User talk:Rjecina

; Archives
	21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007; 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007; 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008; 2 January 2008 – 1 August 2008;

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you.

Design copied from User:Duja.

Comment on reverts

I see four reverts of yours in a six day period whilst there is discussion ongoing on the talkpage. You did not know at the time that these users were banned users, they have only been blocked in the last two days. As such, the 3RR rule applies. As it is now, carry on the discussion on the talkpage regarding this, (and continue to revert blocked editors, though they are not yet banned). You don't need my permission to remove comments from your talkpage, you can do that whenever you want. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the IP reverts because they are still reverts, no matter who makes them, even if they are an editor cicumventing a block or 3RR. In those cases, they will be found out and blocked as has happened in this case. In terms of Decensi, yes, you can revert on site because he is effectively banned. The edits of banned users (including their socks) can be reverted on site. It is clear that someone operating that amount of sockpuppets will remain blocked indefinitely and as such can be considered banned. Remember, a Ban is different to a Block. Your course of action was correct, alert an admin through WP:AIV, WP:ANI and they will block them. In this case, it is obviously a sock so you can revert, but remember, if it is not 100% obvious, then wait for an admin/checkuser to look into it and deal with it. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Ok, but an RfC would make more sense. That's standard in these kind of disputes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Pax blocked? That's so hard to imagine that he used this many sockpuppets he usually "got his way" alone anyway by reverting as far as I've seen. I'm shocked by this I'll have to review the case first, thanks for telling me about this. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he was a incredibly active user too I don't get how he could edit even more with different accounts. Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest sock doing the same edit as the previous ones confirmed before [1]. Hobartimus (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV...

...is only intended for persistent vandals. Reports about sockpuppets are better placed at WP:SSP, where you can make more detailed reports, evidence is saved, and it's easier to respond to comments. If you could, please move your report there so it can be handled easier. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but first and foremost, they're a sockpuppeteer. Since most site-bans relate to sockpuppetry, we need to gather all evidence of multiple account abuse on a single page. The directions at WP:SSP have you create a subpage, which then can contain evidence from multiple cases. At WP:AIV, reports are immediately removed once the account is blocked, and become very difficult to find for later review. Hope this helps some. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct venue for sockpuppetry is WP:SSP. Woody was giving you a general list of the sites where reports can be made, but from what I can tell, he wasn't specifically directing you towards any of those, and he didn't mention several of our other reporting noticeboards. WP:AIV is generally for severe and persistent vandalism that doesn't seem related to anything else, and WP:ANI is for severe and exceptional cases that often require discussion amongst several administrators and other users. If an ANI report doesn't go answered for a while, make a new comment in the same section and someone should notice it shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken

I'm asking if the statements from the book are considered reliable. If they're POV pushing, then no they aren't. If they're NPOV then yes they are. Are the conclusions that Viktor Novak draws in the work NPOV? No. Are the quotes he collected from eye witness accurate? Most likely yes. That's what the RfC is about. Seeing if people agree that statements given to the author are acceptable, not if the work is acceptable. A ni Mate 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply alot more information out there available to the English speaking world about Nazi war crimes and criminals is the easiest answer I can give you. However, I understand where you're coming from. I'm not comfortable with some of the huge block quotes that are currently in the article, but getting consensus takes time. You also have to understand that some of the best people for this kind of work absolutely refuse to do it. There have been countless arguments in regards to eastern Europe, and many qualified admins are worn out with the recriminations and accusations they receive when trying to mediate disputes involving the region. I digress. If people are willing to participate (and with Eastern European politics, there's a high chance they won't) we can at least get a general sense about what people think. They might all disagree with you. Are you willing to let it go if they do? Next step we can always try the Mediation Cabal or formal mediation. That's all the advice I can offer you. A ni Mate 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you feel. I'm glad you're helping keep sock puppeteers from editing, but don't let your dislike of them stop you from seeing that editors who agree with them might be doing so for valid reasons. Also remember, we're editors first, vandal fighters second. I must say, my experiences in this area are making me understand why so many editors refuse to deal with situations like the one we are currently in. Try not to be to stubborn, because fighting a sockpuppet isn't worth alienating your fellow editors. A ni Mate 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi, Rjecina.
I don't know if you have you asked CU's services regarding this case, but I think I've found something interesting.
Recently, you've disguised a sockpuppeteer. I've been browsing some of edits of those sockpuppets, and I've found strange coincidence.
Remember banned user:Justiceinwiki (banned 22 Nov 2007} [2] and his interest for the article Prebilovci? Here's his case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki.
See edit history of that article.
Take a look who else showed interest.
User Kirker (currently, you have talk with him on article about Miroslav Filipović).
See his edit history [3]. First edit in 26 May 2007. See his area of interest. Userpage still empty (often case with SPA accounts; though, not necessarily). Does this ring a bell?
Who else edited that article? Recent 50 edits:
User Kirker appeared 10 Dec 2007.
Special:Contributions/62.63.212.13. See vandal revert [4] (17:03, 18 December 2007).
Special:Contributions/217.209.200.153 (14:33, 18 December 2007) See comment on revert. [5]. Kubura (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page. Kirker (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, Kubura thinks you should make the checkuser referral, so please go ahead. Or are you both going to back out of it, having started the rumour? If you want to be courteous and tell me why you think I should be investigated, that would be appreciated. At one time I offered to tidy up your dreadful copy before you put it into articles. You chose not to accept that offer, which is perhaps just as well, because I'm no longer sure that you are entirely objective. Also I sometimes can't even understand what it is that you are trying to say. I'm sorry if you think it strange that I sometimes edit stuff after you. Sometimes it's because you or someone else has drawn my attention to something I might want to comment on and sometimes it's because you or someone else have revived an article on my watchlist. Yes, I guess that is very strange. Kirker (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Look, Rjecina. We had an RfC. Did anyone say you were right and that the citations were in violation of WP:NPOV? You misunderstood WP:NPOV. Plase read the following carefully:

