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it have to be "of something" ? Kosovo according to its constitutional framework is a compact entity under UN administration. In my travellign docouments, in the part where country should be specified it says "territory under interim UN administration". Where is the problem with my definition? ilir_pz 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to browse throug Constitutional Framework and tell me where it says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia? I will cite in the document point 1.1. "1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." This document is approved by all the international community, and is the document with the highest value there. ilir_pz 13:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, internationally and by the UN, Kosovo is recognized as an autonomous province of Serbia administered by the UN. Resolution 1244 defines Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the internationally recognized successor state. For example, consider the wording of this [5] Security Council press release on Kosovo. It reads "....Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro)". In western media Kosovo is also described as a province of Serbia run by the UN. I don't see why this is so controversial for you.

Just because the Kosovo Albanian provisional government has produced a Constitutional Framework and issued travel documents which don't mention Serbia/Yugoslavia doensn't change the fact.

Finally, I sincerely hope Kosovo is granted independence by the end of the year. However, I don't believe in bending the truth for the sake of politics. As you seem to want to do.Osli73 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The constitutional framework and travel documents were prepared by the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, Osli73. You do not know even this? ilir_pz 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making me cite the constitutional framework now: "CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROVISIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT UNMIK/REG/2001/9 - 15 May 2001 " and the travel documents UNMIK issued documents. What part of this was prepared by the Kosovo's government (which by the way is not only Albanian)ilir_pz 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, no, I'm not familiar with the travel documents issued by UNMIK, which may not explicitly state that Kosovo is officially a part of Serbia. UNMIK may have had their reasons for this. However, in all international organizations (or weight), such as the IMF, World Bank, the UN, WTO, etc, Kosovo is treated as a part of Serbia. Look at the map of the Balkans in any atlas (western, reputable) issued in western Europe and you will see Kosovo identified as a province of Serbia. Saying something else, because you want it to be so, is just silly.Osli73 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me silly because I cite UN documents, which I even quoted for you? That is nice of you. Remember, I did not compile those documents, no matter what the reasons were behind them.ilir_pz 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is identified as a part of Serbia in just about any map you can find. [[6]] The UN resolution 1244 identifies it as part of Yugoslavia (of which Serbia is the successor state). Finally, we can all agree that Kosovo is seeking independence. Obviously it is seeking independence from Serbia. Why is this so controversial?

Heissan, You still did not answer what was silly in my wording above. Kosovo is seeking formal recognition of its de-facto status, and is negotiating with the international community to ratify that. The latter even said that with or without Serbian government's consent. It is clear as a crystal. ilir_pz 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You still use the word silly too much as in the last example [7] and even send threats that you intend to do something to let those "who don't accept the facts (you think are ok) get upset.". Consider discussing more. Shows more maturity. Then changing what YOU think is correct, and intentionally attempt to upset people. It is more polite to discuss. ilir_pz 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I'm not trying to intentionally upset you (or anyone else). However, I'm saying that if you (or others) are upset by facts (recognized by all foreign governments) which are not in line with your POV, then this is lamentable, but doesn't change anything.Osli73 10:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here, yet again, I tell you which facts are recognized by foreign government, and are the most imporant documents in Kosovo, 1244 resolution and its constitutional framework. You don't want to browse through them, do you? The compromise can be found in the resolution 1244, where it is clearly stated that Kosovo will be formally considered as a part of FRY, and the UN interim admin there will lead the process to define its status (hint: there is no status until then). Osli73, referring to non-partisan organisations resarch groups and several old maps is trying to impose his NPOV on an article, and at the same time refusing to quote the documents with the highest importance in Kosovo, 1244 Resolution and Kosovo's [www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm Constitutional Framework]. Ignoring these two important documents, and instead referring to sites of convenience to NPOV push is not appreciated in Wikipedia. Furthermore, no need to accuse Kosovar Albanian wikipedians, for inisting in these internationally recognized, and most important documents valid in Kosovo as of now. Why do you refuse to consider these two documents? Regards, ilir_pz 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, UNSCR 1244 confirmed that Kosovo was to remain a part of FRY. As such, it was a province of Serbia. When FRY was replaced by SCG Kosovo continued being a province of Serbia. And when SCG break up and each republic goes it alone, Kosovo will remain a province of Serbia.¨

Telling Wikipedia's readers that Kosovo is a part of FRY/SCG rather than a province of Serbia is comparable to describing Catalonia as a part of the EU and not mentioning anything about it being a province of Spain. Osli73 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just amazed at your pushy NPOV, and intensive research done, and looking at your edits, maybe more than 80% are only related to Kosovo, and what?!? ONLY to that part, "Kosovo is a part of Serbia" sentence. As much as suspicious, I am also surprised why would someone being (I must say allegedly) Swedish, care so much. Never mind, good luck with your pushy edits. Not going to tell you you are wrong either, it is up to you to decide what sources you want to use, and how you interprete them. Hope they serve your aim well. Not going to discuss this issue with you further. ilir_pz 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir,

1. I realize you feel that the Kosovo article should be left to the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs. I feel this would be the worst solution, since this turns the articles into tools for pushing (nationalist) political views.

2. Why do you not believe I am Swedish? Because I'm interested in a issue of great importance for Europe, the continent where I live? I'm Swedish, my parents are Swedish and my ancestors are Swedish, so please stop implying that I'm some kind of under cover Serb just because I don't agree with you.

3. Denying that Kosovo is a province of Serbia is an example of how Wikipedia is used to push political views rather than facts. That's why I'm interested. How come it's so important for you to deny that Kosovo is a province of Serbia? Osli73 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree fully with your first point. Second point is doubtful to me, as you seem to be far pushy from a neutral editor. Sorry if that is not the case, it just gives a wrong impression. I always appreciated non-Balkans editors, helping bring neutrality (not insisting on a single point, which clearly is controversial and feeds nationalistic feelings). With third point, I disagree fully again. It is important to me to cite documents, not keep the side of any. If I were to keep my side and push it in Wikipedia, I would say Kosovo is independent, as its people voted for it more than a decade ago. But that is not my mission here. ~You seem to misinterprete my intentions very well. ilir_pz 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, firstly, do you mean to say that you think the ex Yugo pages should be left to the ex Yugos?

Second point, I'm pushy because after spending a year in Poland with students from all over Eastern (and Western) Europe I'm allergic to the petty nationalism which is is so rife throughout E Europe (never ending listing of atrocities and wrongs committed against the own ethnic group while downplaying those committed against other; claiming that ones own ethnic group somehow has exclusive rights to "ancient homelands"; defining yourself as European and your neighbours as less European; a generally just arguing about the past instead of looking towards the future). So, sorry if things like trying to (in my mind) twist the status of Kosovo to fit ones own political views gets me going. I just think it would be so much more mature if Kosovar Albanians could write "Kosovo is technically still a province of Serbia, although currently under UN administration" and if Serbs could say "ongoing discussion on the future status of Kosovo are likely to result in conditional independence". Why not try to let a Serb write on Serbian crimes against Albanians while you write about Kosovo Albanian crimes against Serbs? Osli73 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously do not read my messages fully. I said just above "I always appreciated non-Balkans editors". How clearer can I say it. You can have your reasons for showing interest in exactly in the Kosovo article, but that does not justify you to be pushy. Being pushy is not a good thing in general, but especially not in Wikipedia, where you cannot really control that, and will just inspire a revert war...as it happened recently. Instead learn to agree to disagree, it helps. I know what would have been more mature, but do not ask an Albanian to say they are living in a province of Serbia. Having in mind what we went through several decades, it is not polite of you to ask them to say that. About the part where Serbs should be mature about, well, the term here is "realistic", as after all that happened they do not have to be mature to understand that Kosovo will become independent. On your last question, I really do not know why you ask me that? When did I prevent someone from writing any kind of crimes, as long as they are backed by credible sources? can you give me one example, and THEN ask me that question.Thank you, ilir_pz 10:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidents of Kosovo

