User talk:Rjecina

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.

Archives 21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008 2 January 2008 – 2 January 2009

Nato

Your opinion is that people in countries don't want NATO membership. NATO is satisfactory at protecting democracy in its member states. In theory, it is supposed to be a democratic organization. In my thinking NATO and the Croatian government can not deny people the right to choose against joining NATO. The government is, however, making it harder for people to fight against the alliance membership by convert people who are unaware of the issue into NATO advocates. This is a method that can be used in Balkan situations. It is extremely similar, in my opinion, to the methods that were effectively used in the 1990's.Mike Babic (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

looks ok

Looks ok to me, I did not check it in sources or anything I will check a few things (not this) when I have the time. Hobartimus (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re sources on Jasenovac

I've responded on my talkpage. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

There has been much work on democratization around the world. Sure, those examples that you mention there are bad. Heck, you could add serbia's election in 2000 there too, as the west pumped in tens of millions of dollars. The point is that there is much real democratization going on in the world. Such democracy promoting institutions have resulted in Latin America pretty much transforming itself in the last 10 years, into a neo-socialist block. I feel that democratization is very good, but that the problem is that it is not done in many places. Furthermore, you are speaking of US government actions, and such organizations as the one in that source do not promote the same thing that the US government does. As for a new election, keep your eyes peeled on el-salvador... FMLN has a good chance of winning there. The work there is the result of many long years of work in democratization. We need more of that. Other great examples of democratization are the situation in apartheid south africa. I am always a supporter of democratization, but not of US meddling in other country's affairs. I hope that we could reach some concensus on this and agree to add that source back, and perhaps use some other sources that I have mentioned over there. Let me know what you think. Perhaps talk page is better than the article discussion, as things get messy and ugly there. (LAz17 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).

In 1975, seven out of ten nations in the world had political systems that were undeniably authoritarian. Two decades later, fewer than three out of ten clearly fit that in that category. What happened, and why? Good change happened, that's what happened. The US has a far way to go to reach real democracy that encourages participation. I have studied much about the a thing that Huntington called the The Third Wave of Democratization. Dictatorial bastard regimes like the murderous one of Pinochet were replaced by civilian governments. This is the main point to democratization that I like. It is good and I will always support it. (LAz17 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).

Republika Srpska

Yea thanks for the advice, I found it suspicious that this ip 67.169.4.255 showed up and started reverting the article right after oxynig was banned. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Q

Hi, I was rather hoping to get an authorative opinion on Srebrenica. Im reading a particulary outspoken source (Barrat Brown, Yugoslavia the lost country) who notes 2300 bodies, only 199 having clearly been executed of the supposed 7500-8000 who were killed during the massacre. Is he right? Were the numbers inflated to make NATO bombardment a possibility? Thanking you Superpie (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Croatia article

I thought i have put the fact tag after someone claimed that moderate Croats were killed by Croatian forces as well.Because i have refference about moderate Serbs killd by their own forces.The biggest problem is that Serbian editors are vandilizing Croatian,Bosniak and Albanian articles in order to confuse people who are not familiar with the subject.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I have also put the tag behing the 350.000,because there is no such informtion that claims that,except maybe in the world of Seselj's syphatizers.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into the discussion. Serbs don't edit or care about Croatian articles. We want to give you guys some space to edit as you see fit. We have an unwritten rule on Wikipedia, Serbs don't edit Croatian and Croats don't edit Serbian articles. This is because of edit warring that usually occurs. This brings me to my most important point. We as Serb editors have one nuclear weapon in our arsenal. That is to describe the hellish crimes we have been though in Croatia on articles such as Croatia, and Croats. These crimes are facts and are relevant to those two articles. Its just that we are humble and merciful. We don't want you as Croats to suffer because of shame that this would bring to your country. We do ask for you to stay fair. For example, stay off of Serbs of Croatia article since it's those Serbs who have suffered the greatest under your tyranny. Stay off, means do not tell me that Serbs speak Croatian, that Vlahs were a group of people, and many more.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are violating Wikipedia rules by demanding what and what not user Rjecina and other Wikipedia members can edit. As for this pseudo-editing rule you are talking about, it false and contrary to Wikipedia's foundations that anyone can edit an article to improve it. It is often the very best thing to have editing disputes and differing opinions on articles because they help create dialogue and push a more neutral, NPOV sections. As for your claim that Serbs and Croats don't edit "each others" articles, that is also a complete falsehood that I will not waste time discussing. Also, it would be in best interests if you do not speak for all Serbian editors on Wikipedia. There is nothing on Wikipedia which would support "we as Serb editors have one nuclear weapon in our arsenal." There is no way you can back up such a fallacious claim.

