Historičar

Bosnian War

I have responded to you in the talk page in the Bosnian War article. Remember to take issues up in the talk page before making major changes to avoid conflict. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks article

Please use the talk page to discuss that huge edit before you go ahead and keep revrting. You are engaged in an edit war - which is against Wikipedia policy. A while back, discussion happened that everybody agreed to not put that text you keep putting in, so if you want to keep it, go to the talk page, start a discussion, and reach a consensus before adding it back. ok?. thanks.

Balkans arbitration remedy

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem...Historičar (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, I think it's time to stop insults by Jonathanmills. I am aware we both broke 3RR, and I am sorry because of that, but I don't understand so many insults by Jonathanmills in his communication. Historičar (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, mate, I do sincerely apologise for any insults I sent your way. I just found it frustrating that you wouldn't debate the issue via the talk page, despite my repeated requests, or (seemingly) read my edit summaries carefully enough, where I gave some relevant information. You're welcome to respond on my talk page. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've responded to your comment over at the Srebrenica talk page. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi H,

Just to let you know that contrary to what you may think, I'm not a Serbian nationalist (or even a Serb).

I don't care what's on that article, as long as it is *encyclopaedic* (ie properly referenced by a RS (reliable source) and isn't POV (and mentioning things which are unrepresentative in a position of importance is indeed a type of POV).

Anyway, it would also be cool if you could maybe try to at least keep your reverts to the bits you disagree with, as I have made a bunch of changes which are nothing other than grammatical and wording improvements, ALONG WITH the changes you're objecting to (and, with respect, I think my English skills are better than yours to make such judgements -- although I have HUGE respect for the fact you're using a language which is not your native one. 'Kako ste?' is about all I can manage in your language! ;-)

Also, let's try to avoid getting busted by Wikipedia admins this time eh? (I know you got off last time -- you sod! ;-) -- but I don't think it will happen again.

Regards/ Dovidjenja Jonathanmills (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi H,

Just wanted to let you know that I've addressed the issue of the deleted quotation on the talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#removal_of_rape_quote

It's not 'blanking' by any stretch of the imagination. The information about the rape is still there, after all.

Also, the version you ended up reverting to had some clear inaccuracies (for example, the statement about 'a relatively large number of older men killed' is ABSOLUTELY NOT what is said in the ICTY judgement), and furthermore you in fact 'blanked' (although probably unwittingly, to be fair) a couple of paras yourself! (They were inserted just today by an anonymous editor, regarding the actions of some Ukrainian soldiers).

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Srebrenica massacre. 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. Aramgar (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI I have blocked Jonathanmills for 24 hours for breach of WP:3RR so don't expect a reply from him in the next few hours. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica Children

At least 500 children were slaughtered during Srebrenica genocide, and you can find reference and full list of the killed in one of the latest Bulletins published at srebrenica.ba (look for it and you will find, it also includes authors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

7th Muslim Brigade

This talk page posting is inappropriate. See (WP:TALK, WP:ATTACK) Please remove it. If you still wish to post a message then make sure is is neutrally worded and does not breach (see WP:TEAMWORK) Here is some wording which I would not object to:

"Recently there have been some dramatic edits to x,y and z. Could interested editors please look over the recent edits and see if they could contribute edits to improve the articles"

Then anyone who is interested and shares your point of view can look at the recent edit history and decide if they wish to contribute to the articles, but you have not made a personal attack on any editor, but really you should present your objections on the talk page of the article and raise either a Wikipedia:Third opinion (if no one else joins the debate) or a Request for comment.

If you do not like the redirect made to the article 7th Muslim Brigade then explain why you do not like it on the talk page of the article and then revert the edit that made it a redirect. If that revert is then reverted, leave me a message on my talk page.

Bold edits with reversal and conversation on the talk page is acceptable behaviour, what is not acceptable are posts like the one above and edit warring rather than talking through disagreements on the talk page. (see Wikipedia:dispute resolution)

--PBS (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen

I have blocked User:Osli73 for 24 hours because he is on a one revert a week and have reverted to your last version on the page Bosnian mujahideen. However you should engage in a constructive conversation on the talk page and not engage in an edit war with Osli73.

Comments like this "RV vandalism, this man is destroying articles, stop him!!! I don't intend to follow the guy, but someone should! You can't just delete every article you dislike! wtf!".[1] are not appropriate unless you are reverting vandalism see WP:CIVIL "For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked." --PBS (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicar, Osli73 has a record of provocative editing. This can be confirmed at his Block Log http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Osli73, the tip of the iceberg as far as his disputes with other editors are concerned. I doubt whether in Osli73's case referring to his edits as vandalism is likely to cause him too much concern as he has often been the subject of such criticism in the past. He ignored it and went on imposing more arbitrary and undiscussed changes.

I found that arguing persistently with him that he should consult other editors before making his changes might lead to him initiating a round of discussion of very far-reaching changes but he would nevertheless carry on making his arbitrary edits as well. You can't hope to deter him, you just have to try and keep up as best you can.

The important thing is to keep your cool and not let his tactics get under your skin. Otherwise you risk being punished by Wikipedia administrators when you respond with normal exasperation. Be careful and do your best to cope with him. This type of editor has a very dispiriting effect on people who want to contribute to articles on subjects that are genuinely important to them and Wikipedia provides only ineffective protection against them. You just have to find your own way of coping. I'll probably get dropped on from a height as a result of saying this but before that happens I want to reassure you that you're not the first person to be subjectd to what you've experienced. Opbeith (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your posting on my talk page see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73 --PBS (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There were some specific points raised about the version you reverted to on the talk page. You must reply to those points and edit the page to reflect a consensus. Just reverting to a previous version is not acceptable, as this has resulted in months of flip flopping of this article with no constructive improvements. If you continue to revert without first discussing and explaining the changes you wish to make on the talk page I will place restrictions on your editing of the article (see the top of the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009. --PBS (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Please stop putting sockpuppet templates on user talkpages, and stop reverting the article Bosnian language without making your point on the talkpage. I'm really sick of your disruptive behaviour and if you don't stop you'll be reported to administrators. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar. Pajdo, letiššš! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Further to this thread on WP:ANI: As you've already been notified of WP:ARBMAC and been warned about edit-warring, I've blocked this account for 24 hours for edit-warring on Bosnian language. You can appeal this block by copy/pasting {{unblock|your message here}}. EyeSerene^talk 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)