User talk:Bosniak

Have you visited & commented to Srebrenica Genocide Blog?

      NOTE: Last update of my profile page was on May 27th 2007! 

Bosniaks (also spelled: Bosniacs; sometimes incorrectly refered to as Bosnian Muslims) are indigenous Slavic peoples of Bosnia. Up until the mid 19th century, the term Bosniak (natively: Bošnjaci) was used for all inhabitants of Bosnia regardles of faith.

In medieval Bosnia, Bosniaks were largely members of an indigenous Bosnian Church and were considered heretics by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. As a result, some Bosniaks were forced to convert to Caholicism and Eastern Orthodox religions. During the Ottoman period (15th-19th century) mostly heretic Bosniaks in large numbers converted to Islam.

During the 19th century (Austro-Hungarian period), the Bosniaks of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths acquired Croatian and Serbian national identites and came to be known as Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs.

In terms of religion, today's Bosniaks are overhelmingly Sunni Muslims. Their mother tongue is Bosnian language, which is one of three official languages of modern day Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniaks are proud of their unique history, tradition, and European roots.

More about Bosnia-Herzegovina? Visit CIA World FactBook

7000 estimate is antiquated

Bosniak, I just added this to the Srebrenica discussion page.

Based on the information available in 2001 the ICTY Trial Chamber stated it "is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica,Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men."

Based on data available now in 2006, it is clear that the 7,000 estimate is too low.

The ICMP has a very strict accounting for Srebrenica victims and only accepts family testimony backed up with DNA samples. The ICMP list of Srebrenica victims is currently at 7,789. http://www.ic-mp.org/home.php?act=news&n_id=175 The Federal Commission of Missing Persons in 2006 is now over 8000. Their method is also strict requiring at least two independent confirmations. In addition to the approximately 8,300 confirmed by the commission, there are several hundred more under review. I have put in a request with a Harvard researcher to give the latest official numbers with primary source material. I hope to have that soon.

I believe the data now available in 2006 collected by internationally accredited institutions will substantiate that the introduction ought to say "approximately 8,000 killed" not the year 2001 estimate of "7,000 to 8,000". I want to thank Osli for inspiring this additional research and given his professed commitment to a rational approach to writing this article, I rest assured that he too will agree to the "approximately 8,000 killed" in the introduction once all the documentation has been presented. Hmmmm... well on second thought he'll probably go running to Seselj to get the latest "controversy" and do everything he can to sabotage putting a reasonable estimate based on ICMP research in the introduction, but so it goes. Fairview360 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

wasting my time with Osli the vandal

Bosniak , it is clear to me that Osli wants to create controversy or delete items or in one way or another distract from the basic facts of what happened in Srebrenica. I believe that by reasoning with him, I can expose the fact that many of his deletions are unjustified and are in fact meant to destroy the veracity of the article. If I can show that he repeatedly deletes well established and relavant facts, then it will become increasingly obvious to administrators that he is at times engaging in vandalism. Currently, I am focusing on the intro. I know that some of my time is wasted dealing with Osli who I hardly believe is a Swede and who I do not accept as genuinely concerned about anything other than promoting "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia" slants, but from time to time, I learn more while researching his specious claims which adds to my knowledge of the Srebrenica massacre and current ultra-nationalist tactics for covering up or distracting from what happened; and perhaps most relevant of all, I injured my back rather significantly recently and have time to burn. Hence my appearance here several days ago and my abundant time available to watch and thwart Osli's oscillations from overt vandalism to re-inventing himself as a reasonable editor. Its at times both pathetic and amusing. Fairview360 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli's vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Fairview360 00:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

keep your cool

Bosniak, I have seen the mass graves, the exhumations. I have friends who are survivors. I myself had a rough time trying to maintain rationality having seen the horror perpetrated by cold-hearted politicians, by willing executioners overtaken by hate and malice, and by those who were told by their commanders either kill or be killed. But Bosniak, you have to keep your cool. It does feel like what you really want to do is go outside and scream at the top of your lungs "The Serbs are murderers!". That statement in and of itself is not accurate. Some Serbs fought against the ultranationalist Serbs. There are Serbs who lost their lives trying to defend multi-ethnic democracy both in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some Serbs did everything they could to confront the Greater Serbia project. If some of the Serbs and some of the Croats had not joined the Bosnian Army defending a multi-ethic democratic Bosnia, there would be no Bosniaks left in Bosnia. There are moderate reasonable Serbs who are nationalists who would agree to move forward in a multi-ethnic democratic system while all crimes are looked at openly. There are Serbs today who are not at all nationalist who want nothing less than to have their nation look honestly at what they did. And if we are going to take a deeper look at what generates these conflicts, we need to look at corruption and how it eats away at civil society and allows cold-hearted power-grabbing people to manipulate Balkan history and foster genocidal conflict. And without allowing the "all sides equal" obfuscation, we must look at everything everyone did both good and bad.

This is going to take generations, but we must find common ground with reasonable people so that the killing does not happen again.

Anyone who wants to put his energy into rehabilitating Lewis MacKenzie is obviously a problem, but even Osli can help improve the article. I'm sorry but he is correct that using your blog as a source is not OK. We need to put in the time finding primary source material.

In the free exchange of ideas put forth by honest people, the truth will emerge.

Bosniak, stick with it. Keep your cool. Do not quit. Fairview360 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is becoming clearer to me that Osli73 is sneaky, but still his challenges are indicative of others like him and good practice for refuting revisionist and underhanded tactics. Fairview360 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli may need to be tolerated to a certain extent, but ever since he tried to erase the names of those killed or missing and sneak it by as a minor edit, I would prefer that he was banned. That maneuver shows his true colors. Fairview360 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Tuspm ^{Talk | E-Mail Me} 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply:

Okay, I will do that in the future.

References

Hi Bosniak,

I just noticed your edit summary at The Holocaust. For this article you can make the references appear in the appropriate section by surrounding them with <ref></ref> tags. For example, if I wanted to cite www.cnn.com, I would type <ref>[www.cnn.com CNN]</ref>. For more information see WP:Footnotes

GabrielF 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply

Thank you Gabriel, I finally did it, take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Cheers!

Good work! Happy to help out. GabrielF 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm Adrien and new to this encyclopedia, I wondered if we could cooperate on the articles about Bosnia and Bosniaks. I would appreciate it.

And you could also copy my Bosnian history part onto your user page, if you wish. You can read it at my page.

Selam Bosoni

Bosniak's reply

Of course we can cooperate Adrien. You can also visit my blog http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com and in the comments leave me your email address so I can contact you. Of course, I will not publish your comment, so your email will stay private. Please keep an eye on Wikipedia's Srebrenica Massacre article.

Cheers!

external links spam

Please stop spamming Wikipedia articles with repetitive and tangential external links. --Joy [shallot] 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply

They are not spam, all three links (Srebrenica Genocide, plus two links of US Government's reward for capture of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic) are directly *relevant* to the topics in question, you idiot.

No, they are not directly relevant, they are tangentially relevant. Some semi-random blog about the Srebrenica massacre, and articles about rewards for war crime indictees, they simply shouldn't be plastered all over the place, it's insane. Imagine if we did it like that for everything else - post all links to world maps in all geography articles? --Joy [shallot] 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Adrien here

Hello Bosniak, I left you a comment as suggested. I loved your blog, great work! Bosoni

Bosniak Reply

For Joy(shalot): $5 million reward is being offered by the U.S. government for the capture of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. I don't want to argue with you.

For Adrien: Hi friend, I got your email and I replied to it. But, and this is very important, I cancelled my internet service provider today and currently I am in process of switching to another one; new connection should be established in few days. Currently, I am sitting on my balcony overlooking downtown Vancouver and use free (*open*) wireless connection! It's pretty fast though. I will add your email to my MSN contact list, so I can catch you online. Cheers!

Update: Also my previous email is not working, because of internet service change - but I added you to my MSN; I'll give you my other email when I catch you online. Cheers again!

Bosoni/Adrien here, Hello

It's good that you told me about the ISP-change, because I sent you a reply to your last e-mail but the delivery failed, I see why now. I'll send my reply later to your new e-mail adress then =) (and I added you to my msn list) Good luck with everything, cheers Bosoni

Srebrenica

Thanks for returning the information in Srebrenica article. Unfortunately I don't have time to frequently proof read the entire article. I generally rely on users who are familiar with the subject to keep tabs on this article so that I don't have to be in charge of reading it every day. Also it would be of great help when you make additions to this article to carefully state the source simply to avoid further attacks on the article that waste time for all of us. What some may consider controversial statements such as the statement in your last addition, while it may be completely true, when left unsourced it weakens the credibility of the article and makes it prone to attacks. It does not mean the statement does not belong there but we just need to know where it came from and the fact supporting it. For example this paragraph

"Seven more have been recently put on trial. One person, Nikola Jorgic was convicted of Bosnian Genocide."

Will probably need a proper source and I am sure you can easily find it through Google or elsewhere.--Dado 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look at it this statement better fits article Bosnian genocide than Srebrenica massacre since activity of Nikola Jorgic pertains to other regions in BiH. I was unaware of this case. Thanks for the info.

Update on situation

Helo friend, I haven't heard anything from you for some time. What's new and how are you? Is your new internet connection and e-mail adress yet established? I should also tell you that I'm not a "diligent" user of MSN messenger, perhaps we could instead decide a specific occasion to give me the e-mail adress via MSN? (I also made my first edits with this account yesterday, on the Bosnian language article) Bye, Bosoni

Bosniak's Reply

Yes Bosoni! Hi! Few days ago, I sent you my new email address and it bounced! I will re-send it again! Hope it doesn't bounce. Cheers! Check your email.--Bosniak 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I checked it earlier today and replied, greetings. Bosoni

Bosniak's Reply to Dado

Hi Dado, you have my respect friend, as you are one of few dedicated Srebrenica massacre editors. I am not expecting you to be the only one monitoring and protecting the article, I encourage other Bosniaks and other reasonable people to do the same. Srebrenica massacre article must be protected against vandalism. Maybe we could protect the article in a way that only registered users can edit it?

Zasto si vratio Srebrenicki clanak na Fairview360-ovu verziju u kojem nije nista bitno promijenio osim sto je ostavio otvorena vrata za srpske vandale koji su jedva docekali da imaju razlog za razvaljivanje clanka? Neko je vec spomenuo da bi ovaj clanak trebao da lici na clanak, a ne na ustogljenu sudsku presudu, radi toga se radi parafraziranje dijelova presude, a ne identicno kopiranje, zbog cega cijeli clanak moze da propadne. Zamolio bih te da ne vracas vise na Fairview360-ovu, samo ce nam donijeti belaj. Jesil ti svjestan koliko je truda trebalo da se napravi clanak bez POV taga?! Ovaj clanak je zapocet prije godinu dana, i sada zbog nekih preemotivnih postupaka pojedinaca, a koji nista bitno ne mijenjaju treba da propadne? Nemojte se igrati! --Emir Arven 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Replika Emiru

Dobro Emire. Ali nemozemo dozvoliti da Osli razvaljuje clanak i mijenja cinjenicne izvore sa diskreditovanim srbijanskim izvorima. Slazes li se? --Bosniak 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Srebrenica massacre

For your information, only administrators can protect pages. Adding {{sprotect}} and similar templates does not serve to protect a page. I have removed the template from that page, but you may list it on WP:RFPP if you think it should be protected. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Personal attacks on other users are unacceptable - see WP:NPA. I've blocked you for 24 hours for the attack you made against User:Osli73 on Talk:Srebrenica massacre ([1]). Please refrain from making such attacks in the future. -- ChrisO 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse this, that kind of behaviour on such controversial articles causes far more problems than it solves. Calm down, read our policies on no personal attacks and civility then come back. - FrancisTyers · 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide Blog

Bosniak, Are you (one of) the editor(s) of the Srebrenica Genocide blog? Just to set the record straight. Osli73 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Osli

That is none of your business. Unless you stop poisoning Srebrenica massacre article with moral relativism and already discredited Serbian sources, me and you cannot talk. When you stop your advertisements of discredited Serbian opinions, I will find time to speak to you again. Remember: Srebrenica article is not about Serbs or Serbian claims/politics - it's about 8,000+ victims of Genocide that was committed by Serb forces. Can you comprehed this statement? I am sure you can, but you don't want to. --Bosniak 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, Going through your personal page I found this statement by you on you user page confirming that you, indeed, are the editor of the Srebrenica Genocide blog. In light of this I don't think it is a very good idea that you, as an editor, use your own website as a source/reference for the Wikipedia Srebrenica massacre article. It is then better to link directly to the original document. Cheers Osli73 07:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mackenzie smear

That line on Lewis Mackenzie in Srebrenica massacre should not be included. It's sourced to a personal website (which we can't use, per WP:RS). It's a pure ad hominem clearly intended to impeach his credibility - it doesn't add anything to the article. Please do not restore it again. -- ChrisO 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize perfectly well. :-) The policy is clear: content hosted on a personal website may not be used, other than in a few special cases outlined in WP:RS (none of which apply in this instance). We don't know that the news article reproduced on that page is reprinted accurately, or even that it was published at all (since it doesn't appear to be on the originating news agency's website). As it happens, this very issue has been discussed recently among editors of WP:RS. Such "convenience links" are considered inadmissible if the hosting website is not a reliable source.

The paper you cited at http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/femres.htm certainly does include this news article as a reference, but it makes no reference to the Mackenzie allegations and because of the way the article is cited, we actually don't know what the citation refers to. If the paper quoted the allegations then we might consider it a reliable source for those allegations, but it doesn't. The bottom line is that the allegations can't be reliably cited and so can't be included. -- ChrisO 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi ChrisO

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The article is cited to:

COPYRIGHT PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE 450 Mission Street, Room 506 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-243-4364 Date: 06/04/1993

The fact that someone posted it on geocities has nothing to do with the credibility of the article; this is original article with full copyright notice. It's over 13 years old and was published when internet was only barely beginning to be used.

What's the problem? Is the truth problem again? I would not be surprised if you banned me and all your opponents from wikipedia. Now, I see, we are not even allowed to use this article as a source, but our opponents are allowed to use Lewis Mackanzie's genocide denials as a source ?

Don't you see double standard here? Bosniak 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I read through the Bosnian war article recently and found it horrible, it completly neglects the overwhelming majority of serb crimes. It follows up an indirect statement that all three sides were equally guilty, we all know the case isn't like that. It would be like stating that all sides in world war two were equally guilty, ludacris! Please look over the article =) Regards! (P.S, I haven't had the time for mails and msn yet) Bosoni

Consensus

You are supposed to work with the editors of Srebrenica massacre to come to a consensus. You, or the Bosniaks in general, do not own the article. Comments like

• "rv. to Bosniak: other guys, come from time to time to this page and revert to Bosniak, protect article from Osli73, bye..." (summary)
• "I will keep reverting and reverting" (edit summary)
• "Dado and other Bosniak editors - please re-read the whole article and do appropriate adjustments just in case vandals inserted something that we have not noticed lately." (edit summary)

are not acceptable. Please play by Wikipedia's rules. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Jitse

You guys are also not owners of wikipedia. Osli73 will not have it his way, that I can promise. With respect to you Jitse, I have no beef with you man.

I have opposing views - and if anyone is afraid of my opinion, which is heavily based on International Tribunal's rullings, then it's their problem (not mine).

