Fairview360

207.194.55.89 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)== Hi Fairview360 ==

Check this out:

1. http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html

2. http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/fighting_for_peace.html

--Bosniak 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

******* Double Standard Against Bosniaks ***********

- my response to ChrisO -

ChrisO doesn't want me to use copy of the original investigative article that was published in 1993 by David Bernstein (Pacific News Service). The reason is because he thinks this is a personal website http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html . What difference does it make? It's still original article published 13 years ago by Pacific News Service with full copyright notice? http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html

On the other hand - he allows use of personal "lists" or "groups", such as "mail-archive" and Serb-run "balkanpeace" from Toronto when reading articles republished from Canada's Globe and Mail, example http://www.mail-archive.com/serbian_way@antic.org/msg00008.html

Anyways, balkanpeace.org is Serb-run website in which Bosniaks, Croats and other ethnic groups are portrayed as the worst of the worst, while Serb crimes are excused.

One more thing - if I stop being active here, then you will know that they banned me. And if that happens, it will be clear example of pro-Serb one-sidedness and double-standard that is attempting to plague this very important article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre .

I urge ChrisO to protect Srebrenica Massacre article in a same way Israel's article is protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel .

And remember: Srebrenica massacre article is not about Serbs or pro-Serb lobbyists such as General Lewis Mackenzie. Srebrenica massacre article is about 8,000+ victims of genocide. Let's focus on the victims and honor them.

How would you feel if you lost your children, mother, grandmother, grandfather and all people that you loved and lived for? Ask yourself this question every time you edit Srebrenica massacre article. Search for love and compassion in your heart, you will find it.

And remember: Sreebrenica massacre article is not about failed politicians and their adventures in lobbying for Milosevic. Srebrenica massacre article is about victims of genocide, not failed political figures such as MacKenzie who was kicked from Sarajevo due to his open pro-Serb leanings.

Peace! Always! Forever!

Bosniak 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention Fairview

Response to Fairview

Hi Fairview, If you do changes to Srebrenica massacre article, please first revert to my last version and do changes from there, and then when I start editing the article, I will do them from your version or from Live Forever's version. Please do it this way and we will succeed in keeping the article on a level of encyclopedia quality. Thanks bro. Bosniak 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

osli and 3rr

It's standard policy to warn somebody for each instance of 3rr, before they do so. one warning a few months ago suggests that osli should be aware of the policy, but it just isn't really good enough. generally, after somebody's 3rd revert, a friendly note gets dropped informing them that they are about to break 3rr; if they still do so, they get blocked. that wasn't what happened.

second, 3rr is not meant to be punitive, it is meant to cool edit wars. so somebody just isn't going to be blocked for something that happened a day or two ago. (If it continues, then it's a different story, but then it is still happening and is not just something that happened a few days ago.)

so i'm still not blocking osli. ;) if he breaks 3rr in the very near future, in the same edit dispute, sure; but otherwise, warnings are vital.

cheers

--heah 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fairview

Hi Fairview, updated list is here, with accurate number of dead: http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm

Hope this helps.

PS: See my talk page.

Bosniak 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Heah

Hi Heah,

Osli73 is constantly getting into revert/edit wars @ Srebrenica Massacre, and his obsession with editing Srebrenica Massacre article Osli73 Contributions

Would you please be so kind to take a look into this and let me know what can be done to stop these edit wars? Thank you. Bosniak 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

7-8000 figure

Fairview,

I haven't read through the entire ICMP website but I agree that it looks like a respectable setup. So, I think "an estimated 8,000" or "about 8,000" is a good text. But in that case, there is no need to, in the intro, mention either the ICTY's 7-8000 or the Bosnian govt's >8,300 figure. These things could be expanded on in a separate section instead.

Finally, it's sad that you seem uncapable to imagine that anyone who is not willing to go along with your views on this topic must be a Serb or, for some reason, be for Seselj or Milosevic or be a "leftist apologist". In fact, that seems a bit paranoid.

Once again, I urge you to take action against the current Copyright violation.

Finally, take it easy and stay civil Osli73 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello fairview

I have now read both your message as I write this, first off how could we get the article protected and osli possibly baned? - by other words just show me where to sign under! And concerning the Srebrenica massacre article, at least 8000 bosniaks were killed. The so-called "serb victims around srebrenica" are not recognized by the UN tribunal - but are only ,as you said, seselj serb fantasies. Bosoni

Bosoni, I believe approximately 8,500 Bosniaks were killed during the July 1995 Srebrenica Massacre. And Bosoni, for the record, I do believe that there were a significant number of Serbs (100 to 350) murdered in the Srebrenica region from 1992 to 1995. However, I believe it is a myth that those atrocities were the reason for the Srebrenica Massacre or the glee that some nationalist Serbs took in murdering people. In 1992, nationalist Serbs cut the brother of a friend of mine into small pieces on Kurban Bajram and said to his surviving family members, there is the meat for your holiday. The cruelty witnessed in Srebrenica started unabated in 1992, way before there was any retaliation by a few enraged Bosniaks. Plus, the atrocities against Serbs were by rogue individuals, not thousands of soldiers following orders from the highest chain of command as with the Srebrenica massacre. Given Osli's constant attempts at disrupting the article, I spend most my time confronting him, but at some point, if ever he is banned, I would hope that the remaining editors could have a good discussion about Serb victims in the Srebrenica region without disruption or exploitation by people like Osli. I would like to start by trying to find the total number of Bosniak victims in the Srebrenica region from 1992 to 1995 for comparison Fairview360 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse

Just a short message that I replied on User talk:Jitse Niesen. Sorry for the delay, but I've more to do and things are happening quite fast making it hard to catch up. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. I forgot to mention that I appreciate your attempts to engage with User:Bosniak. Hopefully, you will have more success than I've had. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse , I believe the bottom line is that Bosniak is very passionate about his beliefs and it sometimes comes out as frustration. I believe Osli's behavior was pushing his buttons. Bosniak's passion also brings with it a goldmine of energy and research. He knows exactly where to find detailed documents. I don't know if Osli was banned or decided to take a break, but everything at the article since Osli's absence has been constructive. I believe Bosniak will be a positive contributor when the overall atmosphere at the article is constructive. We'll see. Fairview360 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

You provided me with your email, I replied to it. I never heard back from you. Bosniak 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr stuff

sorry for the belated reply. If you are working with the person whose edits are being reverted, then in all likelihood that would fail to qualify as a 3rr vio. you pretty much have to be reported--it's quite rare that some admin will be paying enough attention to an article to start handing out blocks and warnings without a report. also, you generally have to be given sufficient warning before your 4th revert in order to be blocked.

keep in mind, however, that the 3rr rule states specifically that a "revert" is a partial revert as well as a full revert, and that any edit which effectively reverts a previous edit counts as a revert as well. you don't have to revert to a previous version verbatim for it to count as a revert.

cheers --heah 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebenica

I can have a look at you, but I have written a more detailed reply on my page. I can't do an article ban for one user as that would have me making a judgment on POV of an editor to bar them from certain articles. ARBCOM can do that. Admins can only block people if they misbehvae generally. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've been advised by an ARBCOM not to do that, as this topic clearly very controversial, and there is already an ARBCOM case involving Kosovo with many of the same guys and it would be best to avoid any selectivity at all. Thanks. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, mostly until some administrator feels that (relatively) peaceful can resume, which is if - debate dies out on the talk page, or there is none, or the parties come to an agreement. If the parties reach consensus on only parts of an article, then an admin can be requested to enforce the changes to that part as consented by the parties. Likely there will editing again next week. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

HEY FAIRVIEW

Hey, bro, what's up? I sent you two emails already, and no reply. I also sent you my photo, no reply. What's going on? Are you out of country or what?

Bosniak 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

There is no such thing as a "legal" genocide. Genocide's a genocide, and it will always be such. --PaxEquilibrium 12:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So where do we disagree? Yes genocide is genocide, murder is murder, man slaughter is man slaughter, theft is theft, and so on. Some instances are proven in a court of law and some are not. What is your point? Fairview360 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

Dear Editor, I am informing you that I have mentioned the recent revert war on Kosovo at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Kosovo. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask for an explanation on my talk page, but Thatcher already explained it below. You were not banned from editing Kosovo because of the contents of your edit, but because you were revert warring over it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo ban

|}

You have been blocked for 31 hours for violating the article ban imposed by User:Thatcher131. Naconkantari 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for this as my computer was not displaying the time correctly. You have been unblocked. Naconkantari 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whether you are aware of it or not, the Kosovo article got extremely heated over the summer—there was an arbitration case, and several editors were banned. One of the main points of contention was whether or not to include a sentence about status talks in the opening paragraph. Starting from yesterday when MK013 removed the sentence, that paragraph was reverted back and forth about 10 times, 3 times by you, with a bare minimum of discussion on the talk page. The whole point of having article probation is to stop this sort of thing before it starts, so the situation doesn't deteriorate the way it did before. I can't pick and choose and say that since MK103 started it, only he should be banned—if I'm going to be a neutral admin I can't endorse one particular version of the article. (Another way of looking at it is that, although no individual editor violated the 3 revert rule, each "side" of the argument violated 3RR on that opening paragraph.) This is just a gentle nudge to all the editors of the article to discuss politically sensitive changes before making them and to avoid getting into revert wars again, and to show that article probation is a meaningful remedy that will be enforced if necessary. Thatcher131 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

You've been never welcomed. :)

Welcome!

Hello, Fairview360, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

socket puppet?

Just wanted to let you know I responded to your list in Talk:Kosovo and added a new heading for your socket puppet accusation so your original topic on expectations does not get disjointed. Please update the name of the heading if you do not like the one I choose. // Laughing Man 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that I was accused of being a possible sockpuppet long ago. How come noone contacted me on the matter? I'm not a sockpuppet. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Boze, you would have to address that question to the arbitration committee. Fairview360 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, noone's answering my question... I don't know why someone would make such accusations.. Can you help me to find out? --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Scorpions

Fview, no one (that I've read about) denies that the Scorpions were from Serbia. However, it's very clear, from the IWPR article amongst others, that there is no consensus on whether they were acting on behalf of the Serbian government in Srebrenica. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing court case involving this.

• Until this has been resolved, in my opinion, the text in the article shouldn't imply that their participation was at the behest of the state of Serbia. Do you agree with this?
• I'm therefore trying to propose a compromise where it is clear that they were from Serbia (ie "Serbian paramilitary unit" as opposed to "Bosnian Serb paramilitary unit") but leaving the question of whether or not they were acting on behalf of the state of Serbia open.
• How about calling them a "paramilitary unit from Serbia"? This very clearly sets out their origins but avoids saying/implying that they were present in Srebrenica on behalf of the Serbian government.
• Again I suggest we create a specific article about this.