Other articles have nothing to do with this one. Put them out of your mind.

You do not even have to mention the Yugoslav wars. They have nothing at all to do with this whole matter.

POV pushing.
- The eyewitness accounts are well sourced and corroborated by User:Kirker. They are in accordance with WP:V.
- The eyewitness accounts are, as Alasdair tells you, written in a completely unbiased way.
- If they are sourced and written in an unbiased, encyclopedic way, they are absolutely and totally NOT POV-pushing. Do you understand?

You have misunderstood the policy. It does NOT allow you to remove sourced data if you think the article is POV. You can't do that

There is nothing that allows you to remove the citations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: quoting eyewitness statements is the best way to represent them in articles. Especially if they are written in an unbiased way. These quotes only say what happened, nothing more, nothing less. 2 short quotations is not too many. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

Your vandalism on user pages has been reverted. If you continue you will be blocked. This is your first and last warning.PaxVendetimus (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First edit and already threatning?
Oh, is this you, Pax? [6] and [7]. Kubura (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those Marcellogo's ("good" and the "bad" one). Same area of interest, Pax. Kubura (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Peter

I responded on the article's talk page to your question about who finished second in the killing competition. Kirker (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rijeka terror attack

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rijeka terror attack, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krajina and rebels

I've tried to fix the Operation Storm intro as best I could. But it is not easy, and the last thing any of us want to do is overload the introduction with information which will be covered in detail throughout the article. I accept that it does need some form of overview, as many (such as I) often consult pages just to see the intro for a taster as to what it is, and then browse elsewhere. Because the Krajina Serbs declared their independence before Croatia, the last time Krajina formed a part of the rest of Croatia was when it was a federal republic in Yugoslavia. If the world never recognised the Serbian republic, then there is no need to say "recaptured", or "regained", or "retook" because the world recognised it as being part of Croatia in the first place. What the government of Zagreb had done in August 1995 was establish sovereignty of the region, which all of Krajina's citizens - regardless of ethnic group - will have been compelled to recognise. That is why I use the term "incorporate": it doesn't indicate that "independent Croatia had it, then lost it, then took it again" which is misleading (as far as being independent goes), and it also doesn't state that "Croatia annexed it" either, which is also misleading since Croatia did have a claim on the land. The rebel business is very tricky, and here more than anywhere we need to be careful. Kosovar Albanians often proclaimed themselves to be rebels, since they regocnised their territory to be within Yugoslavia before 1990, even during the growing unrest from 1981 onwards. Serbs of Krajina had never referred to themselves as rebels, neither had their sympathisers outside of Planet Serbia. Again, it is more a matter of timing: their independence forces were indeed viewed as rebels by Zagreb. Zagreb seccesionists were viewed as rebels by Belgrade. The term is relative, rather like "opponent", one man's opponent is another man's ally. Croatia's over-all success in the whole affair doesn't give editors a green light to present cases in a Pan-Croatian light. As far as heavyweights are concerned: Croatia is Croatia, always has been, its association with former Yugoslav republics are not relevant, not even when discussing matters pre-1991. You see that this leads to confusion and error: hence the reason, an independent Croatia did not retake that what it didn't control as a separate entity! And in a conflict which initially involved the remnants of a once larger army of which Croatian citizens once formed a part (the YPA, JNA), you can see why Croatian soldiers were seen in some quarters are rebels (ie. Croats who took up arms in the very early stages were not members of an internationally recognised military). By the time Croatia was recognised in 1992, the Krajina affair had long been in effect, and who rebels against whom was by then a lost cause. Evlekis (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

ok, ok... won't touch the articles :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rijeka terror attack