Hope you understand. I will not allow Osli73 to have it his way. That's the bottom line. This is free encyclopedia and anyone can edit it, including me. Bosniak 06:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

Bosniak, I'd ask you to be a little more careful when revertying Osli's changes on the Srebrenica massacre article. I made some big improvements to the "Serb casualties" section that you completely ignored whenyou reverted. Live Forever 09:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Live Forever

Hi Live Forever, yes you did some changes on one part of the article, but completely ignored changes that Osli73 did. You need to keep changing his changes to keep that article on a level of high quality that was before. If you do changes, revert to my last version and do changes from there, and then when I start editing the article, I will do them from your version. Please do it this way and we will succeed in keeping the article on a level of encyclopedia quality. Thanks bro. Bosniak 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

number of missing

Bosniak, the latest statement from the Federal Commission of Missing Persons that I can find is from June 2005. At that time they had 500 more names under review with more coming. Do you know where there are updated numbers from the Commission? Fairview360 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fairview

Hi Fairview, updated list is here, with accurate number of dead: http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm

Hope this helps. Bosniak 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing:

Yes, Osli73 is vandalizing Srebrenica article. If you look at the history of his contributions, you will notice that he is obsessed with Srebrenica Massacre article Osli73 Contributions. By entering into discussion with him, you are violating basic principle of common sense - to stay away from unreasonable individuals. He takes a great pride in destroying the article, although he is not succeeding. Hopefully, wikipedia administrators will notice his behaviour and either suspend him, or ban him completely. His only purpose is to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article, he has no other purpose here @ wikipedia. You should not try to reason with him, you are just wasting your time my friend. There will always be people who will vandalize wikipedia, and that's sad (but true). Bosniak 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Block requested

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

• • • This response is from Bosniak (talk · contribs) ***

I agree that edit wars should stop, but you need to realize that Osli73 (talk · contribs) is primary to blame for edit wars, blind reverts, and full blown vandalism of Srebrenica Massacre article. I would be more than glad to stop reverting article to more civilized versions, but please bear in mind that Osli73 (talk · contribs) needs to stop first, because he is leading a war with at least 10 other editors who refuse to accept his vandalism. In other words, Osli73 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing Srebrenica massacre article, he deletes facts such as the fact that 8,106 Bosniaks died in the massacre (well documented, with names, JMBR numbers, names of parents, etc). In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least 10 other editors, Osli73 needs to be banned from ever editing Srebrenica massacre article. Bosniak 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica intro

Bosniak, I added a message for you in the Srebrenica discussion page, topic #47 Fairview360 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Bosnian girl raped by serbs.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bosnian girl raped by serbs.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Srebrenica Child Hung.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Srebrenica Child Hung.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey friend

Just dropping by to let u know I'm still alive =D. However I'm really busy now, barely no time for other things than work =(. Bye Bosoni

Bosniak's reply: hi Adrien, of course I am alive my friend, how are you doing? keep an eye on Srebrenica Massacre article. Cheers! :) Bosniak 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

hello

Bosniak, I hardly find you objective. I mean, your username is Bosniak, I don't trust people who's username is their ethnic affiliation. Please, keep your nationalism at home, thank you. --Serb ^talk 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply to Boris Malagurski - I keep my nationalism at home, which is not the case with you. You want to impose your nationalism to Wikipedia's Srebrenica Massacre article, which will not happen. That I can promise you. We had other Serbs in the past trying to destroy Srebrenica Massacre article with thier lies and propaganda, they failed. You will fail too. Cheers. Bosniak 03:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure we can deal with the conflict in a civilized manner. But you first have to face that the article is not neutral because it doesn't tell all sides of the story. All I want is the neutrality tag in the article, thats all. I won't touch the text. --Serb ^talk 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you noticed the declaration on my talk page, it would be nice to donate your bosnian translation on my talk page. Don't forget to sign it, so I know who it's from, thank you. --Serb ^talk 03:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply to Boris Hi Boris, of course we can deal in civilized matter. Why do you think that the article is not neutral? Can you at least discuss this in Srebrenica Massacre's discussion page? If you want your edits to stay longer, you need to discuss it before you make any changes. People are very sensitive to any changes to that article. Even when I make a change, they are sensitive to it. Why do you think that the article does not tell all sides of the story? Are you trying to tell that Naser Oric attacked Serb villages and Serbs had to defend themselves from Bosniaks who were under siege? You guys used same argument in the past with Sarajevo, basicly the story goes that you had to defend yourself from Bosniak people in Sarajevo who were under siege. You can try these arguments in discussion page, but it's pointless and offensive to use such arguments as a defence. However, you are welcome to try. Simply go to discussion page, tell people reasons of your edits and sources and then we will all compromise. It's simple as that. No need for personal attacks as we can all deal in civilized matter. Bosniak 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - I already donated my translation to your page, and I copied your translations to my page. I think there is a chance that both of us get along well, because you recognized t hat over 8,000 people were killed in Srebrenica @ Srebrenica Massacre discussion page. That's all I care about. Bosniak 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call me nationalist. Lets start from there. --Serb ^talk 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I do admit that 8,000 people were killed, I do not deny it. I'd like at least this sentence in the article "Some people (mainly Serbs) consider the massacre an act of defense against Naser Oric and his troops that massacred Serb villages of Kravica and others" If that was there, or some variation of the sentence, that would make me happy. Thats all. --Serb ^talk 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply to Boris - If you pay more attention to Srebrenica massacre discussion page, you will see that I do not sympathize Naser Oric, see my comment [Naser Oric is not a Bosniak hero. At Srebrenica massacre discussion page you recognized that genocide happened. At this point, there is no need for further confrontation as you are obviously not denying finall judgements and findings of International Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

If you want Serb side of the story, why not post this statement: "Most Serbs consider the massacre an act of revenge against Naser Oric and his troops who committed individual war crimes during raids into Serb villages."

The reason these raids cannot be called massacres is the following: Serbs blame Oric and his forces for hundreds of deaths in Kravice during Orthodox Christmas in January 1993. Republika Srpska primary sources state that in Kravica 35 soldiers and 11 civilians died. If we are going to call slaughter of 11 civilians a massacre, then we could apply that term to mostly all killings in Bosnia. What I can agree with you is that individual actions of Oric's troops in Kravica were a war crime and I absolutely condemn these killings. However, they cannot be used for justification of genocide, and I don't believe you are trying to use them as such. Bosniak 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I don't believe that Srebrenica was an act of genocide, and of course, nothing you say is going to change my mind. I do NOT justify the killings and think that Ratko Mladic deserves the DEATH penalty for what he did. Neither do I think that Naser Oric's mistakes were justification for the killing of refugees who had no where else to go and most likely had nothing to do with the crimes that Oric's troops comitted. So, I thank you for adding the sentence, and agree to the removal of the POV tag. I would also like to draw your attention to one more thing - the photo on your userpage in not from Commons, therefore you're not allowed to use it. I suggest you transfer it to Commons, or remove it before they protect your user page like they did mine. I would also like to add that I do think you're obsessed with the massacre, and should get out more. I do my fair share of obsessing about what happened, but you're going too far. Enjoy life. --Serb ^talk 07:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Reply to Boris Malagurski

You stated that you deny that the massacre in Srebrenica was an act of Genocide. At this point, we are enemies. I am not going to negotiate with you any longer, and your genocide denial edits will be erased swiftly and accordingly. Have a great day. Bosniak 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, this declaration of intent to hostile editing is inappropriate.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you have been blocked for a week for ultimatums to undertake legal threats. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And I would back that up. We don't mess around with legal threats. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak is very sensitive to the issue of genocide denial, understandably, and doesn't always express himself in tempered tones. But Blnguyen it seems to me that you've simply responded to the tone of his language rather than the substantive justification for his action.

The ICTY, a member of the United Nations family of organisations and the legal authority in the field, has ruled in the Krstic case that the Srebrenica massacre could be termed genocide in accordance with the provisions of the Genocide Convention. No other international forum has overthrown that ruling. The ICTY is currently hearing cases in which charges of genocide are involved. I think it is fair to assume that the defence will present all current arguments challenging the categorisation of the Srebrenica massacre as genocide to the Court. The Court will then rule as to whether its previous opinion should be overthrown. There is no room for any personal expression of doubt in this article. I might dispute the legitimacy of Slobodan Milosevic's assumption of the presidency of Yugoslavia or equally George W. Bush's election as President of the United States but I cannot change the content of an entry to indicate that they were not President of their respective nations.

Bosniak was right to insist that denials of genocide will be edited out of this article. There is no scope to allow any further denial of genocide unless and until the ICTY's ruling is overthrown. Even though I don't always agree with the way Bosniak expresses his views, in this case he is absolutely correct. Personally I find it a moral outrage that genocide at Srebrenica is denied but for the purposes of this article we're trying to pretend that moral outrage doesn't exist and keep to the facts. Genocide at Srebrenica is a fact established in international law. I ask the moderators of this article to accept that.Opbeith 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Srebrenica Child Raped Hung.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Srebrenica Child Raped Hung.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pametniji popušta. Fine, I take it back, happy? --Serb ^talk 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the image from your user page. Fair use images are not permitted in user space, and this is not negotiable. If you restore the image I will block you, just as I have blocked Serbian editors in the past for similar acts. --ajn (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the picture: I can't give the precise origin but in case it helps anyone track down the original source I remember this photograph or a very similar one being published in The Guardian in a non-cropped form (more woodland background) in July 1995, as the first women survivors were arriving in Tuzla from Srebrenica. Opbeith 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Bosniaks

Regarding this diff of yours. I removed the Medieval figures - as there are unsourced claims for their Bosniakhood and are even far too controversal to consider them as such. Also, the mergetag's suggestion has been refused long ago at the talk page. Cheers, mate! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I know that there is a claim - but the same is claimed by Croats & Serbs. This way, while I was fighting Croatian and Serbian POV it might seem I allow Bosniac POV - which is a very bad image. When we come to historical "proving" of their Bosniakhood - we will, sadly, be strictly limited to modern-day claims. --PaxEquilibrium 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, with this diff of yours you again returned the merge-to tag which was I repeat, refused at the talk page a LOOONG time ago. Also, you removed three famous Bosniaks and rm the fact that that's an incomplete list. Why did you do all that? --PaxEquilibrium 11:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded photo - copyright issue

Hi,

I just noticed that in the article Srebrenica Genocide you uploaded a photo of a hanged girl. You did specify the source, I checked it out, but you did not write (copy/pasted) either under the photo or in the discussion section the permission information. You just noted that the permission was given, but without the email in which the permision is specifically given. If you have it, put it up, otherwise, the photo will be deleted. If you really want photo to stay, contact them on the website you provided and specifically ask for permission and then copy/paste the correspondance email under the photo.

Thanks,

Svetlana Miljkovic 09:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning on removing speedy deletion tags

I would suggest you do not create incomplete articles that look like nonsense, they will get tagged according to guidelines. Speedy deletion means exactly that. When I tag such an article I am not vandalizing, I am doing the correct thing. When you remove the speedy deletion tag, however, it is you that are making the error.

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination), are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Demiurge 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Anti-Bosniak sentiment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Srebrenica massacre did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! —Psychonaut 11:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop!

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination), are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Svetislav Jovanović 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia AfD

Two quick pointers:

• The best place to put new comments (unless they're directly responding to someone else, which yours wasn't) is at the bottom of the discussion in order to prevent grandstanding.
• While AfD isn't a vote, adding two comments saying "do not delete" isn't usually the best form. Indeed, a fair amount of your comments duplicate material you've already posted in that discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your votes, I would point out the following. As the AfD clearly shows, you left a comment saying DON'T DELETE at 22:15, 23 November 2006. That counts as your vote, inasmuch as there are "votes" in an AfD. There was another comment (in fact dated earlier, I see now - 21:49, 23 November 2006) which began with the bolded phrase DO NOT DELETE which you'd also left. That makes two votes. Then, at 06:51, 26 November 2006 you posted a third vote headed Don't delete and in fact repeated the exact same information as you had previously done ("In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google..."). All I was doing was tidying things up so that only one of your three votes was in fact there and so that one of your two duplicate comments was there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And in terms of the comments themselves, you did not "give more detailed explanation second time". What you gave was the exact same opinion the second time. The only difference was that the second time was entirely in boldface. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment on my Talk page for clarity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism to Anti-Bosniak sentiment will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Block request

As a courtesy, I am notifying you that I have posted a message on WP:ANI requesting that you be blocked for your repeated disruptive behaviour in defiance of warnings. [2] —Psychonaut 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

for your vote tampering on AFD you have been blocked for one week.Geni 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hej...

Ne razumijem zašto nam treba taj članak. To nije pozitivno o Bosni i Hercegovini. Već postoji "Anti-Bosniak Sentiment" što, koliko ja vidim, je isti pojam. Ako hoćete, ja ću vas podržavati ako mi vi pomognete oko infokutije za BiH opčine. Dovoljno je imati jednu infokutiju koja bi imala u sebi entitete. Trenutno imaju dvije ("Infobox BiH" i "Infobox RS"). Ja vam odmah kažem da to je totalna glupost. Nama ne treba "RS Infobox" infobox ako entitet piše u BiH infokutije. Dakle, zamolio bih vas da se učlanite na Wikiprojekat BiH, ja sam "headmaster", i da vidimo ako možemo promijeniti ovaj problem. Ja ću vas rado podržavati za "bosniakophobia", ali lično mislim da je ovo preci problem koji se mora riješiti. Hvala i pozdrav, Vseferović 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

You have uploaded a number of images without sources and/or copyright information. You have been warned about this, and asked to provide such information.

You recently uploaded the image Image:Flag_of_Bosnia-Herzegovina.gif and claimed that you were the creator of this image, and that you released it into the public domain. However, this image is a bit-for-bit copy of an image on a flags website. Given your past image contributions, I suspect that the source and licensing information you provided is incorrect, so I have tagged the image for deletion. If I am wrong and you can prove that you are the original creator and copyright holder of this image, please contest the deletion by using the {{hangon}} tag.

You also uploaded the image Image:Mladic Karremans Toast.jpg, which you claim is licensed under a CC license. However, this photo appears on various news websites credited to AP. As far as I know, AP does not release its photos under CC licenses, so I have nominated this image for speedy deletion.

Given the above, could you please provide evidence that you are the photographer or copyright holder of Image:Srebrenica-Massacre-Wall.jpg? That photograph appears on various news sites, such as this article from Al Jazeera. Please also provide evidence for your images Image:Srebrenica-Genocide-Memorial.jpg and Image:Bosniak_flag.gif. —Psychonaut 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

Sorry, I don't see the point of having two separate parallel articles. I'm gonna have to vote merge. --PaxEquilibrium 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia Protest

Hi Blnguyen,

Other admin has censored my vote for article Bosniakophobia. He crossed "delete" two times, and this way, he has taken my vote, he has censored it not once, but twice! Please serve as fair mediator, here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniakophobia Bosniak 07:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bosniak, looks like things have been rectified but it seems obvious that the article will be deleted anyway. Are there still any outstanding issues? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on Geni, you must love to block people, don't you?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

your 7 days is too long

Decline reason:

Based on the evidence here, you're lucky that you weren't blocked for longer. Khoikhoi 04:29, 27 November 2006 (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.

Serb nationalists on the go, again!

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

Getting community attention

I notice you've made a large number of very similar posts to user talk pages, recently. Instead of doing that, you might consider a quick post to the village pump or another community noticeboard, so that interested editors can comment if they so choose. It saves both you and other editors time and effort to keep discussion centralized and cohesive. I'd prefer to consider this a friendly note, but please do see WP:SPAM#Canvassing to see what policy/guideline pages have to say on the matter. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks for your time, and good luck. Luna Santin 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

re: comment on my talk page

Hello Bosniak.. someone deleted your comment on my talk page before I even saw it! However wikipedia still told me there was a change obviously.. Hm, I wasn't aware that this conflict was going on that you mention, although I agree that a lot of people (especially from the Balkans!) use wikipedia to advance their narrow nationalistic understanding of history. In a way you can't blame people because everyone is raised in a certain society that puts a spin on history. But when you're actively suppressing unpleasant facts, it certainly crosses the line. Anyways I don't know if I would consider either Bosniakophobia or Serbophobia proper words.. It's just an awkward way of creating a word (-phobia) and personally I would rather the plainer way of saying it "anti-Bosniak sentiment" or some other way. Anyways let me know if I can help you sometime. Dan Carkner 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

True

Sure many articles relating to former Yugoslavia and its people have some strong Serb Pov. The Serb users are very active on Wiki.