KarlXII 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. What we, people of good faith, need to do is focus more on Srebrenica Massacre article which is under attack by pro-Serbian vandals and revisionists/deniers on a daily basis. Bosniak 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, Wikipedia is poisoned by Serb and pro-Serb propagandists and personal attacks

The message that I left you was deleted by some users so you could never read it ! I was communicating to people who were affecting articles such as Srebrenica Massacre, Bosniaks, Markale Massacre, etc. Most of them were Bosniaks, although some of them were Serbs and non-Serbs. Some users have complained about user Coredesat and user JDoorjam rolling back and deleting comments that I left them, here are some of many example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#re:_comment_on_my_talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam#My_User_Page By the way, user Psychonaut is either Serb or pro-Serb oriented and he defends Serb interest on Wikipedia and constantly complains about non-Serbs to administrators, which brings his fairness and good faith into questioning, just so you know. Peace Bosniak 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are you?

I haven't talked to you in a long time. Come online. Bosniak 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

You have been inviting only Bosniac users to your "battlegrounds".

This is considered voice-balloting and is a very naughty thing. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I believe that it is your inability to carry on a discussion about this topic in a civil manner and without resorting to the type of heated personal attacks which you just gave another example of which I believe set the tone of discussion which encourages certain types of people to send me threatening messages. Regards Osli73 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The wind-up artist speaks. --Opbeith 13:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide

I'll be brief. If the International Court of Justice determines in 6 hours time that a genocide did in fact occur throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995 (regardless of whether Serbia and Montenegro are found directly responsible), then great efforts will have to be undertaken to improve the current Bosnian genocide article and prevent the inevitable wave of deniers and revisionists from utalizing it to their own ends. I believe that this responsibility will rest largely on those few of us who have defended the Srebrenica massacre article from similar assaults in the past. That is all. Live Forever 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I await you reply to my request for sources to you comment that starts "The term Bosnian Genocide was not rendered obsolete by the ICJ judgement. in the section Informal mediation 2008-01-08 on the Talk:Bosnian Genocide page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairview and TalkPage rageq

Fairview360, calm down. No international court has ruled that genocide was committed against Serbs in the world war II. They are voluntarily coming up with numbers of their dead, some of them even claim 1.5 million dead, with no valid documentation whatsoever. Srebrenica Genocide list of victims is well documented, with first and last names, birth dates, fathers' names, SSN numbers, etc. Ultra-nationalist Serbs (and their historiography in general) keep pushing their genocide claims onto us in their anti-Srebrenica propaganda. Instead of wasting so much energy to hold me accountable, I suggest you focus that energy to hold Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable. While I appreciate your work in Bosnia where you help innocent civilians overcome traumas of war, I condemn your unfair criticism towards me. Your energy would be better wasted into holding Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable for their fascist views. I do not believe that all Serbs are same. There are good and bad people everywhere. Those Serb individuals who recognize genocide in Srebrenica are good people, and those who don't are scums. I have a friend who is from Serbia (and still lives in Serbia), he is Serbian and he condemns Srebrenica genocide denial. He's a good person, I have kept in touch with him for over 3 years. He's a wonderful human being and I might even introduce you to him. You need to calm down and stop throwing your allegations of racism and hate at me. I haven't seen you yet be as rude to Srebrenica Genocide deniers as you were rude to me on this talk page. You know my email. I am not going to argue with you publicly. If you have anything else to say, you know my email. And I hope you start holding fascists accountable more than you hold me accountable for pointing out that no international court confirmed genocide against Serbs in world war 2. If you want to accept voluntary numbers made by Serbian historiography, go ahead. At least Srebrenica is well documented, so we can say without reasonable doubt that the genocide was committed. I condemn your unfair rage on this talk page. Bosniak 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

BTW, do you have any suggestions on other sections that might be good for sub-articles? It would follow the format that was used for "Mass Executions."

Best regards,
Djma12 ^(talk) 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I take great offense at your accusation of sock-puppetery. Did you actually CHECK our user logs before you made it?

• Djma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Osli73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Your attempts to take ownership of the article through abuse and derision are in total disregard to WP:CIVIL, and will not go unnoticed forever.

Djma12 ^(talk) 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I think you made a serious mistake in voicing that ridiculous accusation. Djma12 was only being bold, an attitude which usually works great on Wikipedia but does not work for extremely controversial articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, on what grounds do you consider the speculation about Djma12 ridiculous? If it turned out that Djma12 is a sock/occasional meatpuppet of Osli's, would you apologise for calling my speculation ridiculous? Is there something that makes the thought that Djma12 may be Osli73's sockpuppet inherently absurd? Since when is such speculation such a sensitive topic? If people want to speculate the same about me, that is perfectly OK. People are entitled to their opinions.

The door is still open to Djma12 to proceed. I am still giving him/her the benefit of the doubt, but, given past experience, I am not going to withhold my opinion when it comes to my skepticism.

Again, please tell me what you know or see that makes my concerns "ridiculous". Fairview360 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jitse, I know this may seem odd, but I would implore you to uphold Fairview360's request on investigating whether I am a sock-puppet of Osli. Perhaps then I can go on with editing the article instead of being mired in the controversy of my identity. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, I know you're capable to work with people here, which is why I'm so disappointed in your accusation. You said that you looked at the edit histories of Djma12 and Osli73 and concluded they were the same person. However, Osli73 edits articles on ex-Yugoslavia and occasionally on Swedish topics, while Djma12's interests are wider (I saw a lot of edits to the Andijan massacre, for instance). I really can't see how somebody from looking at the edit histories could conclude that they are the same person. If I look at Djma12's edit history, I see somebody who enjoys working on all kinds of controversial articles and trying to improve them, and to me, his/her edits to the Srebrenica massacre article indicate somebody who does not have intimate knowledge of the details surrounding the Srebrenica massacre or the history surrounding the Srebrenica massacre article on Wikipedia, but who noticed that the article is not very good and is trying to improve it.