I am not sure presidents from 1989 to 1999 should be added as presidents. During that time apartheid existed in Kosovo, so they were not legitimate presidents. Besides, they were not called presidents, but something like "the head of the committee" or something. The first time Kosovo had a president was after 1999, with Ibrahim Rugova being the first. ilir_pz 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. However, which aparheid are you referring to?Osli73 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Eversince Milosevic took over the control over Kosovo, abolished its autonomy, and installed a brutal military regime, until ending that in the most brutal way in 1999. That cannot be described in any other word. About the presidents, you might want to reconsider then. ilir_pz 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the pre-1999 presidents. To me Kosovar society seems just as segregated and marred by intercomunal violence as before. Just that the boot is on the other foot. If foreign soldiers weren't keeping order, things would definately be back to the same old ways. Don't you think?Osli73 08:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The foreign soldiers need to stay for some time, I agree, as there is a wide gap, and a lot of mistrust in each other between communities. And no, this is not due to the war in 1999. The mistrust has been building up for centuries, and generations. You cannot expect miracles in 7 years, can you? You still hear messages of hatred of Polish for Germans, or Dutch or French jokes about Germans...and what? the war ended 60 years ago. Time will heal wounds, but not as fast as some foreigners want it to happen. ilir_pz 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If Albanians and Serbs could stick to just making jokes about each other (like people do in W Europe) that would be a huge improvement. But, you're right, it's not likely to happen that fast. Certainly not after 7 years. However, the 'healing process' isn't likely to go any faster by both sides constantly listing the atrocities and wrongs committed by the other. But I guess it is a question of mentality that is very difficult to change. That's why I think it's a good idea for these two people to live apart in their own separate countries, just like CG and Serbia.

Let us hope the time of "just making jokes" is close. But listing atrocities is actual right now, as there are thousands missing, and wounds are far from being healed. Justice should be provided to innocent victims. Only then can the real healing, or better to put it "forgiving but not forgetting" process. The mentality to change, that will take much longer. Hopefully the new generations will one day, as the old ones still live in myths. That is is a good idea for Kosovo to be independent, we knew that a long time ago. But division in ethnic lines, besides being impossible as Sers do not live in a compact area in Kosovo, it may also have a chain effect. At least the Contact Group does not support this idea at all. Were you thinking smth like this when saying "these two people to live apart" ?ilir_pz 09:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and when you edit Kosovo article please make sure you do not blank out major parts of the text, like you did in your last revert, you took off Economy, Demographics and some parts on other culture heritage damaged during the war in Kosovo. It can happen, but pay more attention next time. Thanks in advance, ilir_pz 09:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least discuss why you are removing external links from Kosovo war article? trying to heal the hatred or...? Explanation, in the comments line, or in the talk page is always appreciated, to justify your edits. ilir_pz 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, (1) there were too many links to be genuinely useful; (2) some were a bit too specific and (3) a lot of them were quite partisan and more about POV pushing. I understand the logic for discussing big changes, but not for making corrections or general clean-up. Otherwise you'll end up with very long but very poorly edited articles.Osli73 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kosovo war article is highley slanted towards Serbs, and will have to change soon.Ferick 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kosovo

Once you reach an agreement on the wording of the intro for the Kosovo article, make sure this is implemented too for the template above. I will unwatch the article from now on. Good luck with your mediation attempt (I have been there before). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, once (if ever) we agree to a wording I'll try to implement it on other Kosovo/Serbia related articles as well. I'm quite a new on Wikipedia and must say it doesn't feel good to have to compromise about the facts (especially with people who are editing pages where they openly state that they have a very specific political agenda/opinion). Osli73 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I have practically given up on the matter myself. This is even more worrying when you compare it with any other respectable encyclopaedia, as I quoted in the Talk:Kosovo page. Have a nice day, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo Vote

Dear Osli73, I have had contact with User:Ilir pz and he has agreed to have a vote on the introduction of the Kosovo article (and the Template: Kosovo description. The exact terms still have to be agreed, but I suggested (and he agreed) that any introduction should at least include the following: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia, SCG or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. If this is ok with you, do you think you and User: Asterion can come up with a version of the introduction to the article in a couple of days to include in the vote? Any other comments are ofcourse also more then welcome. Let me know your opinion on this matter, best regards Cpt. Morgan 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, in principle I'm against voting about facts (e.g. let's have a vote on Creationism vs Darwin). In addition, I don't see that it should be a controversial issue, "Kosovo is, technically, a province of Serbia, presently administered by the UN (on the basis of under SCR 1244)."

Ilir has one interpretation of UNSCR 1244 (that Kosovo is part of FRY and has nothing to do with Serbia, since it's not mentioned in the text), everyone else, including the US State Department, CIA Factbook, EU Commission, United Nationa, Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC, Encarta and Wikipedia interpret UNSCR 1244 as saying that Kosovo is a province of Serbia (which at the time was one of the constituent parts of FRY but is, soon, an independent country).

If the majority vote for a formulation denying that Kosovo is a province of/in Serbia I will accept it, but I can't respect it.Osli73 19:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion we are not voting about facts, but about how to formulate them. It is evident that the results with be dissappointing for some. We should find some way out of this deadlock, however. The current article on Kosovo is already outdated (dissolvement of SCR is not included), so we should find a way to reach a solution here. If you see another way, let me know, but I am afraid that by only discussion we will never reach a compromise here. So the alternatives are voting, or the rigorous, unfavorable way of arbitration. Also, Ilir also agreed that the subheading politics of the article will be changed to have a more extensive description, which can include both views. This is only about the introductory paragraph. Cpt. Morgan 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan, I believe that this is one of the reasons why Wikipedia sometimes comes out badly compared to traditional encyclopedias - compromises or even all out capitulations are made to people/groups using Wikipedia to push their own political agendas or views.

I realize that, for his own political reasons, Ilir and a lot of other Kosovar Albanians do not want to be associated with Serbia and would prefer to see it as being in a legal limbo following the dissolution of FRY. I've already given the arguments and evidence for why I believe it is 100% clear and undisputed that Kosovo is, technically, a province of Serbia. However, my suggestion for a compromise is:

"Kosovo is, technically, a province in Serbia. However, since 1999 it is administered by the United Nations (based on Security Council Resolution 1244)."

If someone wishes, we can add, after SCR 1244: "..., referring to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)." Notice that I suggest "in" rather than "of", implying geographical location rather than sovereignty. That should placate those who wish to downplay the connection with Serbia.