You're right articles with so called lies get copied from Wiki onto other websites and before you know it the lie has spread. I think these Users are aware of this wide spread power and that's why they keep making edits or as many edits as possibe to articles ...pushing propaganda. Very Sad> Some Serb Users have made over 300,000 edits. This is alarming to say the least. Who can patrol what has been edited???

Not much you can do mate, just keep pluging away and keep fighting them the right way. First discuss and see why they keep changing facts with no proof. In most case you will find they sight Serbian propaganda books etc...

Eg Some users keep changing Rudjer Boscovich from Croat to Serb. They keep doing it when it is wellknown the guy was Croat...still doesn't stop someone from editing the article into what they like to believe. In saying that most Serb users are fine and aware of this problem...+ not all sides are innocent...but yes the Serb users are a fair bit more active. Keep up the fight. Jagoda 1 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

)

Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. What we Bosniaks need to do is focus more on Srebrenica Massacre article which is under attack by pro-Serbian vandals and revisionists/deniers on a daily basis.

In hopes that Bosniakophobia article will see light again.

Peace Bosniak Bosniak 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing your comments

First of all, I am an administrator. Secondly, there are policies that deal with mass campaigning on user talk pages: this one and this one, not to mention this one. Bring this up on the Village Pump instead of mass-spamming other editors' user talk pages. --Coredesat 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're an admin, it's none of your business deleting material from userpages. Dan Carkner 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, just to let you know that I removed your comment from Talk:Srebrenica massacre. As it says on top of that page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Srebrenica massacre article", see also the talk page guidelines. Your message was not about the article, it was only complaining about the behaviour of some other editors. Yours, Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your personal attacks here: [3]. Do not call other good faith editors vandals, and do not make insinuations about the motivations for their edits based on ther POV or ethnicity. Reinsert them and you will be blocked. Dmcdevit·t 13:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I trust Yugoslavia articles in English wiki?

Hello.

I am working on expanding articles about Yugoslavia in the Hebrew wiki.

Currently, the main source for information is the English wiki.

Do you think the articles about Yugoslavia in English wiki are reliable and balanced? Are there disputed parts of the articles that better not be translated? I rather not to say anything about a sensitive issue then writing incorrect claims. (I'll start with the article "Yugoslavia" and the articles about Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia).

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.72.45.187 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi my Jewish friend. No you can't trust "Yugoslavia" related articles, they are mostly run by Serb propagandists. Let me get in touch with you, so I can help you with it on Hebrew wikipedia. I would like to point some documentation to your attention regarding holocaust of Bosniaks and Jews in Jasenovac, from Bosnian documented sources. Bosniak 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of people who are pretending to be anti-nationalist while being greater nationalist then those who say it uncovered and loud.

People who were killed in Jasenovac were of Serbian (most of them), Jewish, Muslim (Bosniak), Roma nationality and other nationalities, not just Jewish and Bosniaks.

I would advice our Jewish friend that, if he thinks that he can't rely on wikipedia's data, then should find some Hebrew book about Yugoslav history! --S T E V A N ^(talk) 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stevan, I suggest you start learning about holocaust of Jews and Bosniaks in Jasenovac by purchasing books here www.interliber.com . And I do agree that Jasenovac victims came from all backgrounds. Bosniak 06:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, I'm glad you are admitting that Bosniaks are Serbs, because only Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Croats died in Jasenovac. Bosniaks are merely weak Serbs who would have rather converted to Islam then to stay who they were in defiance of the Turks. BTW, i know where you live in Vancouver, see ya soon ;) --Zombir 10:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Prestani vise

Dobro te je vise Bosniak. Taman se jedna verzija stabilizira clanka o Srebrenici i onda ti zaseres svojim manijakalnim vracanjem!!! a na taj nacin se izgube i korisne promjene koje su unesene i slike koje su postavljene. Nauci da promjene vracas tako sto pogledas link "history", tamo kliknes datum na verziju od tog datuma i spasis stranicu, ako vec to do sada nisi naucio. Ako ne prestanes sa ovim licno cu te prijaviti za blokiranje. Emir Arven 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosnjak je inace srpsko prezime. Look it up. Eee, Bosniak, kad su se i bosanski muslimani okrenuli protiv tebe... --Zombir 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Park

Please do not make empty threats in an attempt to justify your actions at Stanley Park. If you had read the edit history first, you would be aware that your material duplicated text that was already in the article, and more appropriately placed. Furthermore, if you had investigated, you would have seen that I made an effort to incorporate your material into the existing text. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you blindly reverted back to your last edit, completely ignoring the fact that you obliterated a lot of work by several other editors. Please use more caution, and consider discussing your concerns on the talk page first. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Park again

If you have issues about the content of the article, please participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. I have tried to work with your additions, not destroy them, in my subsequent edits, and have tried to explain myself on the talk page in an effort to achieve consensus on the content. Edit warring is not helpful to the quality of the article. Neither is disguising reversions as "restructuring"; please keep in mind the Three-revert rule, or more importantly, the spirit of the rule and Wikipedia generally. Thank you, Bobanny 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bormalagurski

Please don't post trollish comments on user talk pages. Thanks, Khoikhoi 07:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Khoikhoi 06:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not repost deleted content

I note from your comment on HanzoHattori's talk page that you propose to recreate the Bosniakophobia and/or Anti-Bosniak sentiment articles which were deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion procedure. You should be aware that it is not permitted to repost deleted articles, and that given your recent behaviour you could be blocked or even permanently banned for doing so. —Psychonaut 09:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re ethnic maps in BH

OK, if not posted already, use the OHR maps. Mir Harven 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My name

I did not convert to Christianity, I was born a Christian, because my father was a Christian. My mother was Moslem and she gave me my name - Avdo. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoting? Which side? What are you talking about?? I'm Yugoslav, I love Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Moslems, Slovenes and Macedonians alike. Am I promoting the "Serbian side" just because I love my current country - Serbia? Jesus, man, grow up. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nemoj tako

Šta zašto? Prvo, izvini. Drugo, vrlo sam bio zauzet i trenutno sam.

Da li ta riječ zvanično postoji? Shvataš, nije dovoljno nekome pokazati "google search results". Te stranice većinom raspravljaju o Bosnjakofobiji. To nisu stranice kao Britanica, itd. da možemo reći da su pouzdane. Već postoji "Anti-Bosniak sentiment", dakle, ja mislim da "Bosnjakofobija" bi samo ponavljalo isti članak.

Pozdrav, (Možda griješim, objasni dalje...plus, objasni zašto srbi hoće da ostave Serbophobia) Vseferović 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

Bosniakophobia is also an English word, and your continuous deletion of this word is considered vandalism. Please stop.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bosniakophobia&meta=

Bosniak 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You might consider the deletion vandalism, but you would be wrong. If you'd like to test your theory that I'm vandalizing, feel free to ask on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.
2. I have once more removed your addition of this word to Anti-Bosniak sentiment. A google search is not a legitimate external link, per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, and none of the sites shown in that link qualify as reliable sources. We covered this extensively in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniakophobia.
3. I have removed the libelous comments about Lewis MacKenzie from Srebrenica massacre. Do not add this unfounded allegation back to the article unless you can find an unbiased reliable source -- which you won't; this nonsense was discarded as a complete fabrication a decade ago.

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Once more, no personal attacks

Bosniak, I see from reviewing this talk page and your block log that you have repeatedly been warned to assume good faith and comment on content, not on contributors. I was prepared to ignore this ridiculous edit summary ("rv. Jim Douglas is a Serb apologist"). But then you started an entire thread on the talk page (Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Serbian provocateurs: Nikola Smolenski and Hadzija) dedicated to attacking the motives of anyone who posts to this article in a way that you disagree with. And you repeated your personal attacks on me:

Not to mention "Jim Douglas" who quoted Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionist web sites as "sources".

Are you under the impression that this behaviour is acceptable? You've been warned about this repeatedly; you've even been blocked specifically because of your personal attacks in that article (User talk:Bosniak#No personal attacks). Please consider this a final warning. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

warning tags

Please do not add warning tags on my page for no reason. [4] Thank you. // Laughing Man 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour is not constructive

Bosniak, you have been warned repeatedly about blindly reverting to your preferred version of an article, destroying intermediate edits (here, here, here, and here). I'm going to repeat that warning. You just blindly reverted multiple edits -- not just mine -- presumably to your own preferred version, and labelling my edits as vandalism. Please think hard about your behaviour here. You know that my edits aren't vandalism; I spent two hours last night explaining my serious concerns on the talk page. It is not acceptable for you to simply continue to revert my changes like this. So I'm asking you to go to the talk page and respond to my concerns, with citations to reliable sources. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress of North American Bosniaks

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Congress of North American Bosniaks, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bosniak.org/06/about.php, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks with a link to the details.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Congress of North American Bosniaks saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzie rape accusations

I'm not sure whether the rape accusations deserve to be mentioned, but now that an investigation has apparently be opened by the Bosnian prosecuting office, you may have a case. I also dislike contributors who hide behind an IP address so I reverted to your version, which does notice the accusations. However, I did keep the spelling corrections that you erased with your blind reverts. I also changed your text, that MacKenzie is "accused of raping of Bosniak women in camp Sonja by a Bosnian court" by "is under investigation by a Bosnian prosecutor following rape accusations" (emphasis added); I concluded that your version is incorrect after reading the statement by the Congress of North American Bosniaks.

I went out of my way to make it easy for you. However, I will not accept it if you reintroduce by blind reverts or if you again resort to personal attacks. Best wishes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI report

A report concerning you has been posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions. I thought it would be fair to inform you about it, since the original poster has apparently forgotten or declined[5] to do so. —Psychonaut 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Merope 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. -- Merope 07:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed my changes thousands of times. Psychonaut is the one deleting important paragraphs of the article and not discussing them - you should block him temporarily. He is here on a mission (there were several Bosniak users blocked as a result of his activism and complaints). You should block user Psychonaut immediately. He has a bad faith. And you also reverted article to the worst form possible, to the "Hadzija" user revert. And he doesn't even accept genocide, the guy is Serbian, we have had problems with him in the past. You should definitely block Psychonaut - based on his activist-complaints agains Bosniaks, and his open pro-Serb stance - he is biased, in bad faith, one-sided, and he deserves to be blocked. He has been editing my edits tonight repeatedly, and you refused to block him. Are you neutral? I don't think so. If you are, then act and block him. Bosniak 08:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which paragraphs did I remove from the article? —Psychonaut 08:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have removed most important chunks and factual information from Srebrenica Massacre article. It can be described as a total desecration of the facts. I have viewed the article few moments ago, it's a disaster, catastrophy. It couldn't be worse. Although I have discussed all my changes on discussion page, you did not discuss any of your changes before you deleted huge chunks of data from Srebrenica Massacre article. You accuse me of bad faith and being on a mission? You are the one on a mission and with bad faith constantly (like a toddler) complaining against Bosniak editors to administrator notice board and trying to either block them or ban them. Hundreds of editors were involved in building Srebrenica Massacre article, and you deleted tons of information in few minutes! This is not your personal page man. Plus, this is not your first vandalization of wikipedia editors' hard work. Psychonaut had been blocked for vandalism in the past, here is are details http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APsychonaut and you should be blocked again, now ! You deserve it! If there is no bias and one-sidedness on wikipedia, you must be blocked to preserve integrity of this website. You should be ashamed of your actions. Bosniak 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't see where I have removed any information from the article. Could you point to a specific paragraph that has disappeared, or better yet, provide a diff? (And with respect to my blocks, those were accidental, as you can see by the following "oops" unblocks.) —Psychonaut 08:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, please, please, please, please don't use word "Sorry" and don't portray yourself as a nice guy who wants to make things right. You have showed your face in the past, you have showed it tonight, you are in bad faith and you are on a mission - same things you accused me of. Your childish behavior and constant toddler like complaining and a mission and bad faith against Bosniak editors (you named several of them in your latest complaint) is just terrible. You had been blocked for vandalism in the past, and if there is any justice and fairness on this wikipedia, you ought to be blocked again. I have more respect for person I disagree with the most, which is user Hadzija, than I will ever have for you. At least, Hadzija does not go and does not complain about every single thing to administrator notice board. It's because Bosniaks and Serbians share one important value - we hate complaining. We hate going and talking behind people's back. Your behavior is just despicable, oh my god, I can't believe that people like you exist in this world. You accuse me of inventing false word "Bosniakophobia", when you know well that "Bosniakophobia" is as false and as invented as "Serpophobia". If you go to Bosnian wikipedia, you will see that Bosniakophobia has been there for a long time, which speaks about the fact that people use it. But the fact is, I don't care about either Bosniakophobia or Serpophobia, both words are nonsense as Bosniaks and Serbs are numerically "small" people and not that significant for explanation of "phobia". Again, that's another story, not a significant one. What's significant is to preserve facts about Srebrenica Genocide. Serbian and leftist-apologist (socialist) websites have been involved in defence of General MacKenzie, and the most sources that jump into MacKenzie's defence come from those revisionist sources. I have seen some edits that you made on a topic of socialism, so it seems you are interested in those sources, so no wonder you acted against me for a very long time with your threats and edits. It is just sad, just very sad to see such a bad faith in human being such as yourself. Even Serbs don't have such a huge amount of bad faith as I have been able to see in you. It's just sad, it's a catastrophy. Bosniak 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never read anything about the Srebrenica massacre, including the Wikipedia article. I'm not interested in third-party sources about it, socialist or otherwise. You seem to be, though. You have observed that I have made several edits to articles relating to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. If you are curious as to what those socialists have to say about the violence following the breakup of Yugoslavia, there are at least two online aticles: The Yugoslav War—Myths & Realities and Their Country Needs You. Both articles defend neither the Serbs nor the Bosniaks, but rather deplore ethnic nationalism on both sides. —Psychonaut 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to be neutral. I didn't know very much about this horrible tragedy until this article was brought to my attention. However, after spending several hours reading the article, its reversions, and the sources provided, I have to say that I believe that the changes proposed by Jim Douglas and other editors are the most in-line with Wikipedia's policies concerning WP:NPOV. I do not believe that the people reverting the article to the version that contains the neutral POV language (which also removes the BLP violations) are breaking WP rules. I recognize that what happend was a horrible, terrible thing: I don't think any of the people editing the article would disagree with that assertion. However, editors of Wikipedia have agreed to maintain a neutral point of view, which means that we cannot write an article strictly from one viewpoint. I cannot tell you how much it hurts to recognize that humans are capable of carrying out such a horrifying action--reading this article made me shed more than a few tears. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and thus we must write articles that are neutral and contain reliable sources. Your stance, as a person directly affected by this tragedy, is understandably biased. Perhaps you should back away from this article, and trust other users to do their best in reporting all the facts associated with this horrible event. -- Merope 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merobo, thank you for your kind words regarding Srebrenica. I honestly did not expect them. But thank you. What I am trying to point Merobo is the fact that I did discuss my changes. But Psychonaut (who had been blocked in the past for vandalism) did not discuss his changes before he started editing large chunks of Srebrenica Massacre article. It's a sensitive topic and it must be addressed thoroughly in a discussion page before major changes are made, do you agree with that? Yes you do. Having said that, he had not right to edit/delete large chunks of information before first discussing them with us. As I said, he had been blocked for vandalism in the past, so it would not be his first block. On Admin Notice board, you will notice his constant toddler-like complaining, usually against Bosniak editors (he has listed some of them, Bosoni, Bosniakk, etc, etc). He accuses me that I am on a mission and in bad faith, when he is exactly the who is on a mission to ban Bosniak editors from wikipedia; he is in a bad faith with his constant complaining and desecrations of Srebrenica Massacre article. His point of view is biased, as he openly sides with leftist opinions and does not aknowledge that a person who denies genocide is a genocide denier/revisionist, not a critic (this is not a movie). Imagine calling Holocaust deniers "critics"? Come on. He portrays his edits to be in good faith, but they are not, they can't be, he deleted large chunks of important data, just because he wants to impose his views onto the facts. He plays with the international judgements regarding Srebrenica Genocide.. The Srebrenica Massacre article is neutral as it can be, and it's a work in progress (not a finished product yet!). There are problems with the article and they are being fixed, but they cannot be fixed with people such has Psychonaut or Hadzija (Serbian guy who is totally biased and wants to equalize genocide with other war crimes). Having said that - we are still working on these issues, but they cannot be solved by simply repeatedly deleting large chunks of data that editor does not agree with. These issues need to be addressed on a discussion page and editors need to find a compromise and solution. That's a fair way to do it, and that's the way Srebrenica Massacre article has been edited for a very long time. Psychonaut's approach is wrong and goes in the face of hundreds of honest editors who discussed their changes thoroughly. He is just a bad faith editor who constantly complains. It's simple as that. Just go to Administrator Notice board and read his latest commplaint, which is totally one-sided with absolutely biased point of view. Bosniak 08:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you still haven't identified the "huge chunks" of information I supposedly deleted from the article. Could you please let me know what they are so that I can replace them? Also, my latest complaint to WP:ANI concerned a death threat against a user. I don't see how it was one-sided and absolutely biased. —Psychonaut 08:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very manipulative. Oh my god, you are playing Mr Nice Guy now. Wholly smoke, you change your face as clock ticks by. Why do I have to idenitify every single edit of yours when every edit has a history? Everything has been recorded here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&action=history . I have also posted reply to your previous reply, it's in this conversation on top. You need to change man, your behaviour is just ridicolous. Imagine yourself horsing with Holocaust article like you horsed with Srebrenica Massacre article tonight? They would ban you just like that. I refrained from complaining against you and I had tons of great reasons to do so, but I don't waste my time on complaints. I am not a toddler. I discuss my issues with other editors. And your anti-Bosniak stance, mission, and bad faith are visible from your last complaint on admin notice boards. The way you wrote your complaint is biased, it's in bad faith, it's distasteful because it's totally one sided, and you even forgot to mention that you were blocked for vandalism in the past, and yet you accuse me of vandalism. Duh! Busted! Bosniak 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, don't waste your time and breath. Just remember the reality behind these people. --Opbeith 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The "reality behind these people" is that they're editors trying to improve the project. -- Merope 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Montenegrin Wikipedia proposal

I have started up a second proposal on the Montenegrin Wikipedia, I think it should be time to restart it. If you want to vote, the link is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Montenegrin_2

Just wanted to let you know. Thanks again. --Crna Gora 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

" I CrnaGora, vow to never to return to Wiki again". Wow, you changed your mind fast, you're like John Kerry, flip-flopping all over the place. Jedi Svinje 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no see, I've been very busy myself, and still am :) How are things? I see you've had quite much drama on wikipedia. I Hope things are better now. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Nice to hear my friend, I've had some problems of my own on the other hand, recently in the Bosnian "war" article. An anonymous user reverts my UN cited statement on rapes. Isn't it vandalism to revert substantially sourced statements? Take a look will you? I will not be on wikipedia for the weekend, me and a couple friends are off to a casino to try our luck with both the chips and the ladies ;) Cuje mo se :D Ancient Land of Bosoni

Disruptive behaviour

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to belabour a point, as you have done by moving Serbophobia to Anti-Serb Sentiment. You already nominated the article for deletion at least once. In a subsequent deletion vote you attempted to produce a result in your favour by changing other users' votes, and you have also performed edit warring on this and related pages. You have been repeatedly blocked for this disruption. Unilaterally moving and retitling the page is just as unacceptable. —Psychonaut 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are continuing to make comments or judgments about editors and their contributions on the basis of what you believe to be the editors' ethnicities.[6][7] This behaviour was responsible in part for your recent blocks. Please remember to assume good faith, and comment on the contributions, not the contributors. No one chooses their ethnicity. Whether or not an editor is Serbian, Bosnian, or Bosniak imposes no special obligations or restrictions on that editor, and has no bearing on any argument relating to their participation on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bosniak Canadian

I've nominated Bosniak Canadian, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Bosniak Canadian satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniak Canadian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Bosniak Canadian during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Psychonaut 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ustašoidi u akciji

Želim te upozoriti, da korisnik Ivan Kricancic, pogledaj njegovu korisničku stranicu u svom suludom fanatizmu ide od slike do slike koja si teče Bosne i predlaže je za brisanje. Često to radi nepotpisan: 58.165.115.192. Znam da je sa šupcima teško, ali degen je bolestan i na taj način je izbrisao mnoge članke na Srebrenici. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use English for all talk page discussions on Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of "You have new messages" box

Bosniak: Normally, I'm very reluctant to modify another editor's talk and user pages. However, in this particular case, I feel that it is a serious misuse of the "You have new messages" display to have the link go to an external web site - especially since there is no warning given. This is also a potentially dangerous precedent, as a vandal may well be inspired to use the same method to create links to external pages with dangerous or malicious coding. Again, there would be no warning to the average user, who would believe that they were just responding to a message on Wikipedia. You might want to discuss this with an administrator who could better explain why such a link setup is not desirable. Thanks - please feel free to message me if you want to discuss. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you - and I will change it (no problem), however I wanna show you something. Make sure your anti-virus is up to date. Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivan_Kricancic and then click on "You have a new message". Cheers. Bosniak 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that box from the user's page for being disruptive. -- Merope 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Građanski rat u Sarajevu :D

Bošnjačino, vidim da pravo radiš na ovoj en wikipediji, tako treba svaka čast. Vidio sam da si ostavio poruku Seferoviću o Sarajevo Civil War, slažem sa članak treba brisati, ali nit znam nit želim da znam kako ga nominirati. Ako ti znaš bujrum. Prije svega, opsadu sarajeva niko ne zove tako, drugo, članak nema referanci ni vanjskih linkova i treće postoji opsežan članak o tome pod Opsada sarajeva. Et... Ja sam obavijestio Bosnija, ali nema rekacije. Pozdravi --Kahriman 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Aferim buraz :D --Kahriman 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination

The nomination was malformed, but I have fixed it. Please remember that canvassing is not permitted within the community, and that you should use English on users' talk pages. -- Merope 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that it is standard practice to inform the original author of the article about the deletion vote by placing a note on his or her talk page. You can do this with the template {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}}. —Psychonaut 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OKay guys, thank you for your advice. I will do it next time. Bosniak 08:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bosnjo

I would like you to enter a link to your blog on my user page. Pick a nice place, will you ;) Cheers Bosnjo! =P Ancient Land of Bosoni

Siege of Sarajevo

You are 100% correct about the Sarajevo Civil War article. I was recently in New York and came back yesterday to Chicago. I did have internet connection in the hotel room, however, some user (user:Nalco?) redirected the article to Siege of Sarajevo. At the time I was confused since I did not notice the redirect, so I found it strange why you would want to delete the article Siege of Sarajevo. Lol...Sorry, I would have reacted much earlier. What about our friend Emir Arven? On je meni poslao e-mail... Pozdrav, Vseferović 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM

Here are the details. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Bosniak, you recently suggested, as a 'compromise', deleting the Alternative/Revisionist views section alltogether (or was it only the Mackenzie section, I'm not sure). As I mentioned in my reply on the Srebrenica Talk page, I would support such a 'compromise' if it was part of a 'package deal' for the entire article. I set out a couple of principles, which I believe are necessary if any true compromise is to succeed. Any thoughts? Regards Osli73 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking². It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. You should also be aware that at any rate, non-arbitrators are not permitted to vote on arbitration motions. Thank you. —Psychonaut 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting and edit warring

You have been rather persistently revert warring on Srebrenica massacre over the past few weeks; the only respite has been for a brief period during which you were blocked for precisely this behaviour. I suspect from your latest edit summary that you may not understand what the word "revert" means. You wrote, "Please when you revert articles, don't destroy my changes and contributions." However, you should know that when someone deliberately reverts your changes, it is (by definition) their intention to remove your changes and contributions. To revert your changes and contributions means to remove them.

I have reported you to WP:ANI for the disruptive behaviour you have continued to engage in following your recent block.[8] If I am correct that your edit warring is the result of a linguistic misunderstanding, then it would probably help your case greatly if you could confirm this here and make a statement that you endeavour to refrain from further edit warring. —Psychonaut 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your comments are requested here – [9]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I hope I haven't made trouble for you. I spotted this notice and followed the link. I discovered an accusation there that you'd been meddling with the current consensus - of course this made no reference to where the current consensus actually comes from. I'm afraid I lost the attempt to keep my cool in the face of I regard as more promotion of moral equivalency. I hope that I've expressed myself in a way that it's only me that gets done over again. --Opbeith 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Although I have accepted "Alternative View" term which was imposed by admin (Ckatz), I think we should not waste too much time on it. However, I accept your invitation to participate in poll. Bosniak 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, please stop claiming that I "imposed" the term - all I did was change it (much as you have repeatedly changed the wording yourself). I've no authority to "impose" anything on Wikipedia, I've never claimed to have such authority, and I've certainly never told you I was an administrator. If you're going to refer to me or my edits, please ensure that you are using the correct information. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Ckatz. No problem. You did revert it to "alternative view" and I cannot go against administrator. Let's not fight over this. Bosniak 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "fighting" - I'd just like to know why you insist on describing me as an administrator when I'm not one. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I must have mixed you up. Okay, so I'll put this on record - you are not an administrator and therefore you did not impose alternative view term, but you did revert it and loan your support to it. Bosniak 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While you're dishing out the apologies, can I have one for your repeated statements to other users that I am a "Serb who defends Serb interests" and that I have been "blocked repeatedly for disruption"? Neither of these statements is true. —Psychonaut 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not dishing apologies to you and I never will. Your actions have spoken and still speak for themselves. Bosniak 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then; I'll settle for a simple retraction. Will you then kindly retract your statements that I am a "Serb who defends Serb interests" and that I have been "blocked repeatedly for disruption"? —Psychonaut 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start?

Hi! Given that the Srebrenica massacre article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details (such as the current unproductive discussion on the peripheral issue of what to call Mackenzie et al.) I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. RegardsOsli73 10:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli, I support honest compromises and fresh starts, but this cannot mean that everything must be your way or Psychonaut's way. My opinion must be given equal weight. Bosniak 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when have I ever tried to change "everything" on the Srebrenica massacre article? In fact, since when have I changed any content at all besides the name of the "Alternative views" section? Please don't mischaracterize my involvement on that article. —Psychonaut 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to avoid having to compromise over opinions by starting off with a bare bones recap of the ICTY findings. If we can all agree that the ICTY is a good source then basing the article on that should reduce the chances for opinions and disagreements about opinions. Given that the ICTY judgement against Krstic is soo thorough and widely accepted it really shouldn't be that hard to write an article based on it. What do you say? Cheers Osli73 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to discredit User:Psychonaut

It has come to my attention that you are repeatedly making the claim that Psychonaut has been blocked for vandalism and disruption. While it is true that Psychonaut has blocks on his record, both blocks were removed within minutes of the initial block owing to mistakes on the part of the blocking admins. Psychonaut and at least one other user has attempted to correct your understanding of the situation, and yet you persist in posting this in an attempt to discredit Psychonaut's contributions. I am thus asking you to stop making these accusations: they are baseless and irrelevant. Continuing to repeat this information in your arguments with this user may constitute a personal attack, and are most certainly a breach of civility. Please remember to criticize content, not other editors. -- Merope 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Bosniak 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbs who converted to Islam?

Serbs who converted to Islam? and then a very HUUUUGEEEE laughter.

Are you saying that no Serb (in whatever possible meaning of the word) whatsoever ever converted to Islam and thus, became a Muslim? --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: No. That would certainly been false statement. I am sure there were cases of Orthodox Serbs converting to Islam, and Muslim Bosniaks converting to Orthodox religion. What I am saying is that Bosniaks are not Serbs who converted to Islam. I have one very nice Serbian friend. He has made a poem for Srebrenica genocide victims. There are still nice Serb people, and I am glad not all of them are same. Do you have any Bosniak friends? If not, you should find one and realize that Bosniak people don't bite. They are not better or worse than anybody else. Bosniak 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you connect Bosniacs' alleged descent from another ethnic group to the Srebrenica massacre?

Yeah, I have 3: Dino, Emir & Edin (although only the last, sadly deceased one, was actually from Bosnia, I think). --PaxEquilibrium 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniacs are a very large nation of diverse ethnic origins (kindah like Americans, although are bound by Islam and Slavic origin to an extent, unlike economy & statehood with the Amers - although I think most Bosniacs are atheists and even more agnostics). I think that it is possible that many families are of Serb, Croat or even Albanian origin. Sokolovic's a typical Serbian surname (and very often amongst Bosniacs), for example. "Ljajic" and "Ugljanin" are of Albanian descent. --PaxEquilibrium 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply There are certainly nice Serbs. I accept that genocide has been committed against Serbs in the 2nd World War, but I also expect you guys to acknowledge genocide against Bosniaks. Both Ustashe and Chetniks were certainly not nice guys (as they like to portray themselves). I am not an enemy of the Serb people, although I will continue to oppose Srebrenica genocide denial, as well as claims that Bosniaks were Serbs who converted to Islam. Things are more complicated than they appear, and simplifying things to the point that Genocide did not happen or that Bosniaks are Serbs is immature. If I had power to kill and rape Serbs without being legally responsible for it - I still would not do it. In fact, when I was in Bosnia I was a child (during war) and my mother helped a lot of Serbian civilians by giving them food and milk powder that was used exclusively for the Croatian army. Anyways, I come from a peaceful family, but that doesn't mean that I should sit and peacefully accept genocide denial. These people in Srebrenica died under UN watch. What did UN do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They even produced so called "NIOD Report" to wash their hands from genocide. When Dutch president came to Bosnia (I think his name was Mr Cock or Vock or whatever name he had), local reporters asked him whether or not he would apologize for Dutch troop involvement in the massacre, and he replied: "Never!". It's obvious that these people refuse to accept any serious responsibility. They even awarded Dutch troops with medals. Netherlands is a small country, and they are proud for getting so much attention with regards to their "heroic" involvement in the Balkans. Before massacre, nobody even knew where the Netherlands was. But after the genocide, they became very famous. You know what they say - no publicity is bad publicity. Netherlands never apologized. Their shameful NIOD report is full of inaccuracies. They should be ashamed of themselves. I debated few Dutch people on other online forums and whilethey fully accepted that genocide was committed, they never wanted to acknowledge any wrongdoing with respect to Dutch troops. Instead, they justified Dutch troop actions by stating they were lightly armed, etc (excuses, excuses, and more excuses). I will stop now...

Update: Yes, but the problem with Sokolovic is that there is no clear primary source evidence that he was Serbian. Please read this local article --- http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/MEHMED_PASA_SOKOLOVICH.html As you can see from this article, it is very rather doubtful that he was of Serbian origin. There is no strong evidence that he was either Bosniak or Serb. Please read that source, you will learn more about his history (father, mother, sister, etc)... There is no "Serbian" or "Bosniak" or "Croat" last names. We all have "Slavic" last names and most of our last names end up in "-ic". For example, there are Bosniaks and Serbs with last name Obradovic. There are Croats as well as Serbs and Bosniaks with the last name "Bosnjak" (Bosniak). I would not be surprised to find Bosniaks and Croats with the last name Milosevic, as well as Serbs and Croats with the last name Izetbegovic. Cheers. Bosniak 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I studied genealogies of tribes a lot. My expertise are the Montenegrin-Herzegovinian-Highland-Albanian-Serbian clans. I just gave an example about the Sokolovic surname, taking to granted that there are very little Serbs who still bear the name, whereas most are Bosniacs (over 60%-80%, I'd say). I can't remember of a typical Croatian surname worn by Bosniacs (implying Croat descent), but I already mentioned you the Albanians; and for Turkish origin you know yourself (I even know one Bosniac family of Hungarian descent [as emphasized by their family name]). --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Ethnic composition before the war 1991.gif

You recently uploaded Image:Ethnic composition before the war 1991.gif and placed a copyright tag on it claiming that it was your own work, and that you release it into the public domain. However, the source you list is a website which claims that it holds all rights to the image. I have therefore listed it for speedy deletion.