I have nominated Rijeka terror attack, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rijeka terror attack. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category speedy tagging

Hi Rjecina. No reason was given for deletion; see WP:CSD. The category wasn't empty so I was unsure as to the rationale. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Za dom

Another one for you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Translation

"For your tireless struggle against Wiki-vandals. In your place I would have lost my patience long ago." :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper socks

I have a though that leaving all the articles that the PaxEquilibrium socks are attacking unprotected will force him to use up his sleeper accounts. I think User:Thatcher has prevented him from creating new accounts, so his only recourse is to use up older accounts. I know this might be painful for you, but they are easy to spot and revert, and I think this might make the problem go away sooner in the long run. What do you think? Kevin (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Actually, no I did not know that. I haven't been on wiki in a while. Doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of socks going on, I had a feeling someone was controlling all those. How does the situation go? Is he still creating more socks? --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking out his sock puppets contributions.....he really went out of his way to stalk your edits. Congratulations on getting him. Some of his edits are very disturbing. Heh.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha! Actually I can totally expect that of him, seeing his real side through his socks now, and his thoughts on Croats, and apparently a strange obsession with Thompson. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Roughly you can say so... I mean definition of prominent. I met User:MikeBabic already. He's just a kid of some Serb who escaped to Serbia. That's where his indoctrination comes from. I saw that there was some Krajina fighter too? I wonder what his prominance came from? Killing?Zenanarh (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in Filipović article

In addition to what I said on that page where Kubura put his complaint, I want to point out something else to you. In the Filipović article I am concerned only with the truth. So it is obvious for instance that massacres occurred near Banja Luka (which is NOT in Croatia, by the way). But it is not obvious that Filipović took part in them. I have referred to sources that implicate him and I have included his own denial. (On the talk page I have also drawn attention to some documents in Croatian and Serbian, that someone like you could easily understand, which say something about whether he was involved. (But I suppose that little bit of work would be too much for you.)

Later in the article, I have included a quotation from one of his own statements. I did this for two reasons.

1) It is a chance to hear him talking in his own words. This helps readers to get some idea of his personality. If you look at where I took the quotation from, you will see that I could have chosen to quote him talking about worse things.

2) When I saw his own statements for the first time, I was surprised that he was so ready to admit his involvement in very serious crimes. It made me think that if he had taken part in the crimes at Drakulić etc, he would have said so. In other words, it made me question the credibility of the people who said he had been involved in those crimes. For this reason I thought I should put in some of his own words. It gives readers a better chance to judge him fairly. But maybe this point is too subtle for zou to understand.

Anyway, whatever you think, quotations in articles are perfectly acceptable under the Wikipedia rules.Kirker (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For amazing diligence in combating sock vandalism, I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, you cooked up nice octopussy with the potatoes under peka. Zenanarh (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably...

...another one User:MilanMilutinovic. Zenanarh (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstalled my edits for RSK page. There is a humungous difference between a Serb-dominated JNA, and a JNA where most citizens are Serb. To say that it is Serb dominated reflects that it is purely designed to represent Serb interest (ie. there is conflict inside it between Serbs, and those opposed to Serb intentions, and somehow, Serbs come out more powerful, hence they are dominant). We are talking about numbers, Serbs were highly dominant in number, and that was because we, and Slovenes, and Muslims all defected. Montenegrins did not, and any army in which Serbs are a partner with someone else means that they are all working together for a joint cause. In 1992, I myself fought in Homeland War, so I too for some years ate the propaganda fed to me daily by my superiors and by our government. I was led into believing that I was defending Croatia against Serb nationalizm. What I was told, and later how things actually emerged for me, turned out two totally different things. I don't regret my country being independent, but I don't like to spread lies either. Milosevic and his allies always believed in some kind of Yugoslav federation, even if he wanted to be its sole decision maker. Actual Serb nationalists, never believed in the cause - yhey were in "internal" conflict with Milosevic, but they were not the "dominant" ones. Balkantropolis (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]