Your following remarks are purposely inflammatory and are obviously written in a way which you attempt to project your personal frustrations while attempting to display a righteous attitude and play the victim. This is a common tactic found in debaters who engage in personal attacks to propel their own proclaimed greatness, so you must not pay any attention to it, Rjecina. They often begin by testing the waters with back-handed compliments and kindness until they have nothing more relevant to say and move on to vicious attacks and outright insults, while, of course, still professing their righteous displacement. Then they attempt to stand on moral high-ground, which is really nothing than them self-complimenting themselves.--Jesuislafete (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Self control is a key virtue. Supposed that my "fallacious" claim is as follows. Looking at the current history section on Croatia. The article that receives at least 5 thousand views daily. My point is that it doesn't have anything about the crimes in that section. [Crimes] that are true and part of the Croatians history. If I were to add these crimes to the article, it would look extremely bad on Croats in the eyes of the world. I dont write about them because I'm merciful and fair. On the other hand, my requirement is that you edit Serbian article carefully or dont edit them at all if you are there to be nationalistic. Cite, discuss, and be civil when editing. Especially the articles pertaining to the Serbs of Croatia because its those Serbs who have suffered the most under the Croats.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Absence

I just wanted to say I really appreciate your efforts to keep articles unbiased in my absence :) Thanks and keep up the good work. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Intel Atom vs VIA Nano

About your edit: I added "slightly" to reflect a fact, read the article for details. Actually I didn't want to completely rewrite the "competition" section, that's why I just added only "slightly". If you want I can suggest something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demysc (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC

There’s something really wrong with English knowledge of modern history. I sow this link Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941 - 1945 you used as an argument in discussion with other users. After reading it I learned one important peace of recent history of my country and my hometown. According to BBC Partisan forces liberated Belgrade, capital of Yugoslavia, just a few hours before the Red Army arrived. --Marko M (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don’t have a problem with Balkan sources, but our colleagues here obviously prefer BBC. --Marko M (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

3rr false warning

Hi. You gave me a false warning on 3RR. My edits were substantially different. In particular, my last edit corrected most of the numbers Croats in other countries which were obvious result of vandalism - they disagree with the quoted references, often rising numbers in obvious ways (say, for serbia, the reference gives 70,000, and this number was falsified to 170,000 with the last three digits intact. Many other such cases were corrected. This is a truly new edit. As for the data, if one adds partial information from different countries, the data agrees - but even by wildest stretch of imagination and using previous falsified data on countries, you cannot get even close to 9 million, which is claimed by unreliable croatian nationalist source. Only reliable sources are accepted, and croatian nationalist data is certainly not that. Rococoko (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

You are sure?! In fact, I was not part of that discussion, I merely restored the valid info. You jump into conclusions far too easily. The figure of 9 milion is a wild overestimate, and I think you know it, otherwise discrepancy between numbers would be enoug to rise your doubt. But you seem to be just a POV pusher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococoko (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Grammar

Ok :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatia - Hapsburgs

I really like the information you put on the article here [[1]], but I noticed a lot of grammatical errors. I noticed the names of the contributors are Slavic, and the errors are consistent with Slavic versus English use of articles (a, an, the, so on). I'm not sure if I have to ask or not, but I'd like to go in and edit some typos and grammar errors to make the article more properly consistent with English.

