User talk:Kruško Mortale

Welcome!
Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hey...
Hello Kruško. What's up with you? When will you be back? Can you review articles related to Bosnian War, because I think that some users are dedicated to sneaky vandalism. They remove sources, put false sentences etc... --HarisM (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia war - casualities
You reverted my (uncredited) edits. I also used IDC and their "book of death" as the main sources, but I only found my numbers. Can you send me page with your data? --Stijak (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. I now see it is about civil victims, but, I couldn't find anywhere the composition of civil victims in the sources, so please, show me where it is. I will not edit until you clarify it to me.

Also, if it is about civil victims, and if it is corect, then the sentence "Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent of civilian victims were Serbs and more than 5 percent of civilian victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people." should be corrected, since there was 38,645 documented civilian victims, and not 97207 (that was total). -- Stijak (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet/proxy edit history comment
With this edit you reverted to an earlier version how do you know that the edit was made by a "sockpuppet/proxy"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I realized there is a pattern in anon's behaviour. Anon from Scandinavia is editing just two articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Alija Izetbegovic - with different IPs.


 * 85.224.135.70 (Stockholm)
 * 64.72.116.208 - Proxy - a revert to the version by 85.224.135.70
 * 85.224.132.168 (Stockholm)
 * 85.224.133.98 (Stockholm)
 * 79.102.119.194 (Sweden)

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon deleted a huge part of the article with many references:. That's just not OK. He must realize Wikipedia is not his own property, articles are not fixed, they are changing all the time. You can protect it, but that seems to be useless strategy. --Kruško Mortale (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * re Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen, thanks I had already read it. We now wait for a reply from you nemesis --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply received see Talk:Bosnian mujahideen --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not have an email address. Please send email me using my "E-mail this user" tab on my user page. --PBS (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre
Hi Krusko You just did the type of edit that some days ago caused the page to be protected. Please discuss on talk page before doing disputed edits. The short summary of your change is not specific. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Krusko. Please do not simply revert edits that are thoroughly discussed. Changes are done for a reason, please relate to that on the talk page rather than just reverting. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note
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)


 * Fine by me. Kruško Mortale (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI --PBS (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC). Now archived: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492 -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

cheers
Hi Krusko,

Just wanted to say thanks for working with me on the CPC page.. and for your helpful factual additions (I really don't know much about the topic, so it was good to have your input).

As I mentioned to Dfener on the talk page, I think the article could still use a little work overall (not sure if the background section needs to be so lengthy, for instance), which I may or (more likely) may not get around to, but I'm happy if the existing article is at least acceptable to both of you guys. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and sorry for misspelling your name, but I don't know how to get the accent thingies on my keyboard! Jonathanmills (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem mate, you're not the first one to accuse me of being a sockpuppet! :-)


 * And I don't take offence at all; honestly I'm happy if you want to investigate it and put your mind at rest.


 * Just re the Srebrenica page, I was checking the ICTY reference for the 'baby killed' statement, and it reads Although there is evidence that a small number of killings in Potocari and afterwards involved women, children and elderly [1149], and then footnote 1149 reads One witness testified about the slaughtering of a baby (I remember this particular issue because I was the one who phrased the original sentence!) In these circumstances, I think it is a lot more accurate to use the word 'reportedly' than to state the baby-killing as a verified fact. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi buddy,

Just wanted to explain my position regarding the use of witness statements in the articles we're working on (eg CPC or Srebrenica Massacre) so you understand where I'm coming from, and so you (hopefully!) don't think I'm being hypocritical:

There's nothing wrong with including witness statements (all such articles use them), as long as they're identified as such (ie witnesses report/say/describe...) ..and of course that they are RS-verified that they were indeed said.

The other issue that arises is if the quote is a direct one, ie where the witness' actual words are used (and quote marks indicate this), or whether the witness' testimony is instead being described.

This might seem like an odd distinction, but it's actually quite important, because if the statements are being described rather than quoted directly, then neutral, descriptive language ought to be used.

Consider the following example: a prisoner of war describes a fellow prisoner being beaten by a camp guard. The prisoner's words are: "He was subjected to one of the worst beatings in history". Now, the words can be quoted directly, with quote marks (One prisoner said he witnessed "one of the worst beatings in history"), OR they can be described (One prisoner reported witnessing an extremely brutal beating)...

BUT what is a no-no is to use his words without quote marks (One prisoner reported witnessing one of the worst beatings in history), because that confuses the reader into thinking that the encyclopaedia is indeed agreeing that the beating described was actually one of the worst in history.

Hmm... maybe that's not the best example, but I hope that explains what I'm getting at. Another example:

It would be OK for the article on the CPC to say A prisoner reported that his comrades were "murdered in a genocidal massacre", (if that's what he said), but NOT A prisoner reported that his comrades were murdered in a genocidal massacre, because that implies some sort of agreement with the statement. (For the same reason, using non-neutral language -- "slaughtered" rather than "killed", for example -- is only OK if quote marks are used).

Feel free to get back to me if any of that is confusing, or there's anything you'd like to debate/discuss regarding this issue. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Dear Stifle, I am really sorry to address this problem directly to you, I am aware it's not popular way, but unfortunately I opened a case here: Suspected_sock_puppets a week ago, and Osli73 is still using alternative way to edit articles (IPs). I addressed this problem to you because I've seen your name in Osli73's block log. Regards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but due to past negative experiences I do not deal with disputes involving other users. Try Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen
See Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
 * Bosnian mujahideen New users and unregistered users blocked from editing the page for six months as user:Osli73 has been using IP addresses in a slow revert war with User:Kruško Mortale and they do not seem able to compromise on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * user:Osli73 restricted to one revert a week (1RR) on the page Bosnian mujahideen for six months (or until the page protection is taken off). -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Kruško Mortale restricted to one revert a week (1RR) on the page Bosnian mujahