User talk:Dfener91

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. Journalist 007 (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
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.

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Celebici prison camp
Hi mate,

Sorry I offered to help and then went silent; I do intend to come back and offer some sort of moderation between you and Krusko. There's a bit to sift through but hopefully I will get around to it soon. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dobar dan
Hi Dfener,

Sorry to see you've been given a 3RR ban -- I've had one of those myself, although I've tidied up my act since.

Anyway, I've just made another intervention over at the CPC page.. feel free to take a look. I actually agree with Krusko that the article shouldn't contain a full summary of lots of different prisoners' testimony, but I don't think there's any reason to whitewash events either.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, just rereading your page I see that 3RR ban was ages ago. Ignore my comment there :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zdravo Dfener,

thanks for your message. I totally agree with you that I am spending too much time on Wikipedia! Actually I tend to get very involved for short periods (a couple of weeks, or months) and then lapse into long periods when I don't do anything -- generally because I find the reality of Wikipedia quite discouraging (contrary to the Wiki-guideline, Wikipedia is very much a 'battleground').

Just to respond to your point:

''I really do not see why testimonials from witnesses should not be added or at least something to that effect to really show the kind of treatment and things that went on at the camp..espiecially when the witnesses are from the ICTY trial itself! or the testimonies were used in the ICTY trial (like those I put). If testimonies on articles are used in the Srebrenica massacre and other Yugoslav war related articles, then why should it not be allowed on this one? I agree it wasn't well structured but at least it was a start.''

I agree that the double standard practised by Krusko and others is outrageous (I couldn't believe he would bring up the Srebrenica Massacre article, given that it is absolutely bursting with graphic witness statements); I also don't think witness statements are never appropriate to include. I guess it's that I was seeing that it wasn't that well structured (as you admit); however it would have been better to try and summarise them rather than discard them entirely.

Fundamentally, even though (as you rightly point out) articles about Serb-committed atrocities are generally extremely graphic, I still don't think articles about atrocities against Serbs shouldn't follow encylopaedic style (ie neutral tone, letting facts speak for themselves, articles should not be 'soapboxes'). While I can totally understand why this double-standard would rankle with you (it rankles with me, and I'm not even Serbian!), I guess I am of the view that we ought to try and correct the anti-Serb-biased articles, rather than replicate the non-neutral, unencyclopaediac style in Bosniak/Croat-committed-atrocity articles. Of course, I'm not exactly sure how to do that... I've been working on-and-off on the Srebrenica article for a couple of years now, and it is still garbage :-(

In response to your other questions, ne govorim Srpski... but I did travel there earlier this year and learned a few words before I left (and while I was there). Cool language. Why I got interested in the Yugoslav Wars was basically because I became sceptical of the Western picture of events (I have ALWAYS been sceptical of the Western picture of foreign events, so it was just par for the course really ;-)

Then when I came on Wikipedia, I quickly became aware of the fanatical cabal of Bosniak (or pro-Bosniak) editors who were not even willing to present events in a neutral manner, which angered me... and so here I am, banging my head against a brick wall :-/

Anyway, take care man. Have a good time NOT being on Wikipedia! It is really a waste of time. I guess I take comfort in the fact that those biased editors are so immature, they don't realise that most readers will spot their childish bias a mile off and probably not bother to read their articles (sometimes I leave in particularly obvious bits of bias, for this very reason).

Do vidjenja