Other than that I support having a separate section discussing the different views/interpretations of the current status of the province. Please see the Tibet article as an example. Osli73 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osly, as I have stated before I do understand your concerns and there is no need to convince me with the arguments. I have no opinion on the matter and I am only trying to resolve this dispute. The link to Tibet is interesting, because there a similar dispute is at hand. With regard to Wikipedia, reaching consensus on a topic is an official guideline and indeed means some articles will be compromises between different versions. It does not necessarily make Wikipedia worse than other encyclopedias, but it does make it different. With regard to Kosovo, I would like to know if you will respect (meaning you will not revert) a version reached by a supermajority in a poll and if so, if you are interested in supplying (together with User: Asterion) one of the two options to choose from? If you will not respect a poll, I will refrain from setting it up, because there will be no use in doing it. If you will respect a solution, but have no interest in setting up the poll with us, Asterion will supply the version alone. Let me know how you feel, Cpt. Morgan 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A new version was proposed by an Adminstrator (TheTom) on the Kosovo talk page, perhaps you can have a look? Cpt. Morgan 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I will respect the outcome in the sense that I will not revert it. Yes. Osli73 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Osli, What do you think of this? (Feel free to edit it, it is mainly based on your suggestion but I played a little with it)

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), it was placed under United Nations temporary administration. Currently the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20, 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[1]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, I think it covers just about all the bases. I have two comments:

• it might be worthwhile to include some kind of reference as to how Kosovo came to be run by the UN (Kosovo war or NATO occupation in 1999), otherwise an unknowledgeable reader might not understand the context of the UN administration
• Kosovo is run first and foremost by UNMIK, which in turn has devolved certain powers to the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government.

This is my alternative suggestion:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following occupation by NATO forces in 1999 Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20, 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[2]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Osli73 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to all your changes but I would change the text to read "Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo...". E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, I agree with your proposed change in wording. So, are we happy with the following suggested wording:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999 Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20, 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia^[3]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

If you're happy with this version, can you take it to the peson running the vote? Osli73 11:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I will do. Thanks a lot, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naser Orić

User:Live Forever has reported you for a violation of wikipedias Three revert rule on the above-mentioned page. Please familiarise yourself with that rule and ensure you comply with it at all times. This is just a polite reminder of the rule, but further transgressions may result in your account being blocked. Please discuss disagreements on the talk page rather than edit-warring over them. Kcordina ^Talk 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is User:Live Forever which is reverting the article instead of contributing to it. I have invited him/her to discuss the contents and the wording of the article. I'm open for new information and sources. Instead User:Live Forever has claimed it is all propaganda (without supplying and sources) and deleted it all. I'm trying to be constructive, User:Live Forever is not. I'm sorry if I feel a need to repair his/her vandalism. Osli73 11:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[Two common rules of courtesy: (1) please direct questions or comments to me, don't make general comments here; (2) please sign any comments on this talk page]Osli73 07:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote to me: “Please don't make general statements on my talk page, direct questions or comments to me.” According to the rules I can both comment and ask questions. You do not need to answer since I will not be activ here at Wikipedia. --Noah30 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments - yes; questions - yes; insults - no. Hipi, I see that you've been banned before. I guess this is the reason why. Please, stay civil and curteous.Osli73 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never been banned here. I have been here for only two weeks. Now you are insulting me...--Noah30 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniak page move

Hi Osli73. Could you please go here and write what you think about moving the page "Bosniaks" to "Bosniak people". Most other articles about ethnic groups follow that convention so I feel like it'd be a good move to make. Live Forever 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Dear Osli, regarding the discussions we had over the past few weeks and in view of the compromises that we tried to make, I would like to ask you one final time if perhaps you can agree with the current article version of the introduction of Kosovo. There certainly are things you would like to see changed, but you have to ask yourself if they are worth starting another revert war over. Alternatively, a vote or other solution might lead to an introduction that is even further away from what you would like it to be. Looking back at the discussions and compromises I must say that the current version is very close to a good compromise. This article is currently one of the articles on Wikipedia that has been protected for the longest time (Wikipedia:List of protected pages) and even was mentioned on some websites as an example related to the recent NY Times article[8]. Also, people have been wanting to add other information to this articles a number of times (See the talk archive). So, look at the article with a cool head, think of all the discussions and arguments you've heard and if you think we could lift the block without a revert war starting again, please let me know.

P.S. This message was posted at the pages of all people involved that are still active on Wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr), I am not happy with the current wording of the introduction. I have been willing to go with a number of the compromise versions put forward and have worked with several other editors to put forward suggestions. I have asked several times for us to go ahead either with a vote or with one of the compromise versions.

Please see the latest compromise version put forward by ChrisO. In short, it focuses less on legal issues and UNSC resolutions and more on geography and population. I made som small adjustments to it (wording). Why not just go with this and if some editors are unhappy with this because it runs counter to their political beliefs, then that is unfortunate.

The only solution is to have a proper vote (finite time span, etc.) on this compromise version. What do you think about (1) the version proposed by ChrisO and (2) having a vote on it?Osli73 08:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osli, I certainly would like to see this protection ended. The version by ChrisO sounds good to me. Also your adaption is mostly fine, except that you removed the other province of Serbia. It kinda liked that part of ChrisO's version, because it puts the relation between Kosovo and Serbia in a broader perspective. Perhaps you are willing to put that back? A vote could be a final way out of this, but any compromise is always preferred in my opinion. Especially since we now have a fresh version proposed. I suggest you also ask ChrisO's opinion on this matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I have nothing against putting back the reference to Vojvodina (the other province). I just thought

1. it could be sensitive (especially to some Kosovar Albanians) to compare the status of Kosovo to that of Vojvodina and
2. that it didn't really add any information about Kosovo as such (as opposed to the Republic of Serbia).

However, as I said, I'm fine with keeping it in if it will help move the process forward (to unprotecting the article). Osli73 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Osli, thanks for putting it back. Maybe you are right that it is a sensitive issue, so in that case we would be better off without it. But I liked it in the sense that it made the first sentence more descriptive and detailed. Also, it keeps the text closer to the fresh version by ChrisO, hopefully that helps a bit in keeping people cool about this issue. But lets see what comments arise from the other parties on this last version (although they have been very quiet lately). I am afraid this might still take a while to get completed. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

[edit] Wonderful

"Serbs think they are unfairly picked on by the West; Croats feel they are unfairly portrayed as Neo-Nazis; Bosniaks continue to cultivate their victim status from the Bosnian War and Kosovar Albanians can't think straight whenever they hear the word "Serb"."

I one sentence you have succsessfully portrayed the term "Balkanization". --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So simply said - yet so horrific in truth. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svar angeånde Kosovo

Hej Osli73, desamma måste jag säga. Blev glatt överraskad när jag såg att du också kom från Sverige och dessutom precis som jag norr om Stockholm. :) Vilken förort är du ifrån? Jag är ifrån Märsta. Som sagt kul att du oxå intresserar dig för Balkan. Har du läst något på universitet rörande ämnet? Ja tyvärr har jag kämpat länge mot Ilir och hans allierade för att hålla Kosovo sidan desstomer neutral. Du anar inte vilket jobb jag hade det i början då sidan var i ett katastrofalt underhåll och jag var ensam om att försöka driva den framåt från den pro-albanska stagnation den hamnat i. Kul att fler angagerar sig nu och jag är glad att vi är flera nu som orkar beskyddda den. Det är klart att den ska respekteras. Jag anser mig relativt passiv på Kosovo sidan numera men jag angagerar mig så mycket jag kan när jag ser att det spårar ur. Finns det flera områden angående Balkan som du angagerar dig i? Litany 16:20, 27 Juen 2006 (UTC)

---

Efter så mycket hyckleri och halvsanningar(på denna del av hemsidan) ang. Kosovo vill jag göra en lång historia kort: Det enda jag har att säga till Ilir&Co är att enligt hans ironiska definitioner vad som bör kallas vad och vad inte...vad som är rätt och vad inte...vill man följa den så kan man med ett gott samvete påstå att Skåne är en provins i Scandinavien, Skåne är inte en del av Sverige, Skåne har rätt till självständighet och utträde från landet Sverige. Skåningar pratar inte Skånska, dom pratar Malmöitiska med små inluenser från Lunditiska och Ystaditiska...Skåningar var först på plats i Sverige och med den rätten så kan dom kasta ut alla utom sig själva, naturligtvis;-)..Heja Skåne.....heja Skåne..... Om inte detta påstående är hyckleri så är jag nog inte den jag är...;-)...Sug på den karamellen Ilir&Co..:-) --Miromiro 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Ta EJ bort denna inlägg, men ni får gärna översätta den till engelska. Tack!

