Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 17 August 2011

New.

Bosnian Genocide

You are quite right that they were Serb forces. PBS is also right that they were to date identified by ICTY/ICJ findings as being under Bosnian Serb command. PBS is a stickler for what he considers the primary legal precedent, and has also defined the framework of the article in a way that narrows down the substance of what others understand by the term "Bosnian genocide". You'll waste a lot of time going round the houses arguing with him. I'm not clear what the basis of his rigorous "legalism" is but I consider it inimical to an adequate coverage of the subject. I have argued with him that the article requires a different introductory definition, but this requires careful thought to avoid the usual going round in circles in this area and unfortunately over the last month domestic circumstances have got in the way of my following up. However hopefully I'll be in a position to get down to dealing properly with the topic in the very near future. In the meanwhile maybe you'd like to read through some of the arguments on the Bosnian genocide Discussion page to get the general feel of the situation at the article. Opbeith (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since your last contribution at the Bosnian Genocide article Talk page, there has been prolonged discussion of the issues and a proposal to move the article to Genocide in Bosnia as a way of resolving some of the problems associated with the title "Bosnian Genocide". If you have any thoughts, your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated. Opbeith (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stari Most

Hi. When you make edits such as these, please make sure that you don't change referenced material without changing or adding to the references. You edits made it look like the existing reference supports the claims about more than 80 shells being fired at the bridge and about the Croatian army being involved, when it mentions neither of these. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Greater Bosnia"

You may wish to explicitly weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greater Bosnia, Anthony converted your speedy deletion request into an AfD request. --Joy (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dijana Culjak

The article Dijana Culjak has been proposed for deletion because under Misplaced Pages policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

place reason here

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners or ask at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Baseball Watcher 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I just started to work on it.

Maps

Please, respond discussion. If you do not do that, I'll assume that you agree and map will be removed. Best regards, --Čeha (razgovor) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

The atrocities perpetrated by the Mujahideen should be adequately reflected in the article, probably under their own section heading, rather than in the ICTY trials, which deal with command responsibility. You just deleted an insertion about the execution of Dragan Popovic. It seems to conflict in detail with the ICTY source, so the deletion was consistent with the explanation you gave in the edit summary, but nevertheless the Popovic element of the edit was substantively legitimate so perhaps you could edit and include reference to the Popovic killing. The ICTY Hadzihasanovic-Kubura case account of Mehmed Alagic's follow-up is indicative of the way the Mujahideen under Abu Haris were operating in disregard of the ArBiH command. Opbeith (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Corridor. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there is a discussion about this matter on the WP:ANI page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)