I came on the information since I'm doing an article on Croatia from 1989 and onward for my Eastern Central European Politics class, and I would love to hear more that you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredia (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bizso (talk · contribs)

Could please take a look of this dude's writings? He is inserting some severe Magyar gibberish into the history section of the Croatia article you wrote. Many thanks --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's Toroko because he edits other topics as well and his account was created even before Toroko's account, should be the other way around if it's him, I'll take a look at his contribs anyway. Hobartimus (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjecina. You have new messages at TenPoundHammer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rjecina, what is the problem? And why didn't you tell him you're not an admin? Squash Racket (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit surprising as earlier this user edited some articles constructively. Squash Racket (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why these discussions were removed in the first place. There are a number of reliable sources there. I mean if Britannica claims something else than WP it is usually embarrassing for the latter. Squash Racket (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only talking about that discussion, some of these sources do seem to be reliable. No need to be urgent on that, we can discuss when you have time. Squash Racket (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked the citations, only the quality of references. If the citations are presented in a misleading way, these obviously should be corrected. Squash Racket (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread about you

It probably will come as no surprise, but User:Bizso has opened up an ANI thread regarding you here. Oren0 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

Hello, just so you know, modifying and removing talk page comments by others, asyou did here and here is not allowed. Try not to do this in future. Thanks ;-)--Patton^t/c 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bizso isn't a banned user. Please don't remove his comments in future.--Patton^t/c 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Just because someone is from the same city as a banned user doesn't mean they are.-Patton^t/c 19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to your version, the part should be rewritten. Squash Racket (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Constitution

No problem, I can do it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Where can I find the text? BTW, some User:Indexheavy000 tried to reveal your identity, but I reported him and his edits were deleted by oversight. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman ruler of Dalmatia

I have reverted per your input. Things like the box below implied to me that his "rule" was more that a typical Roman general. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted the page, per your input.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

Hi mate,

Were you the one who originally wrote the history sections? Reading what was written there, it is obvious you are very knowledgeable about Croatian history. And I'm sorry I assumed it was Babelfish translated.

Thanks for that offer, I will go back over all my translations, and pick up some new ones too and give you a list. Should happen sometime over the next few days :)

--Carbon Rodney 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your editing and your English

Hello Rjecina, I hate to say it, but there's still a problem with your editing. I told you some time last year: your English. It's become quite serious again at Croatia, and certainly on other articles to which you have been making substantial contributions too. I know you mean well and the intended content of your contributions is mostly decent enough, but your English is so terrible you are in fact doing quite serious damage to the articles. And you write faster than others can clean up after you. It's out of control.

At this point, I'm afraid I think we need to take administrative measures against this editing of yours. I really don't want to block you for a reason like this, but I think you should follow these rules:

When you want to add text to an article, you should from now on:

1. either: contact a competent English speaker who is willing to copyedit your writing after you. You will add text to an article only when you have received the prior promise of an English speaker that they will do this immediately afterwards.
2. or: post your proposed text not to the article but to the talk page, and leave it to others to copyedit your text there.

Can you promise to work like that? I'm sorry, but right now I see no other solution.

(By the way, do you understand what your mistakes are? I tried to explain a few of them to you back last year. You keep making the same mistakes again and again, in almost every sentence you write. Lack of articles, and lack of past tense. Is it really so difficult to use a past tense?)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the initiative, but I'm afraid that will hardly be enough in the long run. I need a commitment from you that you will always, with every edit to every article, take the responsibility that your contributions get corrected by somebody immediately after or, better, before you insert them in article space. Look, you did it again here: [2]. Same errors as always. Let me be clear: if you keep editing without these precautions, I see no alternative but to block you. These texts are really so bad that having no encyclopedic coverage about these topics at all is better than having them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If those are copy-and-paste passages from a translation of the constitution, it's a terribly bad translation. It doesn't make a difference: the problem is still that your English isn't sufficient to recognise just how bad the text is you're inserting. In any case, the sentences you wrote yourself are of the same poor quality too. I'm not really interested in the content dispute on that page, so no, I don't think I'll intervene on that. The quality of the language is all I'm interested in right now.

So, can I have a clear answer please: are you promising to edit within the rules I proposed above, or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why e-mail? The idea is that you post your proposed texts on the article's talk page. Then anybody who finds them worth including can correct them. That's actually what I'd recommend you do, so you don't need to run after your friends bugging them for translations all the time (which would be tiresome for the volunteers, after a while.)