[edit] Mediation time on Kosovo

I don't think we're getting anywhere with the Kosovo introduction, particularly since Ferick has openly rejected WP:NPOV and is now refusing to discuss sources. Accordingly, I've submitted a request for mediation. Please indicate on that page whether you consent to having the matter mediated. -- ChrisO 09:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About massacre

Lazar, yes, I too feel the article is a bit partisan. However, given the nature of the event it describes, that can be forgiven. Especially since it is a very well sourced and documented article. As for the Christmans Day massacres and other background stuff, I think that could go in a specific background section (but with careful review of sources).Osli73 12:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you really mean? Do you mean is it too much to describe a human rights violation at a very high degree? What do you think about Armenian Genocide then?(cantikadam 08:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Balkan Update

Very well spotted! That's Ferick's website, no doubt about it; the description is the same as on his Wikipedia user page. -- ChrisO 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP VANDALISING SREBRENICA GENOCIDE ARTICLE

Stop vandalizing Srebrenica Genocide article. Stop removinig factual elements of cases and substituting them with already discredited Serbian sources. I've warned you in the past, this is the last warning. --Bosniak 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, you sound quite hysterical. Please let me know what you are referring to and maybe I could understand. I have removed an unsourced section and changed the placement in the article of another. If this is such a sensitive topic for you that you cannot have a civil discussion with differing opinions on how the matter should be presented then maybe you should focus on other topics instead.Osli73 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave the article alone. You maybe can't know what is like situation here, because you live... you have everything. But I who live in Bosnia can still all the time hear how Bosniaks killed themselves in Markale, how Srebrenica is no big deal... as they only slauthered Turks, and however that 8000 is hey big number... 3000 is small. 3000 is small? I can still hear and read how Bosniaks destroyed Star Most. Why?! What is revisionism?! What the hell is it? You probably don't know Serbian language, but why in the hell they write that there was about 2800, maximum 5000 victims, and it is... you know normal. Serbian version of Srebrenica. Tell me, what do you know about Srebrenica?! About Bosnia. You are safe there, here we can still hear how we will be slauthered in future, and how Srebrenica will be repeated. --HarisM 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

HarisM (and others), again, I realize this is a sensitive topic for many people. I don't deny that some 8,000 peoople were murdered in Srebrenica, that this was planned and carried out by the Bosnian Serb army/government or that there are those who, incorrectly, claim that all of this did not happen. In many ways the article is one of the best resources I've been able to find on the massacre. However, I do not agree with the politicized way in which some of the material is presented or with some of the conclusions/analyses which are made in the article (or alluded to). Osli73 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Notice to Osli73

You can agree or disagree, it's up to you. However, we will not let you post already discredited Serbian information and present it as a fact in Srebrenica Massacre article. Although I salute your decision not to deny Srebrenica genocide, I must condemn you for spoiling the article with moral relativism and already discredited Serbian sources (e.g. the number of Serbs killed, adventures of accussed concentration camp raper and Serb lobbyist Gen. Mackenzie, etc). --Bosniak 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, you are hell bent on calling anyone who challenges your highly biased presentation and analysis of events as "vandalism" or "moral relativism". I get the feeling that you see the Srebrenica massacre as more of a political tool than a historical event. You choose to only present your numbers and dismiss any source or text which does not fit your view as "Serb propaganda". Please read my lengthy answer to Live Forever on the Talk page here.

And, no, Lewis MacKenzie was no "concentration camp raper" - as I explained/showed above to Dado, that was a smear campaign by the Bosnian government during the war. The Journal of Conflict Studies describes it:

Part of the propaganda war was a successful Bosnian government campaign to discredit MacKenzie personally (including stories that his wife was a Serb). The UN's response was to ignore such stories, rather than take action to refute them, and by June they had reached such a level that MacKenzie asked to be relieved as he could no longer function without risk to his troops, identified as "MacKenzie's men." In November 1992, coinciding with the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia, the Bosnian government claimed that MacKenzie had raped and murdered three or four Muslim girls obtained for him at a Serb concentration camp. By 1995, this story was being reported as regular visits by MacKenzie to a Serb camp brothel stocked with Muslim girls.

CheersOsli73 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by 87.86.8.3

Can you please stop reverting changes on Kosovo. You are very subjective on this issue (very pro-serb) and you're not even from the region. Wikipedia needs to be kept neutral. and Osli73 sabotages the truth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.86.8.3 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 August 2006.

Well, anonymous user:

1. I certainly believe that I try to portray a NPOV by (a) providing references for all data and (b) having a Fairness of tone, both explained in Wikipedia [9].
2. I'm not aware that there is any rule/recommendation that only people from the region are allowed to edit articles related to that region. In fact, it's my experience that "people from the region" are often not able to leave their emotions behind when editing Wikipedia. The Kosovo article is not the property of Kosovar Albanians (or Serbs for that matter).

Cheers Osli73 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro Serbia user- no question about it.

[edit] Osli73 is dead wrong

You stated that this statement is not in reference to the ICTY:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide."

Yet, another time, I am proving you wrong, read here: http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.htm --Bosniak 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I stated that the soure which was supplied was not the ICTY judgement. Now that you have found it, please enter it. Cheers, Osli73 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ferick RfC

I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I am not really that interested in the events concerning srebrenica, I think it is pretty much clear for the most of us what actually happend. However, I have deep respect for user Bosniak and his efforts which I value to be neutral. He's spent hours and hours on the srebrenica massacre article, providing critical info. The so-called "serbian casualties around srebrenica" are classified by the UN-tribunal as a pure myth, and to this lead also the motivation that "serbs only took revenge for what the Bosnians had done three years earlier". If you believe this is the truth then I suggest you create a webpage of your own, however the UN-tribunal has demented these myths and here on wikipedia we try to follow mainstream facts. Greetings Bosoni

Bosoni, yes, Bosniak may have spent many hours on the Srebrenica massacre article and in many ways it is a very good, well references article. I think noone is debating what happened. I certainly don't dispute it. The discussion is rather about how the facts are presented and what analysis is either made or implied. On these points (the last two) I feel that Bosniak presents a very one-sided picture. Take the example of the "Serbian casualties around Srebrenica". This is clearly pertinent to the article as it helps the reader to understand one possible motive for the viciousness of the massacre - revenge. However, for political reasons Bosniak (and, I believe, other Bosnian editors as well) is unwilling to include this information or this analysis (made by some of the sources I referenced). This article is not about "remembering those who gave their lives" or any such thing - it is about describing, in an encyclopedic way, what happened, why it happened and what consequences it has had. Cheers Osli73 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

hi osli, you've broken the wikipedia 3 revert rule on Srebrenica massacre. As you haven't yet been warned and apparently have no prior record with 3RRs, you'll get another chance. so consider this your warning. cheers --heah 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block requested

