Talk:Goraždevac

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PLease NPOV this

Hello, time to clean up this article and remove the old un stuff. this is in kosovo and please bring it in line with the rest of the articles. thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If the old UN stuff is correct, significant and verifiable it should stay. If not it should not be three in the first place. "Old" is not a problem - in fact it is in some ways a virtue, since we suffer from [{WP:RECENTISM]]. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

The sourcing problem

I'm surprised that unsourced content is repeatedly and defiantly added to this article. Anonimski, surely you already know what our core policy says, but I will repeat it here to avoid any doubt:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

It is disappointing that you flout this policy over and over again, on controversial topics. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• What are you on about? The section is a summary of 2003 Goraždevac murders, and links to 2003 Goraždevac murders which is sourced already by BBC, New York Times, and CSM. - Anonimski (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your inability to read or comply with policy is not my problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do you considered the section "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I don't see any such problem with the information provided on the 2003 Goraždevac murders page. What is your suggestion, do you think that the refs should be pasted onto this page as well? - Anonimski (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you now added sources for the content that you revert-warred into the article. Good. You don't have to thank me; you just have to try following WP:V in future. bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your approach was uncollaborative and unconstructive from the very beginning. The issue you presented could have been fixed much quicker if you had bothered yourself to look at the topics before complaining in that manner, as it was only a matter of copy-pasting refs from the main article. I don't really have anything to thank you for. - Anonimski (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Will you try to follow WP:V in future? bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered to the question where you were asked on whether you saw the material as "challenged or likely to be challenged" (quote from WP:V) after I added the wikilink to the article 2003 Goraždevac murders in which another user had provided multiple sources. Will you try to read more thoroughly in the future before writing anything careless? - Anonimski (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't even accept that deleted material has been "challenged", I give up hope. Please try to follow WP:V in future. It's important. bobrayner (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You challenged a section with a "Main article" hatnote that links to a place where the info about the incident has been sourced? What a remarkable way of editing Wikipedia. I give up hope as well. - Anonimski (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goraždevac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129132236/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR010162003?open&of=ENG-CHE to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR010162003?open&of=ENG-CHE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)