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)

What the heck? I feel like being in the USSR. If a say a word that is not the accepted by SOME PEOPLE then I am accused of being a vandal? Do you know what the concept of FREE SPEECH means? Are you accusing me because of the Croatia Hungary relationships?! THAT's CALLED A DISPUTE! And it's not only me! Historians argue on ACADEMIC LEVEL! WIKIPEDIA is NOT YOURS!. It's meant to present the sheer facts! Wikipedia lists all significant viewpoints! That the policy of NPOV:Balance. What you do is you oppress one of the viewpoints, so that you artifically justify yours! ALL viewpoints should exists beside one another if there is a dispute! Are you going to ban me for citing the opinions of other academics that do not conform to you ideas? Who the hell do you think you are? And who the hell are those names that you put on my user page? Are you paranoid? Am I Torokko? Rly? I didn't know that. What you do is you exploit your admin rights to censor Wikipedia. But it is not just you. In the Croatia in personal union with Hungary talk everything was deleted that cited sourced Academic Level References of the other viewpoint. And because I readded them I am called a Vandal? That's the Joke of the century! --Bizso (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WE MUST ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH? Is that your motto?? LOL DISRUPTIVE ACCOUNT? Omfg I shit my pants! Man try to restrain your dictatoristic attitude Rjecina!--Bizso (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain it to me why you removed the information on the dispute about the pacta conventa in the article Croatia? I am looking forward to you answer!--Bizso (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting

Dear Rjecina,
Just to let you know, I am reporting you. Have a good night--Bizso (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina,
I am staggered at how you can let yourself behave like this. You are censoring Wikipedia! Intentionally! And you are an Admin! You know the right facts! But you still change them! Where ther is a dispute, you supress the other viewpoint! Does it make you feel good? Or why are you doing it?--Bizso (talk) 04:25, 17 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)

Mile Budak

http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp Could you, please, explain all text changes and reference removal on the talk page - before commiting them?--138.88.15.10 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please, avoid misinterpretation of the Wikipedia rules. One of them is - assume good faith. At the end - you are not entering any discussion before removing other people's AGV edits which is vandalism or even incivilty.--138.88.15.10 (talk) 17:07, 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)