This is just a courtesy message that I requested on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Srebrenica massacre that you be shortly blocked for your constant edit warring. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

- hi Jitse, you should have banned him long time ago. Bosniak 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request on Kosovo

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Massacre

Bosniak Reply to Osli73 Hi Osli73, I am the only Bosniak editor here. Fairview and others are not Bosniak and they are not Muslim. Once again, your assumptions are wrong. You are pulling old tricks with POV tag. Your tricks are getting old man. Bosniak 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica massacre

Please stop reverting, or you will be blocked for breaking the 3rd revert rule. Thank you, --Serb ^talk 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[10] made on September 4, 2006 to Srebrenica_massacre

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. William M. Connolley 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood all what you said there. My suggestion regarding the Srebrenica massacre page is that the editors either try to find a compromise or, if some of the editors are not willing to do this, that they agree to disagree and accept the POV tag. I can't see how adding back a POV tag can equate to an edit of an article.Osli73 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for four days for truly excessive revert-warring on the above. You reverted the tag 9-10 times and then deleted the paragraph about the Dutch troops at least twice. Please discuss further when it expires. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I was under the impression that POV tags did not constitute edits to the text and thus did not fall under the 3RR rule. Once William M. Connolley made this clear [11] I immediately stopped this. So, I don't agree with your judgemnet on this. Yes, I edited the Dutch troops twice, but that doesn't really constitute 3RRs.Osli73 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angående Srebrenica massacre

Hej Osli! Förlåt att jag inte svarat tidigare, har tyvärr haft så lite tid att spendera vid dator den senaste tiden så mitt wikipedia arbete har helt få ligga åt sidan för tillfället. Jag har flyttat ner till Kroatien för att läsa kroatiska ett år, så det finns massor att fixa men det börjar se lite ljusare ut, peppar peppar... Angående Srebrenica så förstår jag din situation. Jag läste igen argumenten och jag tyckte faktiskt att senast jag läste igenom artikeln (senast någon gång under augusti) så var den helt klart POV. Jag förstår din trötthet angående att bli kallad "serb", "chetnik", "Milosević anhängare" och etc. bara för att man skriver om något som inte passar personen i frågas egna nationalist drömmar. Det har hänt mig alltför många gånger här, trist men dom vet ju inte verkligheten. Såg att du blivit bannad för några dagar, shit happends, hoppas du kommer tbx med ny kraft iaf.

Jag är ganska dåligt insatt i srebrenica massakern, tyvärr. Vi kan alltid diskutera saken lite närmare (bla dina påståenden) innan jag ger mig in i debatten och "addar" i artikeln.

Ha det bra/ Litany 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hej, hopas du njuter av den syeuropeiska värmen.

Ang. artikeln, egentligen handlar det inte så mycket om vad som hände (tror att det i princip inte är någon som bestrider fakta) utan vad som presenteras, hur det presenteras och vilka slutsatser man drar eller alluderar till i artikeln. Tyvärr så verkar de bosniska artikelskribenterna ha svårt att se skillnaden utan går i direkt försvarsläge (all kritik klassas som "Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism", bara det). Skulle tro att artikeln blir unprotected inom kort (även om jag har svårt att se vart det skulle leda om de inblandade artikelförfattarna inte är beredda att komma överens/kompromissa, inte ens om en POV-tag för att visa att det förekommer en konflikt kring texten, vilket var vad jag blev förbannad över häromdagen).

Det jag skulle uppskatta din hjälp kring är alltså inte själva sakinnehållet utan hur det presenteras (bla språket, citatval, vad man väljer att utveckla, osv, det borde röra sig om en encyklopedisk artikel, inte en tidningsartikel), vad man väljer att presentera och inte presentera i artikel samt de slutsatser som dras eller alluderas till.

Enklast tillvägagångsättet är väl egentligen att börja från toppen med ingressen/inledningen och sedan arbeta sig nedåt.

Som jag ser det borde ingressen/inledningen i en encyclopedisk artikel vara en sammanfattning av de viktigaste innehållet i artikeln. I detta fall borde det i princip vara att det rörde sig om en massaker på omkring 8,000 personer (ICTY talar om 7-8000 och den bosniska regeringen om över 8000, inge är dock helt säker), huvudsakligen män inom loppet av en dryg vecka i samband med det bosnienserbiska intagandet av Srebrenica-enklaven. Sen bör man lägga till att ICTY dömt ett antal personer för detta, bl.a. för brottet folkmord (act of genocide) och att Mladic och andra efterlyses.

Tacksam för allt du kan/hinner/orkar göra. Förstår om du tvekar, för det är ett riktigt getingbo (men inte desto mindre viktigt för det).

Hälsningar Osli73 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.

ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .

Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews

Maybe you are unaware on the term diaspora, but it is a word originally used for Jews not living in Israel, and in the later half of the 20th century came to mean other peoples forced from their homes. To quote as you have, it "refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands." If you review the history of Israel and Judah, you will see in 586 BC Jews for forced from Judea by the Babylonians, and Jerusalem in AD 136 by the Roman Empire. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and Jews are not of European orgin by the very least. Epson291 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora today, also refers to any peoples living outside their homeland, forced or not, see Indian Diaspora. Epson291 06:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Epson, after having looked around in various dictionaries it is apparent that 'diaspora' refers to all peoples living outside their original homeland. So, I'm OK with that. After looking through various sources on Jewish populations on the internet I see that the term Diaspora to describe Jews living outside Israel has become commonplace since the advent of Zionism. So, while I think the use of the term 'Diaspora' is ideologically motivated, I'll accept its use. Regards Osli73 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments concerning the Srebrenica Massacre article

Osli73, you raise issues that you ask me to respond to without ever bothering to deal with points that I have raised and in particular you ignore some information I posted at the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page specifically relating to a topic that appeared to be of considerable concern to you previously.

I posted the information about the ICTY's position on copyright after investigating the issue when you made a fuss about possible "plagiarism" and copyright infringement if quotes from ICTY judgments were used. You might have investigated the matter yourself but for whatever reason did not, you preferred simply to raise controversy.

Now in your post to my User Talk page you mention having read what you call my "very well written comment" regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations and then without challenging the point I was making about the legitimacy of mentioning the allegations you sum them up as "one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article".

You move on to interrogate me over the issue of the number of victims. As usual, the apparent reasonableness of some of the points you raise is belied by the way you carry them forward. You seem to be calling the figure of 8300 into question "as it refers to total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for". You are implying that those "killed in fighting" on the march and those "not accounted for" should not be counted towards the Federal Commission for Missing Persons's list of 8373 names of the dead and missing of Srebrenica.