Such speculation has always been a sensitive topic, because it poisons the atmosphere. Accusations create animosity, which makes it much harder to work together and improve the article (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). I think you are wrong in harboring this speculation, but voicing it is what really worries me. If you make an accusation, you should have more evidence than only it being "a little strange that someone allegedly entirely new to the article would be so bold in making wholesale edits without any attempt to create consensus first." There is a guideline here urging editors to be bold, which works well in most articles, but in some articles it's not such a good idea.

Djma12, I'm not sure what you mean with "upholding" the request. I can't act on the request myself since I don't have the powers to check this; there are only a couple of people who can do this. I'm not intimately aware with the relevant policies (see WP:RfCU and Wikimedia:Privacy policy for a start), but from what I know, I consider it likely that the request will be declined as there is not enough evidence. I seem to remember that it doesn't make any difference that you want the request to be granted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, I have a more positive way of looking at this. The fact is that the atmosphere at the Srebrenica article is already poisoned and the way to overcome that is with honesty. I am being honest. Opbeith is being honest. I would like to think that Djma12 is being honest. And with that, there is a chance to clear the air and create a stable core of editors at the Srebrenica article. If you look at the recent comments by Opbeith, myself, and Djma12, the door is open to progress and small steps are being made.

Some clarification of the facts. I did not make a conclusive accusation that Djma12 is a sockpuppet. I said it is possible that Osli73, KarlXII, and Djma12 are the same person. Unfortunately, Djma12's initial behavior matches Osli73/KarlXII rather closely. What I did was look at the timing of their edits. The timing of their edits did not coincide until after I raised the concern (which means now that the only way Djma12 could be a sockpuppet is if there is also a meatpuppet involved). If you look at the timing of just KarlXII and Osli73, you can see that this person is rather obsessive... sometimes sleeping only a few hours. Osli apparently has plenty of time. Furthermore, Osli73 is not limited by intelligence. So I do not put this past him. It is possible, but I now hold the opinion that further speculation does not serve any constructive purpose.

So, as you can see, I continue to hold to the opinion that there is nothing inherently ridiculous about the speculation and I do not consider it a "serious mistake" to have voiced these concerns, but rather see it as a way of clearing the air. What I like about this is that you and I have an honest difference of opinion. That is what the Srebrenica article needs. Honest good faith discussion, honest disagreements, which then upholds the possibility of finding common ground.

Lastly, Jim Douglas pointed out that according to wiki policy, check user can not be used to simply establish innocence. I see no problem in this. Djma12, Opbeith, and myself will (or will not) build trust through actual discussion and editing. That is fine with me. Fairview360 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scorpions footnote

Fview, I agree that the text simply says that they were from Serbia. Given this I believe that all but footnote no. 4 are OK since it implies that they were under Serbian govt. control. Given that the ICJ has made a recent and specific statement about the nature of the Scorpions relationship to Serbia I strongly feel that that should be mentioned, which I think the footnote I proposed does (which is actually a previous compromise). I would be OK with taking out no. 4 and replacing it with 'my' footnote. OK? Osli73 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hi Fairview,

I view barnstars as simply being part of the Wiki Kindess Campaign and a means of encouraging users for essentially thankless work. If you check my user logs, I give them out fairly generously.

I didn't realize what a minefield I was walking into when I entered this article. Perhaps I was a little naive, but all I knew was that Osli was the only editor willing to talk to me, and that he was receiving lots of flak from you guys as well. After reviewing his edits, the reward probably was premature. However, I do think that the temperature of the discussions section could stand to be dialed down.

Djma12 ^(talk) 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the flak was in earnest. Given the number of malicious editors out there, I understand why you'd be on guard to defend this article. However, please try to assume a little more good faith in new editors. I almost walked away from the article completely after the first day, and we wouldn't be having this constructive collaboration. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have good faith for new editors. I have had abundant good faith in new editors in the past only to find out I had been made a fool of by an "old" editor's sockpuppetry. Hence, my initial reaction. Actually, if you look closely at my comments upon your arrival, I started with good faith, became concerned about potential sockpuppetry, and now am returning to good faith. I believe, with due diligence, your initiative can succeed in improving the article and if so, we will all be glad you stuck with it. Fairview360 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview,

1. I've explained several times that karlXII was an attempt to change identity becuase of some very vile personal emails related to my edits on the Srebrenica massacre article.
2. I've always wondered why you accuse me of using "material from the "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!" website". I've looked through my edits in August 2006 and have come to the conclusion that you must be referring to these two edits[1][2] to the 'Alternative views' / 'Sceptics and critics' subsection of the 'External links'. However, you must realize that including these links as examples of 'Critics' / 'Alternative views' (and clearly stating the name of the website) doesn't constitute support for Milosevic or his actions. I simply included links to what I felt were the most outspoken critics/sceptics of the massacre. Nowhere did I "use" this material as a source or as a reference. I suspect that you are willingly misinterpreting my actions.