You have previously been warned about contributing content which cannot be freely used on Wikipedia. Falsely claiming to be the author or rights-holder of a work is very serious and could result in your being blocked. —Psychonaut 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which tag to use for the image. Can you find appropriate tag? I have provided the source (Office of the High Representative, non-copyrighted, public domain).

Bosniak 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The proper tag is {{db-copyvio}} because there is no indication that that image is in the public domain. —Psychonaut 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed the tag you gave me, and the problem with that tag is that it places map for an immediate deletion, which is wrong. There is no copyright violation, as the map is not "copyrightet", but of course, whatever I do on wikipedia, you keep checking and checking, you are stalking me man. Get off my back. Bosniak 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All works are copyrighted unless specified otherwise. There is no otherwise specification on the website you cite as the source. Quite to the contrary; there is a copyright notice indicating that all rights are reserved. —Psychonaut 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the copyright tag, now please stop stalking me and get off my back. Bosniak 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the tag. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not stalking you. You might want to read WP:STALK, which discusses stalking and harassment. Checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy is not stalking, nor is reading a user's contribution log. However, if you feel that I have done something else which violates that policy, or any other policy, you should bring it to my attention, and if I persist in what you believe to be a policy violation, you can report it to WP:ANI or to one of the dispute resolution fora (WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:RfAr, etc.). —Psychonaut 04:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the copyright situation. The image comes from the website of the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a government-like organization. It is in the section "Press & Public Info". It is well possible that it was released in the public domain.

As Psychonaut said, the metadata of that page indicates "Copyright © 2001 QSS Ltd., All rights reserved." However, I find that dubious; QSS wrote the content management system used to power the website and I guess that the meta-data is some default in the software.

It seems to be a useful image (not so much for Srebrenica massacre, but possibly for other articles). Bosniak, where did you want to use it? Perhaps we can write to the OHR and see what the situation is. But Psychonaut is right that you should be more careful not to violate any copyrights. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the relationship of QSS to the web page content—I agree now that the copyright notice may have been placed there by mistake. However, even if the Office intends for the maps to be reprinted by third parties, that doesn't necessarily place them in the public domain, nor under a free licence acceptable for use on Wikipedia. We need written confirmation from an authorized representative of the OHR that the images are provided under a GFDL-compatible licence. Since such confirmation is nowhere to be found on the website, someone needs to write to the OHR to request it. Bosniak, if you want to do this, you should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. —Psychonaut 12:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This insistence on policing copyright issues is reminiscent of Osli73's campaign about quotations from ICTY judgments when it was pretty obvious that that sort of material had been released into the public domain. It took me ages to get confirmation from the ICTY but when I did they told me (I can't remember the exact words) something along the lines that they were delighted for it to be used as long as there was proper attribution. Quibbling in the face of common sense is not necessarily unreasonable, but when it's almost always in one direction then its objectivity comes into question. The map is directly relevant to the Srebrenica Massacre article in that it provides the explanation for why ethnic cleansing and genocide took place. --Opbeith 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lemme jump in: in my opinion, and according to the BiH Copyright law (emphasis mine):

Article 10.

1. Copyright protection shall not be afforded to:

b) official texts from legislative, administrative and judicial areas.

c) professional reports, referrals, official acts or works like these made during the performance of working obligations in economic or other activity.

2. Translations of the texts from Paragraph 1. b) shall be protected by copyright protection, unless they have been published as official texts.

the image is not subject to copyright, ergo PD. I used a similar rationale to "lift" several images from official web pages of Serbian government (commons:Template:PD-SCGGov, {{PD-SerbiaGov}}).Duja► 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Provided that the maps in question were indeed created by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian government, and not merely reproduced by it, then you're correct. Thanks for doing this research—I suggest that you create a new template {{PD-BaHGov}} which references the law you found. This will help eliminate any future confusion about the copyright status of such images. —Psychonaut 14:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I call helpful. --Opbeith 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please grow up and stop taunting your fellow editors. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone who doesn't see anything wrong with deleting a reference to the murder of probably more than 80 children under sixteen at Srebrenica should take a look at the video of Azmir Alispahic being killed before pontificating about "growing up". --Opbeith 11:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you're getting over the top again with comments such as this, this, this, and this (lazy to search further). You have proven that you're able to make constructive comments and edits when you manage to avoid foul language, but you're walking the line (and well over it) of WP:NPA. Can you please manage to learn to bite your tongue from time to time? Duja► 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I have mentioned the tone of your recent comment at the Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents. - Regards, Ev 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

Would you consider changing the top banner color to a bright yellow? It would still grab people's attention, but wouldn't provide that momentary confusion about whether they have new messages. I can help you change it if you'd like. -- Merope 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't encourage further deterioration in his colour sense! --Opbeith 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I'll be brief. If the International Court of Justice determines in 6 hours time that a genocide did in fact occur throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995 (regardless of whether Serbia and Montenegro are found directly responsible), then great efforts will have to be undertaken to improve the current Bosnian genocide article and prevent the inevitable wave of deniers and revisionists from utalizing it to their own ends. I believe that this responsibility will rest largely on those few of us who have defended the Srebrenica massacre article from similar assaults in the past. That is all. Live Forever 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the findings of the ICJ with respect to proving genocide in Bosnia as a whole, genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was proved in Krstic. Whether or not the ICJ finds genocide proven in the case before it, unless the judgment specifically refutes the Krstic judgment and finds that genocide did not occur at Srebrenica the ICTY's finding stands. --Opbeith 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't think of a good title, so poke.

I did get the idea from skimming the talk page that people were arguing about the title...I wouldn't want to get involved, but at least you agree lots of people died...I was saying more that the article was really good, one of the best I've seen. And I'm sure you are quite handsome. *grin at userbox* Lady BlahDeBlah 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Mitov

Hi Bosniak,

I think we both agree that Dr. Mitov's comments are disgusting, but there is no need to stoop to his level. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Best regards,

Djma12 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay Djma12. I agree. Bosniak 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo - are you feeling alright?

It's just a great feeling to watch Albanian Kosovo become independent. It's a wonderful, fullfilling, satisfying, feeling. It's like an orgasm, in political sense of the word. Bosniak 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

? --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, with regard to your comments on Talk:Kosovo, you might want to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, particularly this point:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Note the comment at the very top of Talk:Kosovo. It seems like a really bad idea to post disruptive comments to an article that's currently on Arbcom probation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Moj odgovor

Hehe, unlikely. The precedent is too significant, no country in Europe with recognize it that's for certain. Not even Albania and especially not BiH (if Kosovo can go independent then why can't the Republika Srpska -- get what I mean?). I expanded on this issue more here.--Domitius 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Any unilateral bid for independence for Kosovo will certainly result in a so-called "de facto state" like Taiwan or Transnistria. The reason is that no one wants regions to be able to unilaterally declare independence. As for your assertion that control makes a difference, let me point out that it doesn't; Kosovo's legal status is the same as that of the RS, and independence for either would be done on the same legal principle. If Serbia loses Kosovo, then BiH should begin preparing to lose the RS, FYROM should be preparing to lose its Albanian-populated districts, Turkey should prepare to lose its Kurdish-populated provinces etc... etc... You say you dislike genocide, but with such an increased possibility of losing territory, let me tell you that the scale of ethnic cleansing currently underway in Kurdistan and Tibet will double.--Domitius 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I think it's a bit rich taking alleged statements by "high-placed Kommersant sources in the UN" over that of the Russian government. I guess we'lll just have to wait and see what happens. I and some friends of mine are betting over what the likely outcome is, I went for no independence. Do you think I'm likely to lose my money? :) --Domitius 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fail to see

I don't understand why you are so emotionally/erotically overjoyed by the very act that might cause further suffering, problems and perhaps even dissolution to your country. --PaxEquilibrium 12:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)== Question ==

What are your thoughts on the use of the term "Bosnian Muslim" for Bosniaks? Khoikhoi 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply

Bosnian Muslims = religious group

Bosnian Catholics = religious group

Bosnian Orthodox = religious group

Bosniaks = ethnic group

Bosnian Croats = ethnic group

Bosnian Serbs = ethnic group

Is anything unclear about this? Bosniak 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think the terms can be used interchangeably? Khoikhoi 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Britannica certainly does. Even User:Bosniak's precious ICTY ruling calls them "Bosnian Muslims" - the word Bosniaks doesn't appear once [10].--Domitius 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Western media uses term "Bosnian Muslims", but the Bosniaks themselves don't use that term and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dayton Peace Agreement clearly state official names of constitutive ethnic groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, among which are Bosniaks. For western world's use of improper term one can also blame Bosniaks for not making sure that the courts use proper name. Actually, it's clearly fault of Bosniaks and their incompetence. My position is that we need to stick to official name - Bosniaks. Bosniak 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would ya looka [11][12]. Perhaps wiki's guidelines on using the most common name for articles' titles should be reflected on the article Bosniaks as well.--Domitius 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitus, you are wrong, the term Bosniak appears in UN documents http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Awww.un.org+bosniaks&meta= including ICTY

So does the term "Bosnian Muslim". In fact, the term "Bosnian Muslim" appears more often [13].--Domitius 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is interesting [14].--Domitius 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most common term used among Bosniaks and official (factual) term is BOSNIAKS. You cannot question facts with google results. My ethnic background is Bosniak. Don't misuse and misinterpret wiki guidelines. Neither you, nor Google, nor any of your sorry little propaganda can deny existence of Bosniaks (read constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, even constitution of Republika Srpska, read Dayton Peace Agreement, etc). You are sad example of sorry little Serbian propaganda. I am done, I am not going to waste my time with BS arguments. My time is more valuable. Bosniak 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Crimes of Bosniaks? Yes, they do exist. But, as US State Department pointed out, 90% of all crimes were commited by Serbs. Also, read about official facts about Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks at CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html . The information there is official and factually correct. Bosniak 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm just saying Bosnian Serb leadership is "putting up with it" only because Kosovo is in Serbia. The moment it secedes, your homeland will be in the greatest crisis ever since 1992.

Serbia does have some sovereignty over Kosovo (e.g. over North Kosovo). By the way, the 1244 Resolution also predicted the return of a part of the Serbian armed forces and police to Kosovo.

Why do you compare numbers? Isn't that pointless? Statistics? What will that tell you? Why should that be relevant? Anyway, you were slightly wrong - the pre-war Serb population of Kosovo foromed 11%-14% (200,000-250,000; even now they form more than 5%, i.e. they form 7%). The Bosnian Muslim pre-war population in the Serbian Republic was not even close 40% => it was 28.8% (450,000).

I guess you could say the "proportions" are much closer, your opinion is different; right? :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe you deserve to have that teritory as part of Serbia?

Could plz clarify this sentence? --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW Bosniak, in case you're interested [15]:

“ Sergei Baburin, vice-chairman of the Russian Parliament, voiced doubts that the UN Security Council would adopt the new resolution, triggering concerns that Russia and China could use their veto power. ”

See, you don't have to worry. Demand for an independent Republika Srpska does not seem probable in the near future :) --Domitius 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Statistics will never be able to tell you much. For example, we could now go through the history of Kosovar population censuses, and we could see that for example, right after WWII, Serbs comprised almost 30% of the territory's population. On the other hand, Bosniaks (Muslims that didn't express their nationality back then) comprised barely 30% in whole of BH. So what? What does it tell you? --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Violation report--Jersey Devil 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Bosniak,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

question

Hi Bosniak,

I noticed you worked on the Srebrenica article. I want to ask for your help. I'm writing a paper/project in my history class at UPenn about the Balkan war (it was one of the offered topics). I read the article on Srebrenica massacre and I have decided to focus on that event. Any help is appreciated. I looked over the links, but I would appreciate a more specific info. The paper needs to be heavily documented with reliable sources AND we are NOT allowed to provide only one side of the story - meaning we can only use internatinal/objective sources. So, I need:

1) International sources on what led to the event (NATO, UN, EU reports? - something in english so that I can read it)

2) Where exactly can I find the official (international) estimate of the number of deaths? The link: "Federal Commission for Missing Persons; "Preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica"; 2005" appears to be in Croatian (Serbian? Bosnian?), and from the site that does not belong to United Nations - therefore it not wise to use it. Do you have an actual link from some UN report that talks about these number? I looked around the web, but I believe with your experince, you might be able to point me to right direction. GREATLY APPRECIATED!

3) Similar to 2), I need the actual number of deaths - number of found bodies until now or until 2005/06. I hate to talk here about "numbers" when we are talking about people, please don't take this as my ignorance (I noticed you are from Bosnia). Do you have a specific link to United Nations site where these numbers are reported? AGAIN, GREATLY APPRECIATED.

4) Finally, I need some contrary views for completeness, but again, not from the involved sides. Clearly, Serbs will refute certain claims, Bosnians may do the opposite, so I need some international newspaper, book reports that actually provide different estimates (important: BOTH lower and higher).

So, I'm doing research on this myself, and once my research is done I would like to contribute to the article. If I have working links/references, they are not going to be deleted right? (here, I'm not talking about the regular hooliganism, but more about the regular contributors/editors)

Thanks, upenn_balkans

upenn-balkans, I've been working with Bosniak and others at the Srebrenica Massacre article. I'm sure Bosniak won't mind me intruding to give you some pointers he can add to.

The Federal Commission for Missing Persons first list of 8106 names is hosted (untranslated - but very simply the Bosnian text simply describes the list as a preliminary list of the dead and missing from Srebrenica) at the Domovina site which has close links with the ICTY It provides the video feed from the ICTY hearings) (see http://www.domovina.net/page_004.php). For some reason the Domovina site doesn't give the updated list of 8373 names hosted at the srebrenica-zepa site. 8373 is the number of names listed at the Potocari Memorial.

There is a lot of argument about the number of victims but you are safe using "an estimated 8000". The word "estimated" is used by propagandists as a means of trying to reduce the figure and I believe that the evidence available justifies using "at least". Nevertheless it is important to the memory of the unlisted victims to remember that although there is some uncertainty about precise numbers this does not mean that higher figures are unreasonable. The numbers are based on lists compiled from reports of the dead and missing. In the circumstances of three years of ethnic cleansing and random and organised violence in the Drina Valley and the Srebrenica area, there are may be whole families who left no surviving relatives to report their deaths, and most of the lists required corroboration of names by close family.

The Krstic trial judgment given in August 2001 found:

"84. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men."

When Krstic's appeal was considered the ICTY Appeal Chamber judgment noted in April 2004:

"2. [...] The depravity, brutality and cruelty with which the Bosnian Serb Army (“VRS”) treated the innocent inhabitants of the safe area are now well known and documented.1 Bosnian women, children and elderly were removed from the enclave,2 and between 7,000 – 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were systematically murdered."

The recent International Court of Justice judgment, drawing on the original ICTY judgments, now several years old, reads "290. The Trial Chambers in the Krstić and Blagojević cases both found that Bosnian Serb forces killed over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men following the takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995". (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Judgment, 2 August 2001, paras. 426-427 and Blagojević, IT-02-60-T, Judgment, 17 January 2005, para. 643)."

The International Committee for Missing Persons is now part of the Missing Persons Institute with the Federal Commission. It provides a useful appreciation of the forensic evidence and their estimate of what they believe the final number of victims will be. In my suggested revision of the "Forensic evidence" paragraphs of the "Mass executions" section of the Srebrenica massacre article I have summarised the account of the work of the ICMP contained in a very recent response by Adam Boys, senior manager for the International Commission for Missing Persons (ICMP), to reader's comments on an article in The Scotsman in early March as:

"As of 2007, the remains of more than 6500 individuals have been exhumed from the Srebrenica region and identified or DNA-profiled."

