User talk:Aradic-es/ Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Aradic-es! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Puppet ?

Please do not use this account in editing articles edited by user Aradic-en--Rjecina (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for rename

For your reference, note has been left on the WP:CHU page for your attention. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to say, like Dado once did, Makedonija ti pruži ljubav :) BalkanFever 10:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Želim te pitati: dali ti mrziš Junanci kao narod, ili samo onih koji su licemjeri? Nisu svi ljudi loše....izvini, moj hrvatski vjerojatno je sranje BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

making aware of probation

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.

Please stop baiting the greek editors. You called their country "Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan", apparently in order to ridiculize their insistance on using FYROM [1]. That sort of statements is pretty much guaranteed to make greek editors angry and start esterile discussions that only make people waste time. Ídem with referring to other editors as "My dear Yunan troll" and "most of the trolls here are from Yunanistan" [2]. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh...., not exactly the same thing. FYROM is a name agreed between Greece and Macedonia, while FOPOY is a parody of it, apparently created on internet forums to provoke greek people [3][4]. I wouldn't like the discussion to drop to the levels of this, hum...., how could I describe it..., this "informative video" about alternatives names appropiate for Greece [5], or to the level of its helpful counterpart suggesting an alternative name for Macedonia [6]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The strongest thing I can see on his edits to that page is "I realise that you are ashamed to call yourselves Slavs like this word is some kind of an insult...". I also checked the rest of his contributions and I didn't find anything really insulting. I just gave him a level 1 probation warning and a recommendation to avoid those comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that anyone would think that using the Turkish name for Greece is somehow a blow to the Greek ego. Apart from the fact that both what is now Croatia and the ancestors of your "Macedonian" brothers were also under Turkish rule once upon a time, you're probably unaware of the Greek origin of Yunanistan, İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir, İzmit, İznik, Trabzon, and countless other Turkish toponyms. I suppose the equivalent would be to try to provoke you by using the Serbian name for Croatia. If you actually had a separate name, that is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, could someone please translate this into English? Something about Ionians and Socrates. It looks like Serbian, but I'm not quite sure. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Your recent edit, diff I found below the belt, so I thought it best to have somebody to look at it here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Aradic-es.--HJensen, talk 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Aradic - just as an aside on this, 'tit-for-tat' (doing the same dumb thing someone else is doing, in order to teach them a lesson) doesn't work at all on wikipedia. no one ever gets the lesson or sees the comparison, they just get annoyed. my advice to you is to try to ignore it, and if you can't, come back to wikiquette and file an alert of your own, with diffs (so others can see what you're seeing). --Ludwigs2 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Ludwigs2 here. Just like in most sports where the referee always misses the "original" foul, but always sees the retaliation, Wikipedia seems to work the same way. Offending someone's ethnicity, using condescending terms towards others, and similar activities although may not be swearing, they do fall into line with WP:CIVIL. Certainly, when pushed to act, it's better to use the process on your behalf (such as a Wikiquette filing) than do retaliate. BMW(drive) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw your reply on my Talk ... no issues about "lateness", I'm always trying to help everyone get along :) I would say that as a rule, calling a Nordic person "Nordic" is not offensive. However when placed in the context of the original text that caused the complaint, it appears more offensive...in fact, it sounds sarcastic. I know that tone does not always come across well in written word which is why we must always be careful.BMW(drive) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox spelling

I didn't want to change it for you, but "This user opposes the restauration of Yugoslavia in any form." should be spelled "restoration". --AW (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Marko Djokovic

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Yano (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Balkan sanctions

Please see this important message for you: [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:User Republika Srpska

There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia in Eurovision

Please do not move the pages. The Republic of Macedonia enters the contest under the name F.Y.R. Macedonia, so the pages must be named as such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia in the ESC

Your recent page moves of the Eurovision articles of Macedonia from F.Y.R. Macedonia... to Republic of Macedonia... are totally disrespectful, this is not following WP:MOSMAC which states (under Summary guidance): "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events that use specific Macedonia-related terminology. Use the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" etc)". So it would help if they where moved back. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Zdravo Anto...

Please see this part of the soon to be opened Macedonia arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions. While you may be right, it would be best not to move any articles about Macedonia for now. Pozdravi, BalkanFever 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion about Karađorđevo

Please see my comment on Template_talk:Campaignbox_Bosnian_War#Third_party_opinion and reply there if you'd like to discuss this matter further. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Karađorđevo meeting#Name_of_article --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 8

I'm informing you that the above user has stared a thread at WP:ANI regarding you. Please check out the thread and feel free to comment Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Aradic-es.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

3 revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Herzegovina Canton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Canton 10

Hello, I've protected this article for two weeks. To avoid future disputes, I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tuđman and controversies section

Yes, I agree with most of your points, but I must say that I support a further elaboration on the Karađorđevo meeting in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

48h, West Herzegovina Canton, details available on request William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some explanation would be nice, please,William!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You and P have spent quite long enough fighting edit wars over the Balkans (his here we go again rather sums it up) to know that it is not allowed. Pretty soon now you'll both be on permanent 1RR on all articles. Discuss, etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Branimir Glavaš

Hi. Regarding this edit, are you aware of the Wikipedia lead section guidelines which state that the "lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article"? That section of the Branimir Glavaš article certainly needs expanding to become a proper summary, but I would have thought that his sentencing is important enough for a mention there. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Aradic-es. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

West Herzegovina Canton

I've blocked you for edit warring there. My message on the talk page was clear enough William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just please look at the following edits:

• a very civil comment:[8]

I think I gave very clear explanation:[9]

I don't know any other word but vandalism which is more appropriate for this edit(I referr to the section "holidays") PRODUCER does not read at all -he simply reverts.