The majority of those in the column led by members of the 28th Division that set out for Tuzla rather than rely on the protection of Dutchbat at Potocari were unarmed civilians who anticipated the fate that befell those who remained in the enclave. Even the 28th Division soldiers were carrying fairly basic weaponry. The column was ambushed by a well-armed military force as part of an action that was part of an operation with genocidal intent. So the description "killed in fighting" does not

You are obviously aware there was a deliberate and carefully planned plan to conceal the evidence of the massacre by excavating the mass graves, mixing the bodies and reburying elsewhere. The missing not "just not accounted for". They are those whose identities and fate have not been confirmed. You don't factor in your thoughts on the underestimation of numbers that might arise because some of those who died for one reason or another, including the extermination of their families and friends, had no-one to report their disappearance to the authorities making lists and counts.

I'd also argue that it would be legitimate to expand the number of victims of the Massacre to include those who committed suicide or died as a result of the inhumane conditions they endured in the context of the fall of Srebrenica, since these deaths were directly attributable to the genocidal project of imposing conditions that would made the survival of the Bosniaks of Srebrenica impossible. --Opbeith 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith,

• I'm not sure what your answer was. I'm simply saying that if the article is to use the most commonly used figure, this would not be "at least 8300" as most sources (see the archives) refer to 7-8000. The ICTY certainly uses this number, as does the BBC and most other major news agencies. Of course we are free to speculate about what the number should be, which I believe the current ">8300" figure to be. However, as I understand it, the article should present the generally accepted number, which the ICTY figure should be.
• Whether the casualties in the Tuzla column should be included can of course be discussed - though, again, the editors of the article aren't really the ones who should make that judgement. Attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre" (e.g. the Desert Storm Road of Death in souther Iraq).
• Regarding MacKenzie, to mention that a Bosnian state prosecutor is investigating the old charges here in the article is obviously an attempt to discredit him on an unrelated topic - what do the old rape accusations have to do with his views on the Srebrenica massacre?
• As for not responding to your points raised on the Talk page, sorry, I've been busy (or rather, travelling).

Regards Osli73 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously "read" my "long and well written" comments about MacKenzie and the rape allegations and paid absolutely no attention to what I said. Same goes for what I said about the Tuzla column and unarmed civilians fleeing from part of the massacre plan and being intercepted by another part. Same for my comments about the numbers. Never mind, you carry on doing your thing. --Opbeith 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The post I made at the Srebrenica Massacre Discussion page gave the ICTY's reply to me after I followed up the objections you were making to quotations from ICTY judgments on the grounds of possible "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement" when published ICTY judgments are quoted. To save you the bother of reading it the ICTY confirm that the text of judgments is in the public domain and they are happy to have it quoted. They would like to have it suitably referenced and say how. --Opbeith 09:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, calm down! Why are you so rude? I've been nothing but civil.

• Regarding the Tuzla column, you obviously see them as unarmed refugees while I see it as the poorly armed remnants of the 28th Division. Whether they where killed in combat or not is a matter of opinion. I'm simply arguing that since the icty judgement is the most respected source of information on the massacre (indeed, much of it has been copied word by word in the article) there is no reason not to use its interpretation of the numbers killed (7-8000 rage). Especially since this range is most commonly used in other sources.
• As for the 'quotations' from the ICTY judgement, it was a case where the entire text or blocks of text were copied from the judgement, not just 'quotations'. I'm happy you contacted the ICTY and checked what their policy was. Does this mean that you will follow through and state in the article what parts of it are lifted from the icty judgement?

Regards Osli73 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, I apologise for letting myself get exasperated and not maintaining the same level of civility that you always display. It's hard to try and maintain a dialogue when your partner's always changing step whenever you tell them you're familiar with the music. Sadly like others before me eventually I let the frustration of trying to keep up with your fast footwork get to me.

So I'm simply going to say that you misrepresent me when you say that I consider the Tuzla column a group of unarmed refugees. As you well know that's not what I said. I am aware that this was a mixed group of fairly lightly armed soldiers, without their commander, and unarmed civilians. According to the UN Secretary General's report on the Fall of Srebrenica " The men, who may have numbered up to 15,000, were divided roughly into brigade groups, with the strongest units moving out first, to act as a spearhead for those that followed. Perhaps a third of the group was armed."

They all knew from their experienceof the ethnic cleansing of the Central Podrinje what was likely to happen to them if they fell into the hands of the Bosnian Serb army. Rightly as it turned out rhey were reluctant to rely on the UN presence to protect them. " The vast majority of them [the men of military age], including the civilian and military authorities, as well as some of their families, decided instead that they would risk making their way on foot to Tuzla, some 50 km away, through Serb lines and through forested, partly mined territory. They decided that they would fight their way through if they had to." Not unreasonably, given the likely fate that awaited them, soldiers and civilians alike.

Many were killed. But that's not the same as saying as you do "they were killed in fighting". The VRS attacked the column with artillery and possibly with chemical weapons. They ambushed the middle section of the column which included many of the unarmed civilians and slaughtered hundreds of them. And then the men who were captured were taken away, not for treatment as prisoners in accordance with the rules of war, with which the former JNA officers would have been quite familiar, but for mass execution.

This killing was part of the genocidal arrangement, the other part of which was put into effect as the Bosnian Serbs moved through Srebrenica and then at Potocari. This genocidal intent is something you seem reluctant to contemplate. As I'm sure you'll find some way of moving onto another issue rather than consider the ICTY evidence you are so familiar with I won't spend more time on this. I have limited time and energy to dedicate to the points you raise so perhaps now that I have resolved your scruples about plagiarism and given your reasserted familiarity with the ICTY judgments from which the information contained in the article comes, you'll be happy to take on part of the task of referencing the sources.

In return here are the relevant portions of the Secretary General's report to the General Assembly, Doc. A/54/549, dated 15 November 1999, paras 310, 316-317, 343-344 and 369.

310. The majority of Srebrenica’s men of military age did not seek refuge in Potogari. The vast majority of them, including the civilian and military authorities, as well as some of their families, decided instead that they would risk making their way on foot to Tuzla, some 50 km away, through Serb lines and through forested, partly mined territory. They decided that they would fight their way through if they had to. By mid-afternoon on 11 July, the men who were preparing to make the journey began to gather in the hamlet of Šušnjari, located in the northwestern portion of the enclave.

...

316. The Bosniac men gathered in Šušnjari began to move out of the enclave into surrounding Serb territory shortly after midnight on 12 July. The men, who may have numbered up to 15,000, were divided roughly into brigade groups, with the strongest units moving out first, to act as a spearhead for those that followed. Perhaps a third of the group was armed. Progress out of the enclave was initially slow, with the men having to pass in single file through the Serb minefields that lay beyond the perimeter of the enclave. The last units left Šušnjari in the early afternoon of 12 July, more than 12 hours after the first.

317. Despite this slow progress, the Serbs did not immediately engage the column of Bosniac men. Darkness, forest cover and surprise appear to have provided some initial protection for the Bosniacs. Sometime before dawn, however, the Serbs began to engage the column with heavy weapons. Several survivors interviewed in connection with this report have given accounts of what they believe to have been chemical weapons attacks. They described artillery shells impacting and then leaving a lingering plume of white smoke or gas. Those nearest to the impact were not killed, but became disoriented, and some appear to have wandered away from the main column into the surrounding Serb territory. Two medical doctors present in the column witnessed these events, and are of the belief that those affected were under the influence of non-lethal chemical agents.

...