Your noticeboard report doesn't look very clear. If you want to claim that person is a sock of a banned user, it's better to say so straight away. The way you put it, it sounds like a normal content dispute, mostly. I won't be around for the next day or two, so I'm afraid I won't be able to deal with it much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatia in personal union with Hungary

Can you explain this paragraph:

"Following the disappearance of the Croatian ruling dynasty in 1091 Ladislaus I of Hungary brother of Jelena Lijepa, the last Croatian queen, will become king of Croatia. Croatian nobility of Littoral opposed this crowning which has led to 10 years of war and the recognition of the Hungarian ruler Coloman as the common king for Croatia and Hungary in a treaty of 1102 (often referred to as the Pacta conventa). Kingdom of Croatia during personal union has never lost right to elect kings different from Hungarian had the ruling dynasty become extinct, and in 1293 and 1403"

Thanks. I think I got the rest :)

--Carbon Rodney 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary comments

Do not remove comments like this. Archive them if you wish but do not remove them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you made mistake, no chance it was 1330.

You are joking? Nicholas' successor and head of the Montenegrin state in exile is not relevant and is just thinking of 1 person? The person whih recognized Yugoslavia and withdrew his claimhold as the King of Montenegro in favor of the Karageorgevich dynasty? Deletin this is just like asking to delete to the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivast (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your false information

Hi Rjecina! I've realized that you can maintain your false information you introduced into articles about Croatia, Hungary and others you may edit, as long as you want. The admins can do nothing about it because they don't know that much about Croatian or Hungarian history. And if someone comes to correct you, you simply revert them sooner or later, as you are on Wikipedia virtually every day. Keep up the good work! Bye --Bizso (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@both of you. I fixed the population numbers at Croats, there were some problems, like, for example, the source for Belgium said "810", but the article said "1,810". It appears that the correct numbers got mixed up during all the edit warring.

@Bizso. Please don't accuse Rjecine, he was trying to restore what looked like correct numbers. He has in the past tried to correct them, for example here. There are some IPs around changing the figures without updating the source, for example in the brazilian numbers, see here and here. See how this IP only makes edits that misquote the sources of various populations in Brazil, not just croats and serbs but also austrians and Swiss people[3]. There are some articles that are plagued by these figure-changing people.

@Rjecina. If you want to keep articles under control, then I suggest that you change only one thing in every edit, making a good explanation on the edit summary. By the way, thanks for posting the calculations at Talk:Croats#Number_of_Croats, I was about to change the number and I was going to get it wrong, but I then I saw your comments and fixed it instead.

Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Rjecina. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Socket_puppet_accusations_by_User:Rjecina. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that some of us admins are discussing possible restrictions for you and Bizso at WP:ANI, under Proposed solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I don't know much about this guy. You are sure he'll be a good admin? Squash Racket (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is strange indeed. You might be right. Squash Racket (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking please don't replace secondary sources with primary sources (it's OK here as you added English sources) and secondary sources with tertiary sources. Secondary sources are considered the best and most reliable.
Instead of deletion in such cases you should add the less reliable sources as alternatives. Squash Racket (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT

Basically, oversight is super-secret deletion, a form that even admins cannot see. Now, the other policy you should see is WP:OUTING. If anyone tries to play games with what they think is your real name or any part of your real identity, they can be blocked immediately and that the edits are oversighted. Of course, the problem is, since nobody can see the edits, it's really really hard to tell what exactly happened. They oversighted the IP edit you mentioned at ANI (do not repeat its contents in any way) so nobody can see it anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust template at Jasenovac concentration camp

I have started a section at Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Holocaust_template about the disagreement over the inclusion of the Holocaust template. If you could please respond there, instead of continuing to fight at the article, that would be a great help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "there was no disagreement over the inclusion of the template", then what was the edit warring over? I support User:138.88.15.10 including it and so does User:Big Bird. As you pointed out, I was being inconsistent over at Adolf Hitler and I corrected myself there. Consensus can change and a discussion from March 2009 is far from the view in November 2007. It's a basic view: if it's linked in the template, the article should have the template. Has nothing to do with whether the template should have the article linked into it. If you recall at Template talk:The Holocaust, I actually support your view but it's just a general policy on template usage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Rjecina, I would like to ask that you edit and remove a lot of language from your user page. User:Rjecina, in this form, is extremely divisive in my opinion and in fact can be considered a violation of policy. An overarching policy is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and if you do not clean it up, I will list it for deletion at WP:MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus but I will leave it alone. I do however think you should reconsider and try to have something less hostile. Let's just say that if you saw someone with the opposing viewpoints, would you be comfortable in disputes? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just I'm not never comfortable with users who's entire page consists of "I and we must fight for THE TRUTH", in the sort of tone. I find that those users are typically the ones who have the hardest time actually discussing and debating what the truth really is. Again, if someone who just passed by your page without everyone having dealt with you saw your page, what does that look like? I think generally a lot of your disputes and drama could be reduced if you instead first focused on finding sources and then second looked at what those sources are saying. It's clear that most of your opponents have a clear resulting text they want primarily and then are just looking for whatever they can find that supports that, even if it's clearly nonsense. While it's short-term productive at getting what they want, ultimately it's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User Republika Srpska