Regards Osli73 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Such sophistry. Fairview360 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give a proper reply instead of one-liners. If we are to have a separate external links section for 'sceptics' shouldn't the "Defend Milosevic" website (and others) be included there? Don't you see the difference between including an example of a view to using it as a source? Osli73 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-article

Though it can use fine-tuning, are we nearing a preliminary release for the sub-article format? Djma12 ^(talk) 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm on call tommorrow, so I may or may not be able to work on the intro then. After that's finished, though, we can probably solicit input from a number of well-regarded editors. Any suggestions? Djma12 ^(talk) 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly take a look both at the sandbox and the sub-article when you have the time. I have re-done the introduction. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit to the intro in the Sandbox. Actually, though, I think you want to put this on the Mass executions in the Srebrenica massacre page, as the Sandbox contents will go within the main article. Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved your excellent additions from the Sandbox to the Mass executions in the Srebrenica massacre sub-article. Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-articling

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To Fairview360, for constructive collaboration on Srebrenica massacre Djma12 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

sandbox

A third accusation leveled at the Bosniak defenders of Srebrenica is that they provoked the Serb offensive by attacking out of that safe area. Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it. Dutchbat personnel on the ground at the time assessed that the few “raids” the Bosniaks mounted out of Srebrenica were of little or no military significance. These raids were often organized in order to gather food, as the Serbs had refused access for humanitarian convoys into the enclave. Even Serb sources approached in the context of this report acknowledged that the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica posed no significant military threat to them. The biggest attack the Bosniaks launched out of Srebrenica during the more than two years which is was designated a safe area appears to have been the raid on the village of Višnjica, on 26 June 1995, in which several houses were burned, up to four Serbs were killed and approximately 100 sheep were stolen. In contrast, the Serbs overran the enclave two weeks later, driving tens of thousands from their homes, and summarily executing thousands of men and boys. The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of “moral equivalency” through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.

sandbox1

Many have accused the Bosniak forces of withdrawing from the enclave as the Serb forces advanced on the day of its fall. However, it must be remembered that on the eve of the final Serb assault the Dutchbat commander urged the Bosniaks to withdraw from defensive positions south of Srebrenica town – the direction from which the Serbs were advancing. He did so because he believed that NATO aircraft would soon be launching widespread air strikes against the advancing Serbs.

Edit explanation

Hi, yes, indeed it was genocide and he was convicted of it. However, throughout the article we refer to it as the Srebrenica massacre, so I felt it wasn't consistent to all of a sudden use the term Srebrenica genocide here. That's why I changed it. CheersOsli73 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

hi Fairview

hi Fairview,

you're right about me not being Osli's sockpuppet, btw, but that's not why I'm writing -- which is to ask you why you think Osli is so bad? He seems pretty reasonable to me, and a lot more neutral than most of the other editors on the Srebrenica massacre page. I'm only asking you because you also seem fairly reasonable, from what I can gauge. What has Osli done that is so bad? (I'm not trying to defend him or anything, just interested in your opinion) Cheers Jonathanmills 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, it is quite understandable that Osli would appear to be reasonable and fair-minded to someone relatively new to this article. I for one no longer engage him in direct dialogue since I consider it a waste of time. My experience is that he uses a veneer of reasonable behavior to build up credibility which he later uses to introduce revisionist text in the Srebrenica article. I also consider him intellectually irresponsible in that he will make absurd arguments and then ignore what he has said earlier while re-inventing himself as a reasonable balanced editor. He has been banned a number of times for various transgressions including using a sockpuppet and aggressive edit warring.

I do not blame you for working with him. Currently, he appears to be on good behavior and from time to time he does make reasonable proposals. What you will no doubt see in time is that he will edge closer and closer to giving as much credence as possible to revisionism while trying to cast doubt on or delete well established fact which in effect furthers the agenda of ultra-nationalists Serbs such as Seselj.

Because of his past behavior, you will encounter lingering suspicions that you are a sockpuppet. In fact, I keep watching for you to use your credibility to give validity to revisionism but I have not seen you do any of that. In any case, what I see you doing for the most part is greatly improve the quality of the text in the Srebrenica article. I am sure we will disagree on some issues, but I hope that whatever disagreements we have are based on good faith. In good faith, from the free exchange of ideas, the truth will emerge.

Hi Fairview, cheers for your response.

Because you've been straightforward and honest with me, I'll return the favour.

I became interested in the Srebrenica topic to an extent from what you would probably call a 'revisionist' standpoint (ie, questioning the official story/ ICTY judgement). This is *not* because I have anything against Bosniaks (I've never met any in my life -- at least until I came on to this article's talk page), or because I support genocide (God forbid!), but because I'm a (Western) leftist who tends to be sceptical of "my side's" claims, so to speak. Some writers I've always respected and thought were fairly accurate, like Ed Herman -- bear with me here, I know he may be a hate figure to you -- were putting forward the 'revisionist' claims, so I tended to think they had some validity.

Where I'm at now is, I honestly don't know. Please don't think I'm a bad person for saying that (obviously it's your right to, but what I mean is that I *do not* support genocide -- ie, if the facts are exactly as the ICTY says, I'd have the same view as you; it's just that I don't know if they are. And I'll admit my basic ignorance -- but that's partly why I'm not sure).

So, in terms of the 'revisionist' claims, I do feel quite strongly that they should be *presented*; however, I'm happy for them to be basically a footnote to the body of the article (as they are now), with the body of the article based around the ICTY (and other 'official sources') verdicts. That said, I have thought the 'revisionist' section could use a little fleshing out -- it's really the only thing I know anything about, so I could be useful there -- but I'm not talking about making it any longer necessarily; just mentioning eg the 'Srebrenica Research Group' (which was probably the main Western 'revisionist' effort) and some of their main claims, possibly deleting the reference to 'Living Marxism' magazine and Diana Johnstone. (I could probably sum everything I want to add in about two sentences; I'm pretty good at that).