• also this

and numerous others--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

24h, incivility [10]. No, "Mr Reverter" is not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations

Hi, it makes no sense just throwing around such accusations and adding tags to userpages. If you have any evidence, you should submit a checkuser request. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Before reverting people

Before reverting people take a break. Have a think. Is this really the appropriate place to have this information? Is a wikipedia article just a dumping ground of any information related to a topic. If it was then we would simply repeat things to the extent that wikipedia would become useless. Every article on the Bosnian War and related topics would look exactly the same. The individual articles should stay focussed on topic. Polargeo (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

As I have been editing the Karađorđevo agreement. I am becoming increasingly aware of your edit waring across multiple articles. I know PRODCUER is to blame sometimes but I particularly note your continual reversion of well sourced material from the lead of Slobodan_Praljak. this is disruptive edit waring and so I have put a report in to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for slow moving edit warring on Slobodan Praljak. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

if you take a look at edit history you will see the following: *PRODUCER has removed category "People from Čapljina"- [11][12][13] Why?? *PRODUCER has removed category "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina"- Why? *PRODUCER has removed link to Praljak personal website-Why?? What is wrong with that? About Sections: *I did not erased this link . I just placed it in another section. Sentence "Slobodan Praljak is among six accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in relation to the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia." is written below with that source and it is absolutely necessary to repeat it twice. *2 Section "indicment" and "charges" are totally meaningless because that is the same thing. also this edit [14] producer's removal of section about connection with Turks (completely sourced) is nothing but vandalism-but nothing new :whatever he disagrees he removes.

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason why you have been sanctioned, except where you attempt to justify your edits. Raising questions regarding other individuals edits is irrelevant, since it is your own block that is at issue here. Since you seem unable to realise that it is the fact of edit warring, and not the reasons why you feel it necessary to violate policy, I do not think it wise to unblock you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

Well, my reson is that I was preventing POV pushing ,vandalism and removal of sourced material by other user (and I have shown the examples).I do not remember that I have violated 3RR,anyway.I do not see what else I should say... --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your main activity here appears to be having stalked PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and reverted dozens of edits. Solid block. Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

{{unblock|I might be stalking PRODUCER (talk · contribs) or he might be stalking me Aradic-es (talk · contribs). I have put certain article on watchlist- most of them he is constantly reverting .PLus some other articles... where he reverts totally sourced sections just because he dislikes them. Ahmići massacre i.e see sectin propaganda [15]

Report for continuing edit war

I have reported you for continuing your edit war Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Slobodan Praljak. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per this complaint at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I have explained my reasons at Talk:Slobodan Praljak.Even other editors agreed with them. Other meaningless accusations I have denied there but I could not continue because I was blocked in the mean time.

Decline reason:

As was said, "Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles." Otherwise, no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

ICTYoda

You may be interested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar/Archive Polargeo (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion!?

What is the matter with you, Aradic?! You'll get idef blocked(!), STOP block evading. Final warning or I'll report you myself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

THANKS a lot for your great help! Do not forget to remind me that I help you in a first chance.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But, OK, it does not matter. I can wait. I will quit this till september.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Either way, you can still use your talkpage to voice your opinion on the issues. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I still stand at 100% at this!! I write smth negative about Bosniaks and I get banned. My edits are beeing labeled as "inflammatory"

PRODUCER writes gossips about some Croats trying to present them as "facts" and nothing-his edits ,on the other hand , are NOT beeing labeled as "inflammatory". Houston, we gotta situation!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You and PRODUCER were both blocked for edit warring. Then you continued to edit war and got blocked for 2 weeks for this warring and not your POV. However, please do not try to defend your recent edits based generally on what PRODUCER does. I have removed or reworded some of PRODUCER's additions to karadjordjevo because I thought they were unnecessarily negative against Croats and not needed in the article. Wikipedia is not the place for a competition on making Croats or Bosniaks look better or worse than each other. Ideally articles should contain the most notable facts, reliably sourced. Polargeo (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My block history is exclusively related to conflict with Bosniak POV pushers (Kruško Mortale, Journalist 007 ,Historičar,ICTYoda, PRODUCER etc.) Most of them appeared to be sockpuppeteers.[16]