There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a strong difference between "I support the abolishment of something" versus generally "I support something." However, it looks like I'm in the minority, so I'll withdraw that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation right now

Rjecina, before you conduct another edit anywhere here, I want you to explain two things to me:

• First, in this edit to Croats, you add a number of sources to the population figures, inflating all of them. Having reviewed exactly one, for reference 4 to the CIA factbook, you wrote that Bosnia and Herzegovina had an estimated population of 982,643 (2008). Now I see the factbook listing a total population in Bosnia as 4,590,310 with 14.3% Croatian population or about 656,414.. Explain the discrepancy right now.
• Second, at Coloman of Hungary, you added the King of Croatia language here. This source says "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia." This source (which I probably wouldn't find reliable anyways) explicitly says "It is untrue that the Croatians submitted them-selves to the king of Hungary by an international agreement in 1102."

I haven't reviewed the rest but if I find more like this without a very good explanation as soon as possible, I will block you indefinitely and move for immediate community bans. It's one thing to POV-push and be a general ass to deal with. It's a whole another ballgame to falsify sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, I think you haven't really answered the problem with your responses to Ricky. The problem is not whether Croatia was or was not a separate kingdom. The problem is that you inserted a claim to that effect in the article, together with poorly selected sources that were saying the exact opposite of your claim. Also, with the Croats population numbers, you did make this edit, where you (unintentionally, I'm sure) reinserted several pieces of sneaky vandalism, which another user had just corrected previously. You reverted him without any edit summary and without any explanation.

This seems all to be part of a tendency on your part, of being very quick to revert everybody else, just because you distrust other users, but without paying much attention to what you are actually reverting. I'm afraid we'll need some rules for this too. From now on, I'd ask you to be very careful to:

1. Always use clear, informative edit summaries, especially (but not only) when you revert others
2. Never revert other users on a mere suspicion that they are banned sockpuppets. Only revert them in cases where such sockpuppetry has been clearly proven. And when you do it, again, always use a clear edit summary, making clear whether you are reverting solely because of somebody being banned, or whether you are doing so on the merits of the actual edit.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think as the discussion at ANI indicates, admins takes falsification of information very, very seriously regardless of how long ago it was done. You edit a lot in a number of articles and finding sneaky vandalism like this typically does take months to uncover. The only other time I have seriously threatened you with the tools was over your liberal usage of "rv banned user" months ago. I hope you understand my feelings, and I recognize I probably overreacted. I think you should follow Future Perfect's advice. If you are reverting blindly because you think they are sockpuppets, that's one thing. However, if you are reverting to a version because you disagree with the content, then at some level there's responsibility for the information you are restoring. At the same time, Bizso was way out of line to imply that you yourself were the one introducing these edits here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion: please use requests for page protection liberally. If there is a heated edit war going on, the better advice is to stop warring, request protection and try to start a discussion. If (and seeing most of the editors, that's a likely if) they chose not to discuss or are insulting or generally unclear, then that conduct is more likely to result in blocks for the nonsense players. I hope you can at least see that I am generally willing to at least warn and even block anyone who is insulting, regardless of their side. If not, then I will start asking for others to do for me but that's going to be much, much slower. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template on Nazi

Hi - would it be possible for you to have a look at moving the template around such that it improves the formatting of the overall article? At the moment there is a big gap between the lede and the remainder of the article. Ta Shot info (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Brick in the wall

