User talk:Jmaze

Please don't remove sourced statements and stop making POV edits.99.255.217.164 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You've spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia. You're only editing one article in which you're pushing a heavy personal POV. Plus, you're continuously vandalizing it by removing referenced information. And to top it all off you've got the audacity to threaten others with administrative action.99.255.217.164 (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. You have an extreme personal POV and any reference that doesn't fall in line with your POV is unacceptable. Also it is obvious from the surgically selective information you're continuously removing that you're either closely related to these select individuals or that you're one of these individuals themselves. I mean, all of that is beside the point, but it just puts me in a grotesque position of discussing the content of an article with someone who has a personal & professional stake and interest in it.


 * The problem is the following. Once you find something you don't like (for example, all mentions of IRI seem to irritate you, Djinovic's connection with IRI also, Popovic's fringe involvement in Bodrum affair, and so on...), you simply remove it even when it's referenced by multiple sources. When taken to task about this obviously wrongful course of action, you defend it by taking the liberty of labeling the sources "highly slanted" or some such. That's your POV to which you're entitled to, but it's completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. You unfortunately don't have the role of a higher authority that determines the "weight" and "validity" of a 3rd party source. Readers get to do that. Plus the text is clear about who is making those claims with a link to the source so everyone can determine for themselves. It is not worded as a matter-of-fact statement. As for your further assertion that "some sources are in Serbian", I really have to laugh now. Does that make them non-existent, less relevant... what exactly are you trying to say here? These are main stream, published sources, not some fringe blog. Plus, anyone with rudimentary computer and cognitive skills can translate a text in any language and get the gist of what is being communicated, so I really don't see the problem.


 * Not to mention that you're dumping all this PowerPoint-style info on the article straight from CANVAS web site, which is full of peacock terminology, almost to the point of advertisement. I didn't remove remove any of it, but it most definitely needs to be sifted through and somehow formatted.


 * Also, yes the Bodrum affair is not directly connected to the story of Otpor!, but since the article follows the post-Otpor period as well through the subsequent careers of main Otpor guys, it most definitely deserves a mention as a significant event (at the very least mention worthy) in Popovic's post-Otpor political career.99.255.217.164 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I beg to differ. I mean, I didn't really expect to have a rational discussion with someone who holds a professional stake in this thing, but some falsehoods need to be clarified for the record. I have not removed any of the references you provided even when they were stretched and used to support peacock, white-washing, rose-tinted view, advert-type statements. Instead I tried to modify the text so that it at least holds a semblance of a chronological unit. However, lately even that is becoming impossible since you went into overdrive by dumping all this advert-type info so that the article now pretty much seems like a depository. You on the other hand are removing references and in the case of Bodrum affair you're writing blatantly false information.99.255.217.164 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me start with 'Bodrum' first. The problem in your version is its inaccurate representation of events. The issue wasn't ultimately dismissed as you claim.


 * This is the order of events:
 * 1. In the summer of 2003 a parliamentary vote was held to delegate the new National Bank governor. DS MPs realize they don't have enough MPs present so they use a card that belongs to an absent MP (Neda Arneric) so they can a vote on her behalf. The scandal erupts when it is discovered that she was on vacation in Turkey on the same day when she 'voted' for Kori Udovicki to become a new National Bank governor.
 * 2. Other parties (especially G17+, which actually wasn't an opposition party at the time since it was still very much a part of the ruling DOS coalition together with DS, but the DS-G17 relations had been bad ever since DS played an instrumental role in pushing Mladjan Dinkic out of the National Bank governor spot) jump all over this and G17 even gets a hold of the security footage, which conclusively proves that Neda Arneric wasn't in the parliament that day while also showing other DS MPs (among them Alen Selimovic, Srdja Popovic, Vojislav Janković, etc.) shuffling around while some of them fraudulently use her card.
 * 3. In September 2003 while showing the video at a press conference, G17 spokeswoman Ksenija Milivojevic singles out Popovic, among others, as being involved in the whole thing.
 * 4. After about a year passed, an investigation by the District Court was completed and its findings were passed on to the Public Persecutor.
 * 5. In December 2004, the Public Persecutor decides to raise charges against Selimovic and Jankovic for parliamentary fraud.
 * 6. Thus the court case begins, and in May 2006, the Municipal Court delivers a guilty verdict for Selimovic, sentencing him conditionally to 14 months.
 * 7. He appeals and, in July 2007, the District Court dismisses the sentence handed out by the Municipal Court and orders a re-trial. (This is the "dismissal" you're talking about, but this is not the end of this court case.)
 * 8. The re-trial takes place at the District Court this time (higher instance than the Municipal Court) and, in September 2007, the District Court upholds the original guilty verdict for Selimovic. This sentence becomes final.