343. Also on the night of 12 July, as the front of the column of the approximately 15,000 men proceeded north and then west from Srebrenica, Serb fighters began to close in on them, using not only longer-range heavy weapons, but also mortars, bazookas and small arms. The Serbs established a cordon along the paved road that passed through Konjevie Polje and Nova Kasaba and across which the Bosniacs would have to pass. The first Bosniac units crossed the road before the cordon was fully established, just south of Konjevie Polje. Crossing the road, the Bosniacs heard Serb patrols hailing them with megaphones, urging them to surrender. They also saw UNPROFOR vehicles (which had been commandeered by the Serbs) and soldiers in blue helmets.

344. Behind this first group of Bosniacs, the middle section of the column was being ambushed. A large section of the column had stopped to rest at a clearing near Kamenica, known locally as Kamenigko Brdo. Survivors recalled that a group of at least 1,000 Bosniacs were engaged at close range by small arms. Hundreds appear to have been killed as they fled the clearing. The skeletonized remains of some of those killed in this ambush remained clearly visible to Tribunal investigators and United Nations staff members passing through in 1996. Survivors recalled how many wounded were left behind, some of whom shot themselves or detonated grenades in order to escape capture. Some wounded were carried along with the survivors, later surrendering.

...

369. On 16 July, the column of Bosniac men that had set out from Srebrenica and Šušnjari was still trying to make its way to ARBiH-held territory. Many of these men surrendered and were apparently loaded on buses and trucks and taken to the Cerska Valley. One Srebrenica survivor later recalled realizing that he was walking on blood as he arrived there, and that one week later others passing through the Cerska Valley could smell corpses. One hundred and fifty bodies with their hands bound were subsequently found at a mass grave near this location.

--Opbeith 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, "attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre" (e.g. the Desert Storm Road of Death in souther Iraq)." I think that there are grounds for arguing that what happened on the Mitla Road during Desert Storm was a massacre. What it was not was an act of genocide. The ICTY has found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica. While members of the 28th Division might have sought to escape the over-running of the enclave in the manner they did simply to ensure their ability to continue fighting for the Army of BiH, it is reasonable to assume that the civilians would not have taken the risks they did in following the soldiers if they hadn't faced the likely prospect of ethnically-motivated extermination. --Opbeith 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, back to the issue at hand. I was simply saying that to say that all of the 8300 people missing and unaccounted for in and around Srebrenica at around the time of the takeover of the town were "massacred" (which would seem to be the requirement for being counted as a victim of a massacre) is far from proven or, indeed, the generally held view. In the 8300 figure there are possibly people who were killed in action (before or after the takeover of the town) or died or are missing for other reasons. This is precisely why the vast majority of sources mention figures within the range of 7-8000. I don't believe that the editors of Wikipedia should draw their own, in my opinion, politically motivated, conclusions. Regards Osli73 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[12] -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, thank's for the heads up. Yes, I did replace my current user name (osli73) with another as I had recieved some very nasty emails on my personal email address related to my activities here on Wikipedia and therefore felt it would be better if I 'changed' identities. Sweden is quite a small place were it is not too difficult to find personal information (street address, etc). Unfortunately, this did not work. Regards Osli73 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, don't bull shit! I mean, be honest. You were sockpuppet, I can find your edits when you pretended to be Karl, but you were also Osli (to help each other). It is enough to check history of Srebrenica massacre article. It is obvious that you don't even read the article (according to you last edits on Izetbegović article) but push your POV. Emir Arven 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These deletions and reverts are ongoing:

1. Special:Contributions/89.146.145.110 [13]
2. Special:Contributions/89.146.136.242 [14]
3. Special:Contributions/89.146.128.58 [15]
4. Special:Contributions/89.146.148.169 [16]
5. Special:Contributions/89.146.133.82 [17]

Apparently someone in Sarajevo doesn't want you editing that article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 12:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I can understand that the Srebrenica massacre will be a very sensitive issue ot most Bosniaks. However, my personal opinion is that if they are going to contribute to the article here on Wikipedia they should try to put those passions aside and discuss it in a rational manner. Ever since I began to challenge some of the edits made by the 'Bosniak' (which I'm only assuming that they are) editors I have been met with bullying and personal attacks, both on and off Wikipedia. I'm not about to give in to bullying, so, do you have any suggestion for an alternative route? Mediation? Comes accross as quite difficult since it's not just about including or excluding rape allegations against Mackenzie or the figure "an estimated 8000" or "at least 8300", it's a tendentiousness accross large parts of the article (not to mention the lenght of it). Regards Osli73 12:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The current discussion about numbers is particularly baffling to me. All reliable sources quote a figure in the range 7000-8000. I'm at a loss, to be honest. I stumbled into that article when User:Bosniak posted a nonsense message to my talk page; I removed the rape allegation as a simple violation of WP:BLP and thought that was the end of it. I'm still a bit shell shocked that I spent a week going through points about that rape allegation that have apparently been covered in the past. It seems to be an article of faith in some circles that MacKenzie is a pro-serb, anti-bosniak rapist; and apparently his love of car racing indicates mental instability. In an environment like this, I don't know how to keep any discussion focused on verifiable facts. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I also don't quite know how to reach an acceptable solution. The whole article is more or less peppered with the same types of allegations and insinuations as in the Mackenzie case. On one hand I want to leave it all, on the other I don't like giving in to bullying. I don't see why it should be so difficult to agree on a 'compromise' solution based on the icty findings (without copying entire sections of the text, without credits being given, as is now the case). Regards Osli73 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly are the rules you're working under in that article? User:El C asked me for a synopsis, but I'm not sure that I have a clear grasp of the situation: User talk:El C#This thread might interest you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I posted a reply at El_C's talk page here. I presume that was what you were asking. Regards Osli73 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Like a lost bird repeatedly crashing into windows in a vain attempt to get to the other side, Osli73 returns." Well said. Well said indeed!

[edit] Hi Osli

Hi Osli. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, I had some other problems in my life. Why not just get rid off whole revisionist section? They are not central players in the massacre. Lets just delete the whole category, and maybe we could open another article espousing their agenda? Or maybe, we could add new categories to their articles (e.g. Lewis Mackenzie article, etc) and espouse their opinions? I just don't see how can we improve this article if we waste another 6 months discussing revisionist views. If deletion of category is not plausible, then we could do mix of your and my suggestions. You proposed we "simply say that there are a number of 'observers' with dissenting views regarding the massacre". I propose we also mention that their views are viewed as revisionist by some. In fact, their views are clearly revisionist. But, does it really matter? Should we continue wasting our energy on "revisionist", "alternative", "controversial", "dissenting", "leftist" views? Let's find quick compromise and move on with improving other aspects of the article. Let's just work together objectively, and let's stop edit wars; it's counterproductive, and we are all tired of it. I don't have a problem with using "estimated 8,000" missing/killed, as long as we mention (somewhere in the article) which source stated 8,300 missing/killed. I think listing more reliable source will create better understanding of the issue. Also, I propose we somehow incorporate hardship associated with DNA identification (which is painstankingly slow process). Bosniak 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I'll respond on the Srebrenica massacre talk page, as this should be in the public domain. Regards Osli73 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Osli! It's Jonathan Mills here (yes, my real name! :-) Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure exactly where to respond to your message to me on the Srebrenica discussion-edit page -- (you wrote)

