User talk:Ceha/ Archive 4

1991ethnic.jpg
Why is higher resolution necessary? We can see everything that we need to see on the map, can't we? What's wrong with it? It might not be easy to photoshop it or change it, which you seem to be inclined to do. At any rate, hopefully those previous fraud maps can now be deleted, as we finally have the real thing. (LAz17 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)).

Possible block

 * On ANI I am asking short block of both users . User LAz17 is guilty of incivility (word fuck and others), but in trying to calm situation maybe it is best that both are blocked for short time period.


 * In my thinking it is best for you both to have small wiki vaccation. On monday I will look for links about Bosnian census.--Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am making mistake but this is now dispute aboute census data. Because of that I have created page User:Rjecina/Bosnian census in my user space. Can we please continue discussion in my user space. After consensus page will be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Posavina Fraud
As we see, your false information spills over into other false information elsewhere... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Posavina.gif - the first slide there is rather problematic. (LAz17 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)).

And this one too will be listed for deletion if it is not fixed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fall_of_posavina_(1992).png (LAz17 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)).

Help
Thought this could help you out      PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, it was helpful, thanks:) --Čeha (razgovor) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, you screwed him up, considering that the data is from 1994 during the war, and not after the war as ICTY shows on their interactive map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)).

Glamoc Fraud
Kindly stop your fraud. For example, there is this map here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png and you can see how Mostarac put grahovo drvar and glamoc different... I then talked to mostarac and he fixed it... I put sources where data is correct... and you put that glamoc municipality back. As can be seen, serbs are over 66% there, so it must be dark blue, not your light blue. (LAz17 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * Laz, I'm not going to argue with some paranoid idiot which speaks of a fraud in every second sentence. Mostarac used data from 2003. His map is also different from mine if you bothered to check it. Serbs made are about 65% of population there, that's why the color is lighter. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You say 65 percent? Data says 68, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamoc#2008, and this is the same that I showed mostarac when he fixed it back. So please put it back to what it should be. Btw, I actually like your new map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eth_relations_1991_bih.gif (LAz17 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * Yes, that map should be prety good, I puted a lot of my time in ti:) I'm glad that you like it:)
 * It is 68 percent in 2008, and it was lower in 2005, wasn't it. Probably all the people had not returned in the municipality...--Čeha (razgovor) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see sources for 2003 and 2008. In both the Serbs are over 66%. Therefore it is rather ridiculous to assume that they are less than 66% in 2006, unless if you have some serious source that suggests this. Therefore put it back to how it was. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * Didn't see the 2003 data. Gonna change it back. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see RS discussion
Thanks Onyxig (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

HB
Keep an eye out, the croats are probably gonna get their own entity in BiH... http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=01&dd=27&nav_id=56714 (LAz17 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * Ma jebe lud zbunjenog tamo... ko zna sta su smutili. :P Ja bi teo da hrvatski entitet dobije uskoplje, i to travnika da ode... sad ko zna sta ce biti. Zanima me sta ce uraditi sa mostarom. (LAz17 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)).

Gulf of Piran
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Yerpo (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing for  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.

Technically edit warring not 3RR, but the block is the same.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The guy who blocked me, did not do anything according to that rule. Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. There is no evidence that I made any disruptive edits, anything what I've done was argumented, and the guy who tell on me did more reverts in that time. Ridicilous. If he had any thoughts that I've behaved not according to wikipedia rules (or its spirit) he should have discus it on my talk pages. Give me one good reason why was I blocked (and the other guy was not). And, by the way, making 4 edits in 3 days I would not call an edit war in which one side (and which have done less than the other) should be sancioned. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And the other guy did not? Interesting. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the other guy did not. He reverted only three times where you did four, and Wikipedia policy states that one can remove without discussion potentially problematic content that isn't backed by a source. He was warned, though, and heeded the warning. --Yerpo (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. I edited the article only 3 times, in more than 24 hour period. By doing so, I and did not brake any rule:
 * 23:11, 10th February
 * 9:14, 11th February
 * 18:32 11th February
 * 9;24, 12th February


 * I haven't come close at breaking the 3RR
 * Moreover you (User Yerpo) done the same thing, edited at
 * 7:02,11th February
 * 17:04,11th February
 * 19:50, 11th February
 * 18:16, 12th February

User Yerpo, which participated in edit war, made more reverts in shorter time, however it was me who was blocked, and not him. I did not brake any rule. And no matter that, I'm still blocked, and the guilty party is not. When this block expires I'm very interested to see what will be said about all of this on ANI. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You got the times wrong. Your first revert was 01:11, 11 February 2009. My last revert was argumented on the talk page as the administrator that blocked you told me to do. I'm sorry, I should've done that earlier, but that doesn't change the fact that it was you who kept insisting on problematic and unsourced statements. You are welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page. --Yerpo (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Than wikipedia is obviously lying. If wikipedia is not lying than times are good. That block was POV and complitly unsorced. I'd like to fix this thing first, clear my name, and then we could maybe think of that article. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Like William M. Connolley said, technically you didn't break 3RR, but you were still edit warring, and were more persistent at it than I. So instead of making another revert, I decided it was time to let other people decide what to think of it and reported our disagreement. The admin decided to block you (and I'm not going to explain his actions which I had nothing to do with) and warned me. So at my last revert, I did what he instructed me, and explained my view of the issue on the article's talk page. If you have problems with it, fine, you can report them wherever you want. But keep in mind that policy allows me to remove problematic unsourced material without special discussion. The paragraph was problematic to me and WorldWide Update, and, more importantly, it was unsourced. So... --Yerpo (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to solve that issue with administrator wich made that error. You did falsely reported me for breaking 3RR (that rule emphisized that there must be more than 3 reverts, and that means at least 4 in 24 hour period). If you had anything to say against that text you could have discuss so in page discussion pages. That was problematic is POV of you (and that other user), and according to wikipedia policies not every sentence has to be sourced. If you have some source which would show that that text is false, please do show them, and then I will not have anything against removing that paragraph from the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the rules about sourcing. Hint: if you explained them exactly opposite like you did now, you'd be about right. Your explanation sounds the same as if I would say: "You are a murderer. I don't have to prove everything I say, but you have to prove you aren't if you want to get out of jail". --Yerpo (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not realy. Slovenia claims access to open sea which is based on the fact that it had free access to open sea while being part of SFRJ, and which goes beyond 12 miles, and is as such contrary to international law. And Slovenia did not provide any argument for historical control (or even existence of such corridor). So do you realy wants me to prove that Slovenia had not ever provide any argument for historical control of it ? (that is exictly analogus to your "murderer" comparison. If you can prove me that Slovenia had provide any argument for historical control (or even existence) of such corridor, than the paragraph should go. If you can not, than I'll ask you nicely to put it back where it belongs. By the way, you have all of this on . Cheers! --Čeha (razgovor) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)