Congrats Rjecina, you managed to get away with this, although you barely said a word. I honestly don't believe that you didn't know that the 2 sources you added were stating the contrary. You knew them very well, because those sources had been discussed in other threads and you knew what they were about. Second, I also don't believe that you didn't know that while claiming vandalism, you were in fact reinserting the wrong numbers, and that you didn't see that original edit. Although, it is clear what you did, and there's also evidence, it doesn't matter because you have some good admin friends here to protect you. I wonder how many days it will take until you yourself become an admin.

p.s.: Don't remove my sources and text that I add.--Bizso (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP report

Note that User:Bizso has started Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjecina (1st). Please add any comments under that section, although I will say that I personally think it's better to say nothing really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SANU Memorandum

I went ahead and added some info including the document itself, thought you might be interested to take a look. PRODUCER (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies as propaganda

"The expulsion of the Serbian people from Kosovo bears dramatic testimony to their historical defeat. In the spring of 1981, open and total war was declared on the Serbian people…This open war has been going on for almost five years…we are still not looking this war in the face, nor are we calling it by its proper name."

The Memorandum asserts, without evidence, that 200,000 Serbs had been forced to leave Kosovo in the last two decades and continues:

"It is not just that the last remnants of the Serbian nation are leaving their homes at an unabated rate, but according to all evidence, faced with a physical, moral and psychological reign of terror, they seem to be preparing for their final exodus. Unless things change radically, in less than ten years time, there will no longer be any Serbs in Kosovo, and an "ethnically pure" Kosovo, that unambiguously stated goal of the Greater Albanian racists… will be achieved… Kosovo's fate remains a vital question for the entire Serbian nation. If it is not resolved… if genuine security and unambiguous equality for all peoples living in Kosovo and Metohija are not established; if objective and permanent conditions for the return of the expelled nation are not created, then this part of the Republic of Serbia and Yugoslavia will become a European issue, with the gravest possible foreseeable consequences." PRODUCER (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Nicholas Windsor

Lady Nicholas Windsor before known as Paola Dojmi di Delupis changed her surname as her father Louis Doimi de Lupis de Frankopan Subic Zrinski changed his surname. Now there are some users who deny valid information on how this change of surname came about. If you could enlighten us; with your comment on how Frankopan (Frankapan), Šubić and Zrinski came to be extinct (in the meaning of male line of succession), we would be all very grateful to you. Thanks for every comment you make. -- Imbris (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacta conventa (Croatia)

Both sides will stop the edit warring right now or I'll protect the page and block both of you equally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not guilty of 3RR

Decline reason:

WP:3RR refers to reverts "in whole or in part." While you are making other changes, there are things you were reverting more than 3 times. In any case, even 3 reverts is bad, and even though there was a discussion ongoing the fact that you were reverting anyway is a bad sign: in other words, 3RR or not you were still edit warring. Mangojuice^talk 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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

• 1 revert has been in 19:38 [4]
• This is not 2 revert [5]
• this is not second revert [6] , but answer to user demand because he is speaking about incomprehensible sentence [7]
• My next 2 reverts are without question [8] [9]

Point is that between first 19:15 and last 20:17 revert there is important text change [10] with which I have tried to make "everybody" happy. In first revert User Bizso has "removed speculation" [11]. My answer has been adding another statement and another source (this is not revert). Then he reverted because of my "incomprehensible sentence". I have changed sentence (this is not revert), but he has reverted again and then I have reverted second od 3rd time.--Rjecina (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not entitled to three reverts per day. Edit warring overall is not productive. Go to the talk page and discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[12] made on March 18 2009 to Pacta_conventa_(Croatia)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: NATO

Done. Also, I've formatted the reference using {{cite web}}. You might want to use it, too. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another round at WP:ANI

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rjecina_again, focusing on your editing at Svetozar Boroević and at Talk:Royal Hungary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to offer an defense of yourself there, I would suggest doing it beforehand rather than after. Otherwise, I think you can see which way the discussion is going. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned

You have seen the thread at the noticeboard and responded to it. I think it is fair to say that there is a clear feeling among observers there that your statement has done little to address the concerns. So, with regret, I see no other perspective at this point than to go ahead with the ban. I am blocking your account, for a year. I would ask you that if you decide to return after that, or if you decide to appeal for a lifting of the ban before that, you should first work seriously on understanding why this had to happen.

I hope you won't take this personally, and I wish you all the best for whatever you do outside this project.

For the record, here is a link to the ban discussion: [13]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)