This is based on my summary of Boys's discussion of the Forensic evidence as:

"The progress of finding bodies of victims in the Srebrenica region, often in mass graves, exhuming them and finally identifying them was relatively slow. By 2002, 5,000 bodies were exhumed but only 200 were identified. The pioneering use of DNA has allowed the identification of large numbers of victims whose body parts were widely dispersed. As of 9 March 2007 the International Committee for Missing Persons had collected and processed blood samples from 21,032 family members representing 7789 different missing individuals and the DNA-led identification process had helped in the final legal identification of 2913 persons from Srebrenica, 2528 already buried at Potocari Memorial Center or other graveyards. Comparison of the DNA profiles from 8369 bone samples from exhumed remains with profiles with the ICMP database of blood-sample DNA profiles has provided direct genetic information for 4100 missing individuals. While the ICMP doubts that it will ever be possible to determine the exact final number of victims, on the basis of the rate of blood collection and DNA matches to date they estimate the number of persons missing from the fall of Srebrenica would be around 8000."

You can check the full text of Adam Boys's comments after C. Jennings's article "Finding the bodies to fill the Bosnia graves," in The Scotsman, 14 March 2007 at http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=398822007

Hope that helps. I'm sure Bosniak will have more to add. --Opbeith 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply:

Hi Upenn_balkans, pardon me for not replying earlier because I don't read my TalkPage (because people usually come here to criticize me). I can certainly help you with your essay. You can send me email to my temporary hotmail account at danielfromuniverse@hotmail.com . Remember, presenting both sides of the story does not mean you should morally equate what Serbs did. You should present both sides of the story but you should not shy away from admitting that Serbs are to blame. To present Serb side of the story, please use credible sources, here is a good start (please read carefully, it's from the International Criminal Tribunal): http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm (about alleged Serb victims). All the best. Also, keep an eye at http://bavault.blogspot.com - it has great sources and the editor in charge is very knowledgeable (I'll meet you with her, and we can both help you).

Bosniak 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Why didn't you answer (regarding the Srpska/Kosovo population). --PaxEquilibrium 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ow, I bet that hurt!--Domitius 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the question about? Bosniak 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Your opinion change, now that you see that the proportions are much closer? --PaxEquilibrium 10:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Can't you ask direct question? I this regarding Kosovo? My position on Kosovo has remained the same. Kosovo deserves independence. When it comes to Republika Srpska, she will stay eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina because according to the Dayton Peace Agreement, two entities that make up Bosnia are not federal units. Therefore, they cannot make state-related decisions, such as secession etc. Even if Republika Srpska held referendum for secession, Bosniaks (as one of constitutent ethnic groups of Republika Srpska) have a power of veto on all decisions. So, Kosovo does not paralel Republika Srpska, as Republika Srpska is governed by the Dayton Peace Agreeement. Kosovo will sign its own peace agreement and it will be governed accordingly. I believe Kosovo will remain outside of Serbia.Bosniak 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You said that the difference between the two was not the same by saying that Serbs formed less than 5% before the war in Kosovo and Bosniaks over 40% in Srpska (very far). However, I pointed to You that the actual percentages were much more closer: 14% for Serbs and 28% for Bosniacs (only 2 times larger and not 8 as You noted). I ask You again - isn't now much closer?

When You mention the Dayton Peace Agreement - the Kumanovo Treaty that ended hostilities between Serbia and the Kosovar Albanians (that became the basis for the situation that lasts to this very day) claims that future status of Kosovo will be negotiated but only within the territorial integrity of Serbia. Kosovo already signed its peace agreement in 1999, agreeing to stay under Belgrade's sovereignty.

When You mention that RS cannot secede from Serbia, You call upon the Bosniacs' veto power - the very same thing was denied 15 years ago to one nation - there is nothing that could make us think it won't repeat itself. In 1992 BH was a constitutive republic of three nations: Muslims, Serbs and Croats. The Serbian political leadership unanimously refused to accept independence, and it was proven in the referendum (that shouldn't've been held just alone because of that) when most Bosnian Serbs boycotted at the independence referendum. What's even more important, the 1992 Bosnian-Herzegovinian independence referendum failed (even though most Bosnian Muslims and many Croats voted in it). However, BH became independent in the end (although this had much more to do with the fact that SFRY dissolved, rather than western international support). The independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina was thus unconstitutional, illegal (aside from braking the Federal Constitution and Bosnia's own Constitution, it broke several electoral and rights Laws) and even illegitimate. Yes, the same thing would be in Republika Srpska's case - but why would that stop it in its case (un-equality)? --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax...

Republika Srpska doesnt even have their own army, nor money, nor capital (Sarajevo is RS capital) and they have absolutely nothing to be called a state.

So... why do you think RS can become independent?

Kosovo doesn't have its army, nor currency either. :) But Pristina is its capital - just like Banja Luka is Serbian's de facto capital (instead of Sarajevo).

But the Serb Republic was not even a point here; Kosovo was. All your claims that the two cases seem(ed)s non-applied (especially the population quota). --PaxEquilibrium 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW Kosovo first has to secede from Serbia to remain outside it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a part of Serbia. Just look at the resent elections... 94 % of the population in Kosovo didnt voted because nobody even cared because Kosovo is not part of Serbia.

As for Republika Srpska, your armies needs to declare their sovereignity towards the BOSNIAN state which they sadly didnt. But they were forced to do that which is very good.

Bad for Republika Srpska of course... haha

But anyways, the point is that Kosovo will even formally get independence while Republika Srpska is now even socially a integrated part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alkalada 10:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how independence of Kosovo would affect the views of the Serb majority of RS. Tensions will start increasing, it'll be fun to see how the non-Serbs handle it, if they can prevent the increasing demand for independence. Demonstrations, riots, illegal referenda, it's all on the agenda.--Domitius 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually more than 60% of Kosovo's electorate voted and Kosovo is within Serbia's internationally-recognized borders. --PaxEquilibrium 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Pax, it's time for Serbs and their leadership to get into reality. I don't want to offend you or anything guys, but it's time for Serbs to wake up. Kosovo is gone. Read this: Kosovo will be independent state by the end of May and this Independent Kosovo Only Solution: US

( USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov ) By Judy Aita USINFO United Nations Correspondent

New York -- Negotiations on Kosovo's future status have reached the "crucial and final stage," the U.S. special envoy for Kosovo status talks says, and the international community should accept the U.N. settlement plan to help bring peace and stability to southeastern Europe.

Negotiations on Kosovo's future status have reached the "crucial and final stage," the U.S. special envoy for Kosovo status talks says, and the international community should accept the U.N. settlement plan to help bring peace and stability to southeastern Europe.

"The United States believes the time is at hand. Kosovo needs to be settled. It can't be left dangling and we are determined to do everything in our power to make sure the issue is settled," Ambassador Frank Wisner, the secretary of state's special envoy for Kosovo, said April 4.

"We have a chance to bring to a conclusion the last of the territorial quarrels that erupted in the wake of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, the last of the areas of uncertainty in southeastern Europe; a chance to establish a stable environment with clarity, so that people in the region know what their choices are and where they are headed," Wisner said.

On April 3, the U.N. Security Council held its first session with U.N. special envoy Martti Ahtisaari to discuss his proposal on Kosovo's status.

Under its 1999 resolution ( UNSC Resolution 1244 ), which placed Kosovo under U.N. administration and envisioned a political process to determine Kosovo's final status, the Security Council has the responsibility to determine a settlement.

Ahtisaari, who spent 15 months talking with Serbian and Kosovo officials, concluded after exhaustive negotiations that independence is the only option to ensure Kosovo's political and economic stability. Under his plan, Kosovo would be a multiethnic society with the culture, language and educational policy of all communities protected and promoted. The Serbian Orthodox Church also would be safeguarded. The NATO-led Kosovo force would continue to provide security and an international civilian representative would oversee the settlement. ( See related article. )

Speaking at the New York Foreign Press Center, Wisner said that the United States supports Ahtisaari�s conclusions and sees them as "fair, sensible" and "skillfully negotiated." Independence is the only choice, he said.

The issue has reached a culminating point and further delay in arriving at a long-promised settlement would cause only more instability, he said. Pointing to the violence that erupted in March 2004, he said the "status quo is simply not an option."

New negotiations would not bring any better solution than the one at hand, Wisner added. "Every reasonable avenue has been explored" by Ahtisaari, he said.

Serbia strongly opposes independence, but given the circumstances of the past 15 years, Wisner said, "there is no way, in short, that the Albanian speaking majority [in Kosovo] would ever accept to go back under the rule of Serbia."

"We recognize Serbia has the strongest views over maintaining its sovereignty over Kosovo," the ambassador said.

Other issues related to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia � the status of Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina -- have been settled, he said. "It is now Kosovo that needs to be settled," he said.

The United States has a long-standing and very deep relationship with the Republic of Serbia, Wisner said. "We want to build on that relationship. We believe we can do it better when the problems of the area are settled."

Negotiations in the U.N. Security Council will be intense, the ambassador acknowledged. Russia, which has veto power in the council, has reservations about the plan.

Nevertheless, Wisner said, Russia has been part of the deliberations from the beginning. "We would like ... to end this association over Kosovo in the same spirit of collaboration and cooperation that we began it."

"Our objective is: That which we began together, let's end together," he said.

SOLUTION URGENTLY NEEDED

Wisner said that there will be ample opportunity to discuss and consider Ahtisaari's proposal over the next weeks. Opposition "can only be overcome through the active exercise of diplomacy -- lay out choices, talk them through, think of the road ahead, reflect on basic and core interests."

From the U.S. perspective, the proposal is "overwhelmingly clear and so urgently needed that the odds of the right conclusion being reached by [the] Security Council are quite clear," Wisner said.

Kosovo is "of vital significance" to Europe and the United States, the ambassador said. "Europe's southeastern stability depends on a settlement in Kosovo." ( See related article. )

"Europe provides a substantial portion of the troops that are deployed under NATO command. Europe is a major contributor to the economic environment, and the support of present [U.N.] mission," the ambassador said. Approximately 17,000 international troops, including 1,700 Americans, continue to serve under NATO�s Kosovo Force, also known as KFOR.

"We went to war over this issue, we have 1,700 American soldiers on the ground, we are major contributors to the peacekeeping and U.N. costs in Kosovo,� Wisner said. �We've made our statement. This is important to us."

The future for Serbia, Kosovo, and the rest of the region "lies inside of Europe not as some island off the shore with no association with Europe," Wisner also said.

Kosovo today is a poor nation, with 50 percent of its people unemployed, he said. "It can't move ahead unless it has sovereignty, but it will not move ahead to its fullest without being part of Europe."

See also "Draft U.N. Plan Would Protect Minority Groups in Kosovo" and "U.S. Believes an Independent Kosovo Would Not Set Precedent."

For more information on U.S. policies in the region, see Southeast Europe. Bosniak 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and as USA said... the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina is already settled.

Serbs are loosing everthing and its 100 % their own fault. Alkalada 11:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If You don't want to offend me, for starters You could begin by not calling me a Serb (and attaching a stereotypic nationalistic generalization with it).

Could You please some up Your point? You didn't present anything that I didn't know.

I am solely interested in your Kosovo-RS population comparison and solely to that (I corrected Your errors and wanna hear Your opinions just on that).

P.S. BTW a Security Council Session was held on 3 April. It was shown that Ahtisaari's proposal does not enjoy sufficient support. --PaxEquilibrium 11:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, you do know that "bosnian/bosniak" parties have 57 % of the seats in the Bosnian parliament?

And RS have 3 konstitutional nations which means that we bosniaks do have veto in important questions in RS parliament. Alkalada 12:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I also know that Serbian parties have 57.6% percent in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. Your point?

Kosovo also has two constitutional peoples - Albanians and Serbs in the same manner. Although the Pristina government is taking that right away from the Serbs by calling them a national minority (to sneakily avoid the fact that the Serbs can/could veto Kosovo's independence). --PaxEquilibrium 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As Alkalad pointed out, the point that Pax failed to understand is that the Republika Srpska will remain eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina because Bosniaks have power of veto in Republika Srpska. As Bosniak pointed out, Republika Srpska is not a federal unit and therefore has not right to hold a referendum and bring state decisions. Serbs are national minority in Kosovo because they form about 4-5% of population. I don't see how you can compare Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? Kosovo, for one, has 90% Albanian population, and Bosnia is very much mixed with different ethnicities. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I was comparing Bosnia and Herzegovina with Serbia and the Serbian Republic with Kosovo. The RS is one of the constitutive entities that make the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Kosovo is just a mere province of the Republic of Serbia. Serbs are in minority in Kosovo, with more correctly, a bit over 7% of the population. But they are not in legal law a "national minority", just like Bosniacs and Croats aren't in the Serb Republic. Yes, Kosovo has an almost 90% Albanian majority. But the Republika Srpska has an over 80% Serb majority. That's where the comparison lies. --PaxEquilibrium 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Republika Srpska probably has 90% Serb majority, you know why? Because you committed genocide, mass massacres, and large scale ethnic cleansings of Bosniaks from the territory your armed forces controlled. There is no comparison between Republika Srpska and Kosovo. Bosniak 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

I also forgot about one thing - Kosovo is a part of Serbia even accord to its own Constitution. :D --PaxEquilibrium 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, look

I've already asked you not to spread personal attacks and bad faith edits. Please, stop. I've never committed genocide, I've never massacred anyone, I've ethnically cleansed no one, and I assure you that I possess no armed unit (not a single one), and most of all I never controlled/ruled any territory.

I think that 80%, and not 90% of RS is Serbian-populated.

Anyway, Serbs were in majority in RS before and after the war. Albanians were in majority in Kosovo before and after the war. Large population were removed from both provinces (in the first case Bosnian Muslims a.k.a Bosniacs and Croats and in the latter Serbs, Roms [Egyptians], Slavic Muslims [Gorans] and Croats).

How can you say there's no comparison between RS and Kosovo? The only difference is that the Serbian Republic has a higher status being a constitutive entity and Kosovo a mere province.

In the end, just like an American political analyst said, "It's hardly possible that Russia will use its veto and will probably abstain; Kosovo will become an independent internationally recognized state; however there is no reason why the same rights should be denied to the Bosnian Serbs". --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have blood on my hands either. As a matter of the fact, we even helped Serbs during the war. But again, I am not asking anything in return. I am not claiming that all Serbs are bad people. I run into one Serb yesterday on my workplace, he was from Mostar. I think he's a nice guy. He asked me who I was, I said I am Bosnian, and he said "I am Bosnian too". So, I guess we will make good friends. Neverthless, I don't see any logical comparison between Republika Srpska and Kosovo, and I will tell you why. According to the Dayton Peace Agreement, Republika Srpska is a political entity, not a federal unit - which means Republika Srpska cannot unilaterally hold referendum and decide to secede from Bosnia. If they do it, then Bosniaks (constituent peoples and one of founders of Republika Srpska) have a power of a veto. In other words, Republika Srpska will eternally stay part of Bosnia even though close to 100% of its population is Serbian (because of ethnic cleansing). On the other hand, there is still no "Dayton Agreement" between Kosovo and Serbia. All negotioations have been exhausted and they failed. The United States government (to my obvious surprise) openly supports Kosovo independence. Kosovo will become independent, unless Albanians decide to stay in Serbia with a high degree of authonomy. If Albanians sign such a deal, then Kosovo will eternaly stay part of Serbia. If I am correct, Serbia conquered Kosovo sometime around WWI and brought Albanian population under its control. They obviously don't want to stay in Serbia because they don't even speak same or similar language as Serbs. Comparing Serbs and Albanians is same as a comparing Chinese and Philipinos. Those are two highly different cultures. When you compare Bosniaks and Serbs, do you see any notable differences except religion? Bosniak 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither is or ever was Kosovo(-Metohija) a federal unit.

But there is a "Kumanovo Agreement" between the Serbians and Albanians. According to it, only negotiations of the level of autonomy for Kosovo within Serbia can be negotiated and Kosovo can never become independent (at least not without Belgrade's approval). There is no place in the agreement to talk about a Kosovo outside Serbia's borders.