I reported ICTYoda because he was the same user as Kruško Mortale, Historičar, Journalist, Emir Arven etc. You thought he was PRODUCER because you were having a battle with PRODUCER (okay I used User:Yugosithlord to post the sockpuppet report here as a joke which was very wrong and stupid of me). However, I actually thought that ICTYoda's edits and reverts were mostly correct (I don't know about the edits of the others because I haven't been editing Balkans articles for that long). Polargeo (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Now ,could anybody explain me:why my edits against Bosniaks are inflamatory PRODUCER's edits against Croats are not inflamatory?? Any difference??--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Which edits "against Croats"? I just look at edits on a case by case basis. I don't label all of your edits as inflamatory. We shouldn't be making edits "against" anyone it seems like you have the wrong idea about what wikipedia is. It is not a propaganda machine. Polargeo (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

His edits in articles :Mate Boban , Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Praljak

Related to this: are you aware what kind of nonsense comparison did you make?? Ustaše were all declared Croats (about 40% of their ancestors today declare themselves as Bosniaks!!) but not all Croats are Ustaše. This is the case when one ethnic group is identifying itself with another one-given by leaders!!You probably do not know that the leader of Sandžak muslims made the similar statements about "mother Turkey".--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I gave bunch of reliable sources... i.e for Bosniaks and Turks: I sourced Bosniak press ! That is not the secret!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See how annoyed you get when someone tries to label Croats, even if only some of them. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, then you bless to delete all I dislike from here about Croats???16:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. PRODUCER seems to have tried to keep the words Karađorđevo agreement in the articles of Mate Boban and Franjo Tuđman. He has also tried to keep in a small but very reliably sourced rumour on the death of Mate Boban. And PRODUCER has also tried to keep some information on the war crimes case against Slobodan Praljak in the lead of the article. I hardly call this major provocation. But I do agree the Karađorđevo meeting can be called meeting in the articles on Croats, this should not be a problem. We have (I hope) sorted out the Slobodan Praljak issue, it should mention the ICTY case in the lead as it does at the moment by DIREKTOR's edit here. I am not bothered one way or the other on the Mate Boban rumour, it seems perfectly okay to have it in wikipedia though as long as it is stated that it is just that, a widespread rumour with no good evidence. I know Mate Boban is held in high regard by many Croats but for a person considered to be responsible for serious war crimes by most of the world the Mate Boban article does seem very clean. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that we have the situation:some articles are full of included rumours ,gossips (Mate Boban, Karađorđevo meeting, Franjo Tuđman-by Bosniak POV pushers) but verified facts are beeing deleted (i.e my section related to Bosniaks and Turks, Bosniak propaganda about Ahmići massacre). another thing -realted to Karađorđevo meeting and your edit here:in dubio pro reo or in English :innocent until proven guilty.There is no any reliable evidence that confirms existence of any kind of agreement. Yes, politicians often lie! I won't guearantee for anyone. but this kind of judgment is totally POV. There is no any material evidence for that. There is no anybody's statemnt "F.T. and S.M. agreed about smth in Karađorđevo". without that it is all gossip!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that most of the people you quote as having said there was no agreement did not say that at all. What they generally say is that there was no concrete or formal agreement. It is your POV that interprets this as no agreement. I have looked extensively at the evidence including historical backgrounds and summary's of ICTY cases and the vast weight of evidence is that Tuđman and Milosevic agreed in principle but there was no signed formal agreement. The court has come to a conclusion that there was an agreement between the two of them a couple of times (although it doesn't precisely state it was at Karadordevo, probably would have done if the Milosevic case had concluded, and I am fairly sure they will do so again after the Prilic trial. If you want to continue to disbelieve the evidence then fine but my additions are from reliable sources that I have accurately represented, they are not my own slant on the details. Polargeo (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty simply does not apply here because both of the people in question are dead. Again this stuff about an agreement is not gossip Polargeo (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is gossip because these are statement of people who were not present at the meeting but they told the stories they (supposedly) heard from others. So, these are 2nd 3rd 10th hand sources. and here are beeing quoted as absolutely reliable.

Plus these quotes [17][18]

Why in the world are neecessary :they do not say a word about the karađorđevo meeting!!!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you here. This is getting excessive. The subsection on the Serb leadership was added in to balance the bit about the Croat leadership. This was requested by Ceha. But my understanding was that these sections should be kept to a minimum just for context or else they should be a separate article. I have been away on holiday, and still am, so I will have a look at this in a few days time. Polargeo 30 Aug

Here we go again

Holy (edit) war has started again [19][20]--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cut the religious remarks. I generally advised PRODUCER to place his version on top until this can be resolved. It makes no difference what version is on as the matter will be settled on the talkpage one way or the other. We're waiting for your unblock to continue discussions. (You're not unblocked now, are you?)

btw, I advise you to try and put together a more neutral version of your proposed edits, one that focuses on the facts only. I also advise you to forget about blogs, forums, and other (pardon me) bullshit like that, and get real sources prepared. If a source is listed on a forum, extract it and use it as a reference. Focus on publications. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)