User talk:Potočnik

I	II	III
Home	Talk	Contributions

Blocked again

I've blocked you for a week for edit warring and complete failure to use the talk page at Republika Srpska. Furthermore, you are subject to a permanent WP:1RR restriction on that page. Furthermore, you are obliged to leave this message on you talk page for at least the next six months William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I provided a WP:3O at Talk:Bosnian_American#Third_Opinion. I hope—but cannot guarantee!—that it will be useful to you and the project. I will keep the talk page on my watchlist for a short time in case my response to any follow-up comments/concerns would be helpful to achieving consensus. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Džeko

Please stop inserting non-consensual information to the infobox. This has been discussed on the talk page, and it is for country of birth, not province (or whatever Bosnia was in Yugoslavia). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been discussed several times before, but to fill you in, players who play for the home nations (e.g. England, Scotland etc) have those countries displayed as their country of birth, as they were "independent" (in football terms) at the time of their birth. In Džeko's case, Bosnia was not an independent state in terms of football at the time of his birth. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radovan Karadžić

I have reverted your edit because the words you used were lifted directly from the source you provided; this is a breach of copyright, and I invite you to either reword in your own words, or quote the source, with appropriate introductory words. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska

I have edited some of the content you added. There are quite a few problems. First of all, you need to stop cutting and pasting: you have been warned before that such behavior is a copyright violation, and editors who would remove such content are perfectly in their right. (A related matter: I've let the footnotes to those two cities stand for now, even though that's editorializing on your part: the footnotes are not found in the direct quote from the source, though you never acknowledged that it was a direct quote.) Second, you need to make clear the difference between fact and statement. You have a tendency to present statements as facts, and that runs counter to common sense and to Wikipedia policy. Finally, overloading the articles with this information really places undue weight on one issue; some of it could legitimately find its way into Politics of Republika Srpska, since you insinuate, by way of the STP and the International Crisis Group, that this is systematic and endemic to the political situation.

I urge you to try to engage in dialogue on the talk page, and to consider following some of my advice. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cases

Hello PRODUCER. I would like to inform you that I included "cases" which cannot be declared as massacres in Bosnian War template, but they are often mentioned. Those cases still lack relaible validation, naming whether they were massacres, war crimes, battles, incidents. I also intent to find some information about Vranica case, and to included it in template. Journalist 007 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and Cite web

Please add the link like this | url = http://www.example.org/. The | language = parameter is for the language that the link is written in (if English than don't bother). Debresser (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop this edit warring! Wikipedia does not obey to any constitution-neither the one from BiH!

until we find the "constituitional " symbols these ones remain there! Resources for Bosniak language are also sourced and removing them is vandalism!

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert warning

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

Main Picture of SARAJEVO

I think the new picture I placed is better, and more beautiful, why you place an old one ? Sand Patrol (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I have included Bosniak userboxes on my profile page. Thank you for letting me know about them. Bosniak (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canton 10

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

Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War

Hello, the change you made on the template is quite refreshing, though I think it would be better to list all events in the template chronologically rather than alphabetically. For example, camps should be ordered by the date they were established (Heliodrom, Manjaca etc.) instead of (Celebici, Dretelj, etc). Diplomatic events as well ... That's just suggestion, I don't now is there a rule for this kind of templates, so I made no changes, but if there isn't chronological order would be much better for overall picture of Bosnian War. Emir Arven (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]