The other thing is that this whole experience (this is basically the first article I've worked on) has made me -- I'm being honest here -- really care about Wikipedia and writing good articles and *not* pushing personal POV. So all the changes I've made have been, as you've suggested, 'in good faith' to try to improve the quality of the article. (I've actually started to do a little bit of Wikipedia 'cleanup' in my spare time, ie going and tidying up pages listed for spelling, grammar and editing attention).

Fundamentally, I couldn't agree more with your statement "In good faith, from the free exchange of ideas, the truth will emerge". I hope you won't be offended if I put what you think to be 'revisionist' claims to you; just realise that I have no way of *knowing* (given that I *don't* inherently trust eg the ICTY) where the truth lies. Cheers Jonathanmills 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you do have a way of knowing... as much as you have a way of knowing anything. Do you homework. If need be, travel to Bosnia and get firsthand accounts. Talk to survivors not just from Srebrenica but from all of those areas that the ultranationalist Serbs ethnically cleansed. Watch the documentaries. Read extensively. I am really not saying this as a personal attack though it may sound like it. I am really just repeating what you have already said when I now reply to your suggestion about my views being possibly revisionist: you don't know what you are talking about. Fairview360 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fairview -- first of all, no offence for not writing back earlier; I actually had my internet connection cut off and then went away on holiday.

I don't take your tone as a personal attack at all, don't worry; I appreciate you're just stating your view. Just to clarify, though, I wasn't saying *you* had revisionist views, I was saying I hoped you wouldn't be offended if *I* put forward to you for debate/discussion views you consider revisionist (especially as I don't know whether they're correct or not).

Thanks a lot for your responses, anyway. I'll respond to your point below soon; don't have time right now though. Cheers bro Jonathanmills 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re Osli

hi Fairview,

I hope what I wrote above hasn't offended you! If it has, I'd be happy to discuss it further (if you want to), as I can assure you (as I said) that I have absolutely *nothing* against Bosniaks (I don't know any, anyway), and I'm certainly no supporter of genocide!

What I was going to ask you, though, was if you could point me in the direction of where (well, more like *when*, I guess) you think Osli was doing the bad things you're referring to? I'd just like to get an idea for myself -- as you can probably imagine, I'm a little confused on this issue now! (What I mean is that you guys *both* seem pretty reasonable to me, at this point). Incidentally, I really respect the fact that you spoke out against incivility etc by people on 'your' side on the talk page where it was appropriate (I'm just referring to some of the stuff further up the current talk page).

So anyway, if you can be bothered, and/or have some idea of when it was, it would be interesting for me to know so I could look it up and form my own judgement. Cheers bro Jonathanmills 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, when not in Bosnia, I live in a hotbed of Leftist thought in the northeastern US and myself have strong Marxist views. I believe Marx's assessment of capitalism was essentially correct though his proposed alternative does not adequately take into account human nature. He thought the revolution would inherently transform human nature. Not so. Hence, given the realities of human nature, I believe the best we can hope for is a mixed economy such as Sweden's. In any case, having been involved in the Bosnia issue since the war began and having seen people go through the thought process that you are currently in, and given that my ideals and interpretations of global issues are probably rather close to yours, I am intimately aware of where you are coming from.

I am not offended by you though I do find Diana Johnstone and Norm Chomsky offensive on the Bosnia issue since they ought to know better. In essence, I believe they are more endeared to their own egos and their own ideology than to the lives of innocent defensely people. They would rather cast doubt on Srebrenica or offer conspiracy theories than look honestly at the fact that sometimes military force -- yes, the US military and the US State Department -- is necessary to protect the innocent. The liberal community was split on Bosnia because it challenged our ideas of peace, love, and understanding. Some went with what needed to be done to protect the innocent, others held dear to their ideology and pre-conceived notions of the US. So be it.

If you have the time, I would suggest reading Peter Maass' "Love Thy Neighbor" and Christopher Bennett's "Bloody collapse of Yugoslavia". Both are fast reads. Bennet is way too easy on Tudman but his description of those behind the Greater Serbia project is illuminating.

In regards to Osli, I suggest going through the edit history and finding a time when Osli was engaged in edit warring (remember the dates) and when KarlXII was editing (remember the dates), and then look in the archived discussions during that time. You need to read closely and follow the arguments. You may see the behavior to which I am referring.

Another thing I would suggest is visiting Bosnia yourself, seeing the mass graves, and hearing the stories first hand from those who were tortured and/or watched as their loved ones were butchered just because they had Muslim names. It might make the Leftist views of those safely tucked in, within the wealthy confines of American bourgeois society, seem rather distant and irrelevant. I am commenting as much on my background as anyone else's.

I don't think you have to worry about your offending me. We'll definitely be on opposite sides if/when you try to elevate the credibility of people like MacKenzie, but so it goes. In the rough and tumble world of Srebrenica editing, I believe the tone of our disagreements will be mild.