Jonathan, as I see it, it's not for the editors of this article to analyse the nature of the ICTY or any alleged complicity or bias of 'western' media. We should simply summarize and report the prevailing understanding of the event. As I see it, the view presented by the ICTY is accepted by the majority of other sources. as there is a minority (or rather, minorities, since they don't appear to be a coherent block) who dispute various parts of the massacre as presnted by the ICTY/majority, their views should also be presented, thouth, of course, with much less weight/space allocated to them. in both cases, the icty/majority view and the minority view, there is no need to label either of them as "revisionists", "alleged rapist", "fundamentalist", "Nato created" or other. Just say that the ICTY view is the view accepted by the vast majority and that the minority view is, well... a minority view. Since the article currently strays somewhat from the ICTY/majority view, eg with the case of MacKenzie, the Scorpions and the >8300 killed, I agree with you that it is contested. In my opinion, the selection of information presented, the wording and conclusions drawn also means that in some cases the article is POV. Regards Osli73 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you on this. I put up the tag because it was calling dissenting views 'revisionist', as well as the other points you've mentioned, and was clearly not NPOV. I think the reason I got perhaps a bit off the topic vis-a-vis the Western media etc was to try and argue that it wasn't fair to tar the dissenting views as inherently false. Not to mention that it is against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. I will join you later on some of the specifics of the debate, but for right now I have to go to work... :-( Cheers Jonathanmills 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, I agree completely that the type of 'labelling' and 'tarring' by association which appears in this article, of which the "revisionist" label is an example of, is not NPOV and should be removed. As I wrote in my reply to you (above), I do believe that the article in its present form deserves a "POV" and/or "Contested" tag. However, as you will see from the Talk page, I am now hoping, proposing, even, to get a fresh start with the article. As these types of tags are seen by many as a provocation I think that we should put them on hold until we see what kind of response the "A Fresh Start" initiative will get. Regards Osli73 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think starting the article afresh is a very good idea. Cheers for your reply.

Jonathanmills 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An opportunity for Osli to respond

Here you complain about editors gang up on you

Jitse, as you will know, I feel that I have been and continue to be harassed by some of the editors active on the Srebrenica massacre page. This includes a certain amount of 'ganging up' amongst the editors who disagree with me. This is only the most recent example of this type of behavior. I'm not sure wether or not this is strictly against Wikipedia etiquette but I do feel that it is uncomfortable. Especially so since I have received an anonymous threatening email (explained here). As the administrator most involved with the article I would appreciate if you could notify, in this case Bosniak, that this is not acceptable and that it should be stopped. Regards Osli73 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

but here you are part of the group of editors and the sockpuppets that gang up on editors.

How you explain that you are part of group of editors and sockpuppets gang up on people, many are who banned -- Nikola Smolenski, Bormalagurski, Medule, KOCOBO, Srbijanković -- but now you complain??? Editors have right to see your history here and you have right to respond. What do you have to say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&offset=20061106120813&limit=500&action=history scroll down to Sept 1 thourgh 4.

Hi, to begin with, it would be much better if you signed your entries, so that I know who'm I'm talking to. Regarding your comment above, I have looked through the entries I made 1-4 September and find only embarassing examples of edit warring, which I can't see would constitute any canvassing or 'ganging up' (although I see that you, presumably, made those accusations at the time.[18][19][20][21] ). Since I haven't had any contact with the other editors you name I can't see how it could be an example of 'ganging up' or 'canvassing'.

• adding a POV tag [22]
• adding a POV tag [23]
• adding a POV tag [24]
• adding POV tag [25]
• adding POV tag [26]
• removing MacKenzie slander [27]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report[28]
• adding POV tag [29]
• adding POV tag [30]
• removing MacKenzie slander [31]
• adding POV tag [32]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report on 4 Sept. [33]
• adding POV tag [34]
• removing unfair characterization of NIOD report [35]
• adding POV tag [36]
• adding POV tag [37]
• reverting to last version by Fairview [38]
• adding POV tag [39]
• adding POV tag [40]

Osli73 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden

Hi Osli -- Thanks for the good information added recently to Sweden.[41]. I thought I'd ask, though, were there any sources you could add for the information? It seems in order to get the article listed as good, we need to get as many sources as possible. Thanks in any case, Mackan79 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, I though the information was common knowledge and therefore didn't think any 'source' was needed. A couple easily accessible and widely accepted references which could be used are:

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online's article on the History of Sweden [42]
• US Department of State's site on Sweden [43]
• Columbia Encyclopedia's article on Sweden [44]
• EuroDocs also has a quite good link library (in English) to sources on Swedish history (in English) [45]

I'd be glad to cooperate in improving the article on Sweden. I've made som attempts in the past with the Economy section (since I'm an economist) but nothing sustained. I've added this reply also on the Sweden Talk page. Cheers Osli73 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: revoking decision

Thank you for letting me know; I will carefully study the situation, and if I feel confident enough to do so, will leave my comments/vote on the motion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but I'm still familiarizing myself with the case. If and when I feel confident enough to comment, I will do so; in the meantime, thanks for your patience - I understand it must be frustrating. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still no response?

I still didn't get your response to my latest comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#disputed_tag (scroll down, it's in bold) Bosniak 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs and Reliable Sources

Nope, I'm not an admin... just a regular old editor. However, I have been involved in editing the guideline for a while, so I am familiar with the concensus relating to it. Blueboar 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

Osli73, I have no desire to get bogged down in your wilful initiatives or take responsibility for the complications resulting from your arbitrary interventions, particularly when the cause, as so often, is your inaccurate and misleading representation of a situation involving other people. Passing the buck is not the same as discussion or consultation. --Opbeith 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me.Osli73 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parole violation notification

Osli73, your violations of parole have been reported at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Fairview360 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests

[edit] Blocked for violation of Arbcom parole

Osli73, you have been blocked for violation of your Arbcom parole: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Osli73. As this is the second time you have violated the parole, the block has been increased from one week to two weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica article

I hope you appreciate the amount of flak I'm receiving for taking your suggestions seriously :-(

Best regards,

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, that the article needs to be pruned and reduced in size shouldn't be that controversial at all. The difficult part is of course how it should be done.

The extremely long article we have today is the result of various editors expounding on their favorite piece of detail on the massacre, be it the finer points of the Sandici massacre, the nature of 'alternative' views or feelig the need to inform the reader extensively about the thoughts of the US Congress on the massacre. The long text is also a result of copying the description of the massacre from the ICTY judgement against Krstic and pasting it into the article. This provides a very detailed description of the massacre but does it a the price of 'conciseness'.

I'm not sure why you would not take my suggestions seriously. Yes, the group of editors who see this article (and in some cases, I believe, the massacre itself) as being primarily a too with which to beat various political opponents (Serbs and their real or alleged supporters) over the head with will oppose any changes. To them it is more important that the articles name be changed to Srebrenica genocide than to try to produce a concise and clear article about the actual massacre.

Finally, yes, of course I appreciate that there are other editors involved in the article who don't have a political agenda. Cheers Osli73 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		To Osli73, for continued attempts to improve Srebrenica massacre despite heavy personal abuse. Djma12 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked: I have blocked you for 2 weeks for violating your one revert per week parole at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo by edit warring over the claim that the "Scorpions" were involved in the massacre. [46] [47] [48] [49]. I am also banning you from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months ending 22 June 2007. You may edit the talk page, but you are banned from editing the article and this ban may be enforced by any admin by further blocking. Likewise, ban evasion with sockpuppets will earn you an extension on both your editing block and article ban. Thatcher131 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)