Do you understand now? --PaxEquilibrium 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good point Pax. I will do more research on Kumanovo Agreement before I post lenghtier response. Bosniak 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, are you talking about Military Technical Agreement between the International Security Force ("KFOR") and the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia? Bosniak 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Look at the checkuser thing I wrote on pazE.'s discussion page. Thanks, all three seem like the same guy. Vseferović 06:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you exactly mean? Bosniak 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it was around two in the morning when I wrote this message. i had a lot of trouble with User:Bosanac-007 (does not have a userpage, check the discussion page). I think he is a sock puppet, just as User:Inter-milano, of User:Semberac. Their editings are 'too' similar. Firstly, all three of them upload copyrighted images of churches (might I say nothing against the churches). I noticed that someone started placing the Flag of Serbia for BiH coaches in the RS. I placed the BiH flag, when, (at separate occasions), they reverted the flag back to the Flag o0f Serbia. All three of them removed discussion and refuse to reply back to you. The editing of "Inter-milano" and "Bosanac-007" seems to have cooled down since I started the 'process'. I have found User:Semberac to be a stringent nationalist. Hopefully the editing of "Inter-milano" and "Bosanac-007" will end. Thanks, Vseferović 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Earth Day

Happy me day! __earth ^(Talk) 09:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tolerance vs Censorship

Lol, I'm not deleting them, silly. :0)

See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page

OK, your freaking me out - who's us and you??? --PaxEquilibrium 11:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

haha, good. Hey, Pax, I met one Bosnian Serb at work. Guess what? He considers himself Bosnian. Yes, we get along well. I was wondering, why not just create ethnic regions as opposed to entities? Or maybe - B&H should be organized in cantons (same as in Croatia). Two highly autonomous political entities are not good for the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniak 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you just answer at mine, and I'll at yours. ;)

I never delete posts, not even offensive vandalistic personal attacks. --PaxEquilibrium 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've come to realize that I absolutely despise it, as you've come to notice (I made a lot, then all of sudden, I stopped).

Are you sure that map is correct? This one from 2006 seems to go a little more into details and is different from yours. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That map is dead wrong. Wait, I will make a new one. Bosniak 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chatter

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Zoosexuality for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. —Psychonaut 11:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Srebrenica massacre for discussion of other editors' usernames. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. —Psychonaut 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoosexuality is disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting. I am not even going to visit that article anylonger. It makes me puke. I mean, come on. Some people are trully sick to be sexually attracted to animals. Disgusting, disgusting...Bosniak 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Division of Bosnia-Herzegovina - Minimum of Demands

According to the Dayton Peace Agreement, Bosniaks are one of constituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as of Republika Srpska. This means, they have a power of Veto in case Serbs decide to secede from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Republika Srpska and Federation are political entities, and not "federal units"; therefore, they cannot hold referendums and secede. If they do, Bosniaks still have a power of veto. Therefore, the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina (aka: secession of Republika Srpska to Serbia) is impossible. What's possible is the agreement of all three ethnic groups - Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Serbs. If one day, three ethnic groups decide to "part their ways", then this would be the minimum of all territorial demands that Bosniak people would absolutely need to get from both Republika Srpska and our Bosnian Croat alies (pay attention to the corrections of entity borders of separation @ Sarajevo [because militarily speaking, there is no way Bosniaks would ever accept Serbs to overlook Sarajevo], Gorazde, Srebrenica, borderline peak Javornik, coridor to the Una-Sana Canton.) That's the price you would have to pay. It's a small price, considering there is no other option for you to "secede". Good luck. Here is the map (Absolute minimum of demands. No negotiation. Take it or leave it.) (FILE SIZE: 2.5MB! BIG MAP!) Bosniak 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting proposal - I think that's something that both Bosniacs and Serbs would gladly accept. I just doubt the Croats would be satisfied with so little land (why don't you ask them?).

I still think that it leaves the issue of the corridor to Una... I don't think Serbs could be easily convinced over there... aside from that it's fine.

BTW> who's *you*??? --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the Croats would never ever give up access to sea in favor of Bosniacs. --PaxEquilibrium 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Brother, I want to raise several issues with you:

1. What do Serbs have to do with the corridor to Una-Sana Canton? The corridor would go through the territory controlled by the Federation, and not Republika Srpska.

2. Bosniaks and Serbs are on the wrong foot. Politicians are destroying hopes of progress. Republika Srpska politicians are trully horrible nationalists, however Haris Silajdzic needs to recognize reality of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the reality is that Republika Srpska exists and it is the part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. While me and you could agree on the best possible territorial solution - trust me brother, Silajdzic and Dodik could not agree on anything. There is a bad blood between these two politicians, and I don't see any progress until they are removed from their positions.

3. You claim that Croats would never give up access to the sea in favor of Bosniaks. As I said, that is the only way for them to secede. Bosniaks would never accept division without access to the sea. Either that or veto. There must be a compromise. Bosnia's future clearly depends on 3 constituent people's agreement, and let me tell you one thing for sure: Bosniak leadership would not even attempt to negotiate new teritorial lines without access to the sea. There must be compromise. Croats know that the situation in Bosnia is overly complicated and nothing can be solved without constructive compromise between Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats.

4. You stated that Croats would never be satisfied with such "little" territory". Well, you clearly overlooked the facts that Croats make up around 15% of Bosnia-Herzegovina's population. How much do you think they should get? Think about this: Bosniaks make up 75% of the Federation.. That's 75%. Now, I know why came to a conclusion that Croats would be disatisfied - it's because "their" enclaves or villages in terms of population (Kresevo, Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez, Novi Travnik) would fall into Bosniak territory. Now, the most important point: These enclaves are not really "Croat" in the true sense of the word. Why? Take a look at 1991 Population Census:

Kresevo - 1,531 Bosniaks / 4,714 Croats. (3,131 more Croats than Bosniaks. But Kresevo is a village, it was clearly created to represent Croat municipality. It's too small to even be considered a town, let alone a city or municipality).

Kiseljak - 9,778 Bosniaks / 12,550 Croats. (Only 2,772 more Croats than Bosniaks. Do you really think this area should belong to them simply because they have 2,772 more people there than Bosniaks? Come on dude.)

Busovaca - 8,451 / 9,093 Croats. (Only 642 more Croats than Bosniaks! This is clearly not a Croat city! Come on. If there are 642 more Croats, that doesn't mean Busovaca is theirs! No way. 642 people cannot decide on anything. This area clearly does not belong to Croats.)

Vitez - 11,514 / 12,675 Croats. (1,161 Croats more than Bosniaks. Again, 1,161 people cannot decide on the fate of Vitez. It's ridicolous. This area is clearly not Croat.)

Novi Travnik - 11,625 / 12,162 Croats. (Only 537 more Croats than Bosniaks. Again, 537 is not enough to decide on teritorial fate of Novi Travnik. This is clearly not a Croat territory. They can't claim it as theirs and they will never get it.)

5. Republika Srpska must make concessions. If the price of secession is 2-3% of Republika Srpska teritory, then one would be insane not to accept it. Bosniak 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the interruption, but what is going on here? What is this for? And why are we discussion the topic of secession? These are all hypothetical cases. I do not think that one could put this in any article. However, the point that Bosniaks are constituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as of Republika Srpska is important. Many Bosniaks do not "know" this; they think that only people of RS could vote for independence. Vseferović 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All fine, but I still think that the Herzeg-Bosnian Croats would bring up the subject that the Bosniacs have neither real, nor historical or any kind of argument to justify access to sea. --PaxEquilibrium 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Thank you for joining us Kseferovic. We are discussing absolulte "minimum" of demands that Bosniak people would seek IF there ever be "three-partite" agreement on the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina (this does not mean that I advocate division of Bosnia - it's purely hypothetical debate). So, whatever we discuss is hypothetical. Have you seen the map? What is your opinion Kseferovic? - I would also like to touch the issue of the access to the sea. I would expect Croats to raise the issue about the "historic or any kind of argument" for Bosniaks to justify access to the sea. In fact, Bosnia had access to the sea throughout its history, and that would be more than sufficient argument for continuance of new Bosnia. But most importantly, that would be the only way for Croats to secede, as Bosniaks could use their power of veto if Croats fail to give up Neum (Croats would like to avoid that). One must keep in mind, that Bosnia-Herzegovina absolutely cannot be divided into separate countries unless there is an agreement by three constituent peoples, as per Dayton Peace Agreement. (There won't be any wars over territory. Only political solution will be possible in the future.) As I said, Croats would raise many issues, including issues with corridor leading to the Una-Sana Canton. They would seek compromise, for example, they give us corridor to Una-Sana and we give them corridor for their enclaves in the Eastern Bosnia. As you know, some of those "enclaves" number only 600 or more Croats than Bosniaks, so they are not trully "Croat" territory. Anyways, one question for PaxEquilibrium - Considering that the current ethnic make up of Federation is 80% in favor of Bosniaks, what do you think will Federation's make up look 50 years from now, considering that Croat population is decreasing rapidly. Thanks. Bosniak 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One more question for Pax and Kseferovic and anybody else reading this - Seriously, does anybody what is the "end point" of Ozren Mountain (which is divided between RS and Federation)? Is the end point of Ozren close to Vozuca? Does that mean that Ozren is evenly split between RS and Federation? Consider Jahorina mountain, majority of it is in Gorazde Canton, and not in RS (consult the map I posted). I still can't figure out where exactly does the Ozren start and where does it end. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Bosniak 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point - but this "new Bosnia" would not be *Bosnia* in the real sense of the word, but a Bosiac nation-state, and then any argument for Neum (e.g. the sea) would soundly drop.

Regarding population - that's the main reason by Bosnian Croat politicians urge for the unification of Bosnia and Herzegovina and abolition of the entities. In the new state Bosniacs would form only relative majority. Although I think they'll aim for secession (like RS) if this is not done soon in time (for the very same reasons you exposed). But another question - what would matter if Bosniaks form 99% and Croats only 1%, if Croats have their own Cantons (and many of them)? After all it's a Federation. --PaxEquilibrium 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My last map

File:BH1991.jpg

Ethnic map based on the 1991 census. The different colors show absolute majority in every settlement:

  Serbs

  Muslims

  Croats

  no majority

This'll be probably my last map. It's according to the 1991 population census. --PaxEquilibrium 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Pax, your map cannot be accurate. Here is the map from the Office of High Representative based on 1991 census of population. Pax said: "Good point - but this "new Bosnia" would not be *Bosnia* in the real sense of the word but a Bosniac nation-state, and then any argument for Neum (e.g. the sea) would soundly drop. " --> well, obviously it wouldn't because Serbs and some Croats want to destroy it by seceding to Serbia and Croatia. Argument for Neum would never drop. Bosnia-Herzegovina would continue its historic existence and historically it had access to the sea. If Croats object - then they cannot secede, because Bosniak side would certainly veto their move (without Neum). So whether Bosnia-Herzegovina will ever be "divided" into different states really depends on Bosniaks, because we already know that Serbs and Croats want "out" and Bosnia-Herzegovina is intact simply because Bosniaks refuse any kind of division, etc. So everything really depends on Bosniaks and must be a compromise; in other words, there is price for everything. Are you willing to pay it? No. Then fine, we'll live forever in Dayton Bosnia. The Dayton Peace Agreement is internationally recognized agreement (USA, France, Britain, Russia, etc act as co-signers) and nobody will stand for forcefull secession, especially not the United States. So, if Croats and Serbs are not ready to compromise on the price, then forget it, I will keep supporting undivided Bosnia. Pax said: "In the new state Bosniacs would form only relative majority." - I don't think Bosniaks would form relative majority, because of ethnic cleansing, emmigration, killings, etc. In the next census of population, I think that the Serbs will form relative majority because their leadership took care of ethnic cleansings, so now they can be major ethnic group. But "numbers" don't mean anything because Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs are all contituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina with same rights. Pax asked: "what would matter if Bosniaks form 99% and Croats only 1%, if Croats have their own Cantons (and many of them)?" - because many municipalities in these "cantons" would become Bosniak-majority. You want example? Here is one - Vares. Croats formed relative majority there, now Vares is a Bosniak city. Bosniak 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've got precise data from the 1991 census. :) Anyway, that map seems to be in accordance to municipalities. My map goes down every single settlement in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Well, according to the last 1991 population census, Muslims formed 43.47% of the republic's population. It's estimated that it already climed to 44% by the war (1992-1995). According to the 1996 United Nations population census, Bosniacs formed 46.1%. If I'm right, today Bosniacs might form around 48% of BH's total population. Considering that Bosniaks have the highest birth rate (as seen throughout the censuses, as the nation increasing the fastest), I don't see why they won't reach even 50% in the close future. --PaxEquilibrium 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW why isn't the census in Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted? --PaxEquilibrium 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked: "BTW why isn't the census in Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted?" - Because it would legalize ethnic cleansing. There is no Bosniaks in Eastern Bosnia any longer, for example. They are cleansed from there. I also don't think that Bosniaks have the highest birth rate. What I am convinced is that Bosniaks have the highest rate of emmigration (aka: leaving Bosnia for a better life in the West). In the next population census, Serbs will form majority, however - numbers don't mean anything because all three ethnic groups are constituent peoples. Bosniak 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well why was then a population census conducted in Croatia in 2002? Did it legalize ethnic cleansing? I don't think there's much excuse in there, but would common sense say a population census could tell the ethnic cleansing, so that we'd precisely know? When will it be conducted then?

48%:38% (Bosniacs:Serbs). If that's gonna change, perhaps one day. In far distant future, but not soon. --PaxEquilibrium 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some significant differences regarding Croatia. One of the first is that "Oluja" was initiated with western help. Also, interest played an important part. Just as with Slovenia, Milosevic lost interest in Croatia. At the same time Germany backed Croatia 110%. Milosevic and Tudjman saw the opportunity to split BiH between themselves. Stipe Mesic on the planned Bosnian division Tudjman, along with western help, and Milosevic’s agreement was able to ethnically cleans of Serbs. Ethnic cleansing did occur in Croatia. For Croatia a census might not impact the ethnic structure, however, Bosnia is a different case.

For this reason Croatia's issue is different regarding the census. In BiH the situation of the Bosnian war is not over. Many say it is still being fought as a "cold war". My view is similar to that of Bosniak's, a census would cause a severe uproar of tensions. Many would continue denying it while others would continue proving it. I stand by the idea that ethnic cleansing did occur. Vseferović

Sorry, I don't quite understand the comparison. The (two hundred thousand strong) Serbian national minority in Croatia is still present and jeopardized (or troublesome for the government). The whole issue is the only thing blocking CRO's entrance into the EU and problems could still happen.

I really do not understand it; a census was conducted in the Republic of Macedonia in 1994, but the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had conducted another census in 2002, due to the Albanian-Macedonian civil war (2001) to find out the ethnic cleansing/changes/damage inflicted/done. I really do not understand how could a census in BH change anything, except end the frustration of many people and finally record the ethnic cleansing and the damage done? --PaxEquilibrium 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Let's get over this again

Well I stand by it. Kosovo is only a mere province within Serbia (the state of the Serb people). In it both Albanians and Serbs are constitutional nations (ever since 1945) with completely the same rights (despite one usually kept dominating at periods throughout the history). It is only that recently in the negotiations Pristina is trying to present the Serbs as a minority (just like Banja Luka is often doing with Bosniacs and Croats), because they know this is effectively an obstacle on the way of Kosovo's independence (which itself, is very extremely unpaved). --PaxEquilibrium 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True, Kosovo is a Province within Serbia - nobody disputes that. However, I don't see Albanians as constituent peoples in Serbian constitution. Do you? And, do you believe that Kosovo will become independent by the end of this month? Bosniak 00:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Serbia is not like BH. It has no constituent peoples. It's a free civic-state.

Perhaps, but there's more chance it won't, rather than it will. --PaxEquilibrium 09:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp

I've nominated Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Psychonaut 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapman's Protocol

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chapman's Protocol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dce7 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked yet again

Bosniak, your behavior is untollerable. You made this attack out of the blue. I gave you yet another 48-hour block, but you're on your way to site ban. You can post {{unblock}} etc. but I guess you already know it. Duja► 07:27, 18 May 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The comment was not a personal attack, it was an opinion. Serb User Duja (administrator) blocked me just because I am Bosniak. There was no personal attack or swearing, just an opinion; Duja misused his administrative privileges and his obvious bias. Other objective administrators should review this case and block Duja for his ethnic bans and bias. I repeat: My comment was not a personal attack, it was an opinion. If I wanted to personally attack User Fairview, I would send him an email. However, I repeat, my comment was an opinion, not a personal attack, no swearing or threats, just an opinion.