Again, I believe your edits to the Srebrenica article have to date been a benefit. If/when it comes to MacKenzie-Chomsky-Johnstone types, what I would ask is that you ask yourself honestly what motivates you. Is your underlying concern defending the truth of what happened in Bosnia or defending your world view/ideology? I grew up with a post-Vietnam liberal view of things... still have it... climbed fences to protest the School of Americas. And... I see that I have the professionalism, discipline, and strength of the US military to thank here in Bosnia. If it were not for the US military, many of my Bosnian friends would not be alive today. Sometimes all of our wishful thinking and our ready-made liberal views fail us. Sometimes we have to step beyond our own ideology and look at what is happening and what it takes to save innocent lives. Please watch "A cry from the Grave" and tell me what you think. Meanwhile, ultra-nationalist Serbs will love spoon feeding you "anti-Western Empirialism" propaganda while at the same time spoon feeding the Far Right the anti-Islamic terrorist propaganda. There is nothing that justifies what they did in Srebrenica and nothing ought to be employed for the purpose of distracting from the truth of what happened there. Be careful Jonathan or else your goodwill and well-intentioned otherwise accurate world view will be manipulated. Read "Love Thy Neighbor". Fairview360 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fairview, got some time to respond to your post now. Thanks again for taking the time to write me.

First of all, your conclusions re Marxism and human nature are uncannily similar to mine -- well, they do say great minds think alike :-) I still hope in my heart of hearts for some sort of anarcho-communist utopia, but I don't think it's at all likely to happen...

Turning to Bosnia/Srebrenica -- not that it makes my current views correct, by any means (in any case, I'm not lying when I say I honestly don't know where the truth lies), but I in fact supported NATO intervention in Yugoslavia at the time it occurred, despite my general anti-NATO outlook, as I believed the situation was as it was represented in the mainstream media and by the Bosniak government. It's only later that I became aware of, and interested in, people like Diana Johnstone's take on the situation. (I don't think Chomsky was actually ever a great friend to the Serbs -- although typically, his position was never entirely forthright and shrouded in much vague doublespeak). BTW, I used to love Chomsky; now I am extremely sceptical of his utterances.

I'd be happy to read/watch any of those sources you mentioned, although I don't have any to hand (are any of them available for free download, do you know?) As for conducting my own investigations in Bosnia, I'm sure you'll understand it's a bit beyond my available time and resources at the moment :-)

But I guess my basic question is, why are those sources correct and the 'pro-Serb' ones incorrect? That's what I mean when I say I don't have a way of knowing the truth. The 'pro-Serb' side cites bloody massacres of Serb civilians by ARBiH troops (or irregulars), apparently with proof (and even the ICTY is apparently starting to prosecute some of them), as well as evidence challenging the existing story of the Srebrenica Massacre. As someone without first-hand knowledge, how am I supposed to tell who is right?

Finally, you ask me to question myself on what my motivation is. This is a perfectly fair question, but surely one that should be asked by *anyone* (I say this because it seems this sort of question is constantly angled at anyone who isn't a full-on Bosniak nationalist, and I don't see why being a Serb nationalist -- not that I am one, of course! -- is any more illegitimate than being a Bosniak nationalist).

Basically, my motivation is that (as I see it) the Wikipedia article on Srebrenica has been hijacked by Bosniak nationalists who are not interested in NPOV. Wikipedia articles should be NPOV, and if people are offended by that (which I honestly do respect on a personal level -- I've never suffered that sort of loss in a war situation, after all) but the fact is, they don't belong on Wikipedia, or at least on that article.

That's about all I have to say for the moment, anyway. Would fully appreciate your thoughts/responses.

And just quickly, re Osli -- I haven't had time to look up his past edits (although I intend to at some point), but as I wrote in my recent edit summary restoring the links to the 'revisionist' views, I can't see how the recent attempt to delete them wholesale, without even mentioning it in the edit summary, is any less bad than what Osli has been accused of. Cheers Fairview Jonathanmills 14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-articling

Any idea what become of our effort for sub-articling Srebrenica massacre? Djma12 ^(talk) 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I ran out of time (and I must admit patience). Unfortunately, nothing came of our effort. Fairview360 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you!

Fairview, I would like to thank you for your continued participation in Srebrenica Genocide article and for your stance against genocide denial. Thank You! Bosniak 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You want sources? Here they are

Dear Fairview360, I am ashamed of myself for awarding you userbox "Against Srebrenica Genocide Denial", which you removed. You have also removed fact that over 400 children died in Srebrenica genocide (see here). You want sources? Then sit down and count over 400 children (under 18 years old) in the List of Srebrenica Victims http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_006/Preliminarni_spisak_Srebrenica_1995.pdf . Bosniak (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak has always been free to add more detail to the Srebrenica article stating that 441 of the victims were under the age of 18. He could go further and state how many died of a certain age. It is only a question of the wording of the introductory paragraph. For those interested, visit the edit history from Dec. 4 through Dec. 8. With each edit, there is a comment which together give more context than what Bosniak provides in the above comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&limit=100&action=history Fairview360 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Please see WP:3RR. Please note that you have reverted the Bosnian Genocide page 3 times in the last 24 hours.[3] [4] [5]. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How kind of PBS to provide a reminder of the 3RR rule. His reminder is as welcome as it is necessary. Fairview360 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag - Srebrenica

Hi Fairview,

Sorry, I didn't realise that POV tag was indeed made anonymously, as you point out. I just re-entered the WP fray and assumed it had been OK'd by all, as it's now February.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Osli is Jonathanmills?

Just to inform you, Jonathanmills is sockpuppet of Osli. Can you start procedure to prove it with check user? Or to ask someone you know who is willing to check it? If you look at the structure of his sentences, Hi and Regards (or Cheers), and articles he is interested in (Srebrenica massacre and Konjic) it is very good reason to check it:

Srebrenica massacre

• Jonathanmills made some edits
• Osli reverts to Jonathanmills

• Osli restores the same links
• Jonathanmills restores the same links

If you search through his edits you will realise that both of them edited Konjic article (?!) It is impossible that they are both interested in Konjic village in Herzegovina ?!