 * So, as you can see, the issue was most definitely not dismissed.


 * As for Djinovic, there are two sources that link him to IRI and I included both, but you keep removing them for reasons only known to you. The first source is an article published in a magazine called Blic News in October 2001 while the second source is the article published in NIN in April 2011.99.255.217.164 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what I was saying earlier. Rational discussion with you is pretty much impossible. When you don't like something, you simply label it "unacceptable" and remove it. Unacceptable by who? You? "Only a sentence written by a journalist". Yes, sentences are what people use when they want to communicate something. "Not enough evidence". What evidence do you require? The actual footage of Djinovic taking money from IRI? There are two main stream sources, independent of one another, that link him to IRI. That is more than enough for the accordingly worded inclusion in the article. The article says "as well as an activist said to have good contacts with the International Republican Institute". It is more than carefully worded to say that there are sources saying this about this guy.


 * As for my identity. What do you want? My address and phone number? What difference does it make who I am and what I do. You can easily tell what my areas of interest are by the articles I edit (generally anything to do with the Balkans).


 * Also for Bodrum, creating a new article is really not necessary. All this info is nicely summarized here. It's nothing more than a paragraph.99.255.217.164 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with a dolt like you, because it's painfully obvious you're just going to keep vandalizing the article, but I'll try this one last time and then it's time to take some admin action.


 * IRI - again, the sources you site are known for their strong bias. Here is an analysis of tabloids including Blic News in the post-Milosevic era, in which the (Serbian) authors claim that "Those tabloids ran anti-reform information and produced scandals on orders of political interest groups and domestic tycoons......


 * There you go again, taking the liberty of determining which sources are "valid" and which aren't. Basically, according to your view, anything that serves your own purposes is valid, and things that don't are "not valid" no matter how factual they might be. Everything you said here is completely irrelevant: for the millionth time, you're not the one with a divine right to determine the validity of sources and the supreme powere to simply remove a source that hit your nerve by saying something you don't like. You're vandalizing the article and you know it.


 * Bodrum - The story you are providing proves my point. Yes, someone said that Popovic was in the wrong. He denied it, the court proved that he was innocent, and the charges against him were dismissed. The person who accused him joined his party later, which shows that there was no bad blood between them. It could not be any simpler. The other people involved were charged later, and that had nothing to do with Popovic or Otpor. We could formulate the sentence "All charges against Popovic were later dismissed," if you'd like.


 * Wrong again. You're reaching for arguments because the cold facts are not on your side. The court didn't "prove Popovic was innocent" (that would imply him being charged and found not guilty), it simply didn't charge him. The sentence "All charges against Popovic were later dismissed" wouldn't work because it's factually incorrect - the charges against him were not dismissed because they were not even raised. I already explained this to you million times at a ten-year-old reading level, yet you continue to troll and vandalize.


 * I'm disappointed you don't want to say who you are; it makes me think you have some sort of interest to hide, especially since you are an active editor without a username.


 * Troll, troll, troll.......... 99.255.217.164 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)