Decline reason:

If this was the first instance I would not hesitate to grant an unblock. Given your history of blocks for disruption, I would advise you to be very cautious, more than usual. Take a break, and use the time to reconsider your overall attitude. Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2007 (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.

Vancouver

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Vancouver, was neither helpful nor constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Veto

I remember you frequently mention that the Bosniacs' national veto could block the decisions of solely Croats or Serbs - but what happened with the Serbs' veto on independence in 1992?

I think the Serbian politicians will mention that since their veto was ignored, so could they ignore the Bosniacs' veto (when/if the Serbian Republic declares independence from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina). --PaxEquilibrium 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pax, there is no paralel between now and Yugoslavia, or between now and World War II etc. We are now guided by the Dayton Peace Agreement. There was no Serb veto in communist Yugoslavia, there was only Serb boycot of legitimate referendum. Bosniak 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How could've it been legitimate if one of the 3 constitutive groups boycotted it? And especially since it failed (turnout)? --PaxEquilibrium 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Boycot is different from Veto. They boycotted perfectly legal elections. And not all Serbs boycotted it by the way, only those loyal to Karadzic. Nobody had power of Veto in pre-war Bosnia. Now it's different, all three ethnic groups have it, which protects everybody's rights, especially the right of Bosnia to be eternally united and eternally indivisible. Bosniak 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

People's desires are decided through their political representatives. Since only (Bosnian) Moslem and Croatian deputies supported it, while Serbian MPs did not, it's a decision of two parts of the marriage-group - rather than all three (or four).

What perfectly legal elections did the Serbs boycott? If I recall that's how SDS was elected (in 1990)?

And in the end, remember that the independence referendum failed. --PaxEquilibrium 17:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbs were not prevented from voting AGAINST independence. It was their personal choice not to vote. They knew consequences of not participating in the voting process. Had they participated in the voting process, they could have probably knocked down hopes of independence, but they chose not to participate. Their choice, their mistake, not ours. Re, SDS - they were elected by the will of the Serb people. Mistakes of SDS were catastrophic, for example a policy of "non-participation" in historic and democratic voting process was a mistake that everybody paid dearly for. The independence referendum did not fail. Brother, which books are you studying from? Bosniak 02:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if they voted, that means that they would accept the conditions for the referendum - which if I understood, were not quite clear. And besides, they wouldn't change the outcome much - there was little chance that they'd make it no consensus, very little. The more clear chance - obvious aim - was to boycott it, because then the referendum would most certainly fail (and it would be considered illegitimate). And it did fail. I read no book - just checked the factual turnout: 63.7%. And it was not the required super-majority, which would legally grasp the votes of the most (in legal terms, as most would've voiced their opinions).

Oh, you were referring to the referendum and not the 1990 election. Sorry. But as I understood (as per the Constitution), the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a "marriage" of three (was supposed to be four) peoples. If a Law of the plebiscite range such as an independence referendum is not voted by any of the representatives of one of the three nations - it's not legitimate. Such was the organization of the republic in order to prevent two peoples' imposing their will to the third (as occurred: Muslims & Croats on Serbs).

In the very end - the whole thing conducted with the all independence referendums across former Yugoslavia was practical insanity. The republics themselves never had the right of self-determination. The whole Federation was a *marriage* of 8 federal units (6 republics and 2 autonomous provinces) which always had to keep consensus on federal level. So if one of the republics wanted to secede the entire Federative Country, all 8 had to agree. Such was only one case - with the Republic of Macedonia. There was even no precise need for a referendum at all - just the consensus on federal level. --PaxEquilibrium 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In case of the desire of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian political leadership (which could've been questioned as per being illegitimate, with two of its constitutive *parts* for and one (or the other two, if you like against the decision) it was a draw: 4:4 on the federal level (federal units' votes to allow BH's secession), reaching no consensus. And again, even in legal terms, if it were 6:1 (e.g. all 5 republics and both of the 2 provinces want independence, while Serbia is against it), technically, the one unit's bloc (in effect veto itself) would be sufficient to halt the action.

What some individuals in power of different Yugoslavian entities, sometimes quite selfishly, failed to see is that they considered themselves the sovereign to authority in the corresponding political entity, an extremely fallacious notion. The best way to understand the position of the Yugoslav federal entities, is to view them as Vassals. They self-governed (on the basis of self-government) their respective areas on the basis of Natural Decentralization, however they (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Vojvodina and Kosovo) never were true "owners" of the area, but tilled the fields in the name of the Federal government, to express myself - vassals. Even from this conclusion did the Yugoslav authorities draw their motives to martially intervene in Croatia (practically outright attacking it) in an attempt to overthrow quickly the government which has just in terms become illegal, and to try to make a similar thing in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Not to mention the most unfortunate mistake with the completely senseless military intervention into Slovenia, which's session was perhaps one of the least controversial ones.

I believe that this actual "glitch" in the Yugoslavian Law & Constitution is what brought the controversies themselves - and it itself resulting in the wars ensuing, perhaps! --PaxEquilibrium 13:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: You said: "I read no book - just checked the factual turnout: 63.7%. And it was not the required super-majority, which would legally grasp the votes of the most (in legal terms, as most would've voiced their opinions)." That's the whole point - if Serbs hadn't boycotted referendum for independence, then it is clear that the referendum would fall. Think about it, if Serbs voted against independence, then majority of votes would be against. But they refused to vote. Don't you realize what historic mistake they made? They could had legally prevented the independence. But they choose not to. So... you have to admit this was mistake of Karadzic. He simply screwed up. If he Serbs to vote, then he could have stopped independence legally. This was a historic mistake on the part of Karadzic.

Furthermore, you said: "Oh, you were referring to the referendum and not the 1990 election. Sorry. But as I understood (as per the Constitution), the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a "marriage" of three (was supposed to be four) peoples. If a Law of the plebiscite range such as an independence referendum is not voted by any of the representatives of one of the three nations - it's not legitimate. Such was the organization of the republic in order to prevent two peoples' imposing their will to the third (as occurred: Muslims & Croats on Serbs)." - Yes, you are correct. But you need to understand that the parliament (composed of representatives coming from all peoples) passed a resolution for independence. Serbs tried to legally block that move, but were outnumbered by Bosniaks and Croats. Now, the constitution did not grant anybody power of veto, and what was done at that time was legal. Having said that this was legal, it doesnt mean it was right. I wish there was no war and I wish there was no Srebrenica genocide. Hope you can read between my sentences. Bosniak 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see (..hear)

Hi bro, I'm glad to hear from you - how have things been? Thank you for the kind words, but I cannot see any reason to stop editing wikipedia as long as there are radicalists around who wish to destroy bosnianhood and deny the truth. I have however been busy with work lately and as such restrained from editing. I made a huge edit on the Bosnian genocide article, which really needs to be expanded and rewritten, but my edits just disappeared for some reason, so everything was for no good. I will make a second attempt as soon as I get the time, it needs to be recognized that the Bosnian Genocide as a term/social phenomena is not defined entirely by the ICTY and as such does not only encompass the killings in Srebrenica. The Bosnian Genocide, as a term, aims at the bigger picture: by other words all hostile and criminal events during the war. Note for example how the killing of Armenians in Turkey is designated as Genocide although not a single trial has been held. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Hi brother. Welcome back. Glad to see you again. It is sad that the International Court of Justice accepted "censored" evidence provided by Serbia and as a resulted ruled that Serbia is only responsible for not preventing genocide, ::: read here :::. Also, they reversed complicity-in-genocide conviction for Hitler look-alike Vidoje Blagojevic, ::: read here :::. I would not be surprised if more scandal emerges with the international justice system which has recently started employing "moral equivalism / relativism" in its judgments. Anyways, on a positive note, have you been to Bosnia recently? Check this site out, Bosnia-Herzegovina is trully the most beautiful country in Europe, and one of the most beautiful in the world http://www.bhtourism.ba/ . Bosniak 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Just curiocity

Actually, I don't know practically anything 'bout your background. ;)

I was born in Croatia and originate from Montenegro. Did this short sentence answer your question? ;)

No, that's not the reason why I stated Serbo-Croat (because I cannot see how Slavs with different names mixing marriages could possibly "forge" *ethnically mixed results*... no way = I am ethnically Slavic and just that), but because I do not (myself, personally) recognize the lavish stupidities that circle around now-existing "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages". I accept the reality, that one is now three - and I accept the rights of other (most) people to consider that - but just for me, those languages do not exist, nor will ever (well perhaps if over the time they differentiate, like happening with Croatian which is separating from the other two). --PaxEquilibrium 09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I already told Nightstallion how Serbia is similar to the Weimer Republic in almost every imaginable way! --PaxEquilibrium 09:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply to Pax: Pax, thanks for your answer. Yes, we are all slavs. Better future is coming for our countries and our people. Once we join European Union, there will practically no be borders. People will focus on economy and governments will engage in constructive debates how to increase citizens' well-being. However, the status of Kosovo must be resolved. If Serbia wants Kosovo to stay in Serbia, then Serbia should offer to make Albanians constitutive nation of Serbia (with veto powers). I believe Albanians would accept this and Serbia would get to keep Kosovo. There is solution to all problems, but Kosovo problem must be solved next month. There is no point in allowing destabilization of whole region just because of Kosovo's question. Bosnia also suffers due to Kosovo/Serbia instability. For example, Bosnian Serbs block reforms because they think double-standard is applied towards them. So we need Kosovo question to be solved next month, not later, so the region can finally move towards better co-operation and future. Anyways,once we get accepted into NATO, we will never ever go into war against each other, because we will be allies. We need to believe the wisdom of the United States and stay away from corrupt, socialist, and overly irrelevant Russia. Serbs need to vote for liberal governments and avoid electing radicalized lunatics who have led Serbia into catastrophy. Let's live like normal people and have relationship based on respect and celebration of our millenium-old cultures that are beautiful. Bosniak 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Serbia is still far from the European Union. And Serbia does not want to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's mostly because of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. And don't stick all your hopes into the EU, the Romanians and Bulgarians seem very disappointed. Most new members expect that after joining the EU, that the Western Europe will do everything for them - however they're wrong. After joining the EU, much much greater obligations and a harder burden are put on the states, as they have to show worthy maturity, still unworthy for both Bosnia and Serbia!

The Albanians will hardly accept it. Their political leaders' pursuits do not lie as much in mistrust for Belgrade, but rather for the desire of independence, with a certain amount desiring national unification of all Albanians in the Balkans into a single state. Even if Belgrade proposes to Pristina such a dual-national political order, they might even laugh at Serbia seeing how desperate it became (and refuse, expectedly).

Also, there are a little less than 2 million Albanians in the Republic of Serbia. That's below 20 percent of the total population. Perhaps it might work in mixed and multi-ethnic communities like Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Serbia isn't - just like Croatia's not. Moreover, Albanians form majority on 13-15% of the total Serbian territory. A choice is maid. For peoples that drastically and sparsely populate a country all-over, they are proclaimed constitutive peoples (like happened in the Republic of Macedonia), but with such concentrated populated places, autonomous regions are created. And there is one for the Albanians - Kosovo.

Besides, the Serbs ask the same thing for Montenegro. Only if the Montenegrins grant them that, they'll think about a similar thing for the Serbian Albanians.

Well, Serbs voted and Serbia has avoided them ever since 2000. ;)

I wouldn't judge distancing from Russia like that. After all, Russia is Serbia's main "reserve" to protect Kosovo, so it's ties with Russia are quite logical. That makes it highly relevant. Why do you think it's socialist? And essentially, Socialism is a very good thing. Also, there's probably overly corruption in Russia - but hey, there's more in 'ere. And it's not like the West is totally free of corruption either. --PaxEquilibrium 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: You said: "For peoples that drastically and sparsely populate a country all-over, they are proclaimed constitutive peoples..." - Not really. Take a look at Canada. French do not drastically and sparsely populate Canada. They are overhelmingly located in Quebec, and they are constitutent people's of Canada. You said: "...but with such concentrated populated places, autonomous regions are created. And there is one for the Albanians - Kosovo." Again, take a look at Canada. Quebec is not just an autonomous region; they were proclaimed a nation inside of Canada. Plus they are constituent peoples of this country. You said: "...Russia is Serbia's main 'reserve' to protect Kosovo, so it's ties with Russia are quite logical." True. But, can Russia really stop Kosovo's independence? You asked: "Why do you think it's socialist?" - For me, socialism that we see in Russia is reminiscent of Soviet era communism. Protests against the government are not tolerated in Russia; and independent-minded journalists are often killed (allegedly by Government spies). Russia is far from integrating into the "Western" civilization. They are far from it. Serbia's place is in Europe and in NATO. This way, Bosnia and Serbia will be allies and will never fight each other again (case example: Israel + Egypt + Turkey). Therefore, I propose that in our future edits on Serbia (et al.) we insert relevant surveys confirming the will of Serbia's citizens to integrate in Europe. We can do the same for Bosnia. Latest surveys in local newspapers indicate most Serbians and Bosnians are pro-EU. Bosniak 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac

What do you think about the International Holocaust Commission's declaration on Jasenovac?

Do you think the United States Congress, the Governments of the Republic of Serbia and the Serb Republic and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will adopt it? --PaxEquilibrium 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Can you please be so kind to post a link to this declaration? I searched for this document and the only one I could find was this one, dated 2002 [::: click here :::. I support any declaration that will serve the purpose of remembrance about the crimes that were committed in Jasenovac. While I can't speak for the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I am certain they will adopt it. Is there any reason why they shouldn't? Bosniak 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Chatter on this page

Please do not use talk pages such as User talk:Bosniak for general discussion. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. —Psychonaut 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you seem to have your own personal Wikipedia policeman. I wonder how many other Wikipedia users are so honoured --Opbeith 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most users who show a pattern of disruptive behaviour and blocks end up with at least one other user periodically checking their edits. (This is not wikistalking as your edit summary seems to indicate.) —Psychonaut 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to check Bosniak's edits, but you really don't have any business to tell him what he may or may not do on his own talk page, as long as it's not conspirative or disrupting. WP:TALK clearly states that "More latitude is extended for user talk pages". Duja► 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Psycho, it is perfectly normal for people to engage in discussion on their discussion page. Why else do you think they call it a "discussion" page? Fairview360 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This wider latitude does not apply to extensive non–project-related conversations. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site, user pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Users are routinely blocked or banned for treating user and user talk pages as a chat room. —Psychonaut 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? Yes, the people are routinely blocked if all they do is using the Wikipedia as a social networking site, which is obviously not the case with Bosniak. And, considering your history with Bosniak, he would certainly not abide by your demands, ergo the whole exercise is only bound to produce further grievance. Consider reading m:Don't be dense. Duja► 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Psychonaut's only intent in this exercise is to cause grievance, or more specifically to antagonize Bosniak. In any case, taking Pscyhonaut at face value, I believe the thing to do is suggest that he take his grievance to the appropriate authorities and let them decide what constitutes "extensive". Fairview360 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Response: Fairview and Duja, thank you for sticking up for me. Me and PaxEquilibrium have engaged in discussions about possible division of Bosnia and its consequences. We have presented maps and a wide range of opinions. Further more, we have engaged in discussions about Kosovo. I honestly don't see what could be wrong with this type of opinionated debate which is, in my opinion, relevant for a wide range of Balkan related edits, for example my proposition to minimum demands for division of Bosnia, here is the map. He has presented reasonable arguments why Kosovo should not be divided, and I presented mine. Both of us have interest in both Srebrenica, Kosovo, and pretty much a wide range of other Balkan related topics. It absolutely does not make any sense that this kind of exchange violates the spirit of Wikipedia. The exchange of productive opinions help us better understand our edits. Bosniak 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)