Konjic

• Osli73 edited the same section
• Johnatanmills edited the same section.

Due to the fact that it has already been proven Osli was a sockpuppeteer in Srebrenica massacre article, this is a good reason to ask for another check user.

I do not know, but I do not believe JonathanMills is Osli73's sockpuppet. JonathanMills has a different style. Also, in Osli73's recent revert on the Srebrenica article, he implicitly rejected JonathanMills' edits regarding the sentence highlighting Milosevic's use of the state media for propaganda purposes. In any case, I do not believe it is appropriate to make such accusations using an anonymous user IP. Fairview360 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Alternative"

Hi Fairview. Thank you for voicing your condemnation against "hoax" proapganda. Even my Serb friends condemn Srebrenica genocide denial. I am not Serb, but let me tell you, some Serb people are fed up with ongoing denial of Srebrenica genocide. The category should be changed to Genocide Denial Views, or Revisionist Views, or whatever else except "alternative" views. At least 500 children died in the genocide. Bosniak (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote to keep the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serb_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_wars_%282nd_nomination%29#Serb_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_wars --(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

dolus specialis

Please see Talk:Srebrenica massacre#dolus specialis --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

links re Serbian media/ Srebrenica

Hi Fairview

I just wanted to message you personally in order to avoid any atmosphere of ill-will and edit warring, especially as the recent arguments look to have been resolved (touch wood!)

But I was going to question whether your restoring of all those references is really correct, in that:

a) none of them mention Srebrenica at all, and b) I don't know, but I thought Philip was saying references should be kept to a minimum? Moreover, I would have thought it just looks messy, if nothing else.

Anyway, would appreciate a response. Like I say, I didn't want to create an unnecessary atmosphere of edit warring so I haven't changed anything on the page yet. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Respect

Dear Fairview360 In my world, calling named editors' views "twisted" is not a comment on content, but on contributer. No editors (Mondeo, Fairview, JonathanMills or anybody else) have monopoly on the truth, perhaps Jonathanmills' views are "fringe", but it is not respectful to call them "twisted". Have nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondeo (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mondeo. I disagree. Their views are twisted because they reject facts. It is a known fact that Srebrenica massacre is also known as the Srebrenica genocide. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairview

Would you please be so kind to participate in the Srebrenica Genocide article? Unfortunately, people like Johnathanmills are constantly deleting important parts of the article, making improvements - impossible.

Osli73 - PBS

Hi Fairview, I've seen you had some comments related to User:Philip Baird Shearer neutrality [6]. I've noticed the same thing and started this case: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Osli73_(2nd). If you have anything to add to my comment, please feel free, because I intend to start incident case related to PBS biased approach. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: It is now confirmed that Osli73 was using multiple accounts in editing articles, and PBS did nothing to block Osli73 though Osli created account user:Erikarver (which was blocked by other admin). He used that account in editing Bosnian mujahideen. For more info: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Osli73_(2nd). And this discussion is good proof for PBS "neutrality": Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen#Other_comments. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide March 2010

Maps How about joining in the conversation on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! we cross edited. Thanks for the reply. -- PBS (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Visegrad.jpg

Can you tell me which Visegrad the File:Visegrad.jpg is, so I can move it to commons and properly categorize it to allow for use.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairview: Sources for Bosnian Genocide Judgements

For Philip and Fairview: Dear Philip and Fairview, we should not bother whether or not genocide occurred in Doboj and Foca (I do not have a copy of full judgement). We should only state the facts that these cases resulted in genocide judgements. They are legally tested cases of genocides. I base my facts on the following sources, which both of you are welcome to examine: Source #1 for Nikola Jorgic New York Times, 27 September 1999, Source #2 for Nikola Jorgic The Deseret News 26 September 1997, Source #1 for Novislav Djajic The Deseret News, 23 May 1997, Source #2 for Novislav Djajic which speaks that the court found that genocide was confined to the administrative district of Foca, see Prosecutor v. Krstic paragraph 589, Source #1 for Maksim Sokolovic Daily Union, 29 November 1999, Source # 2 for Maksim Sokolovic New York Times, 30 November 1999. 24.82.163.223 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

waiting for response

Fairview, I am waiting for your response at Bosnian Genocide article. 24.82.163.223 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide memorial

You reverted the category change on Srebrenica genocide/Srebrenica massacre on the basis of your perfectly comprehensible argument. The same change appears to have been made at the Srebrenica Genocide memorial article. I am happy to refute the editor's argument but I am at a loss to understand what effect the change has actually had on the article. Perhaps as you understand what it implies you might consider reverting, or if you can explain the actual effect of the edit with the contentious summary I will. Opbeith (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I made myself clear. If you think the category change at the Srebrenica Genocide memorial article should be reverted, on the same basis as your reversion of the category change by the same contributor at the other Srebrenica article, would you please do a similar revert of the change, or alternatively explain the significance of the original change so that I can properly understand its consequences and the acceptability or otherwise of the original change. I know you and I are unable to communicate congenially but I hope that won't prevent you replying on what is as far as I can tell a matter that does not involve any issue of conflict between us. Opbeith (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide early 2011

I am sorry that my replies to your postings come under the heading "teaching my grandmother to suck eggs". I am aware that you already know most of what I am writing, but in replying to you I am conscious that I am also addressing people who know less than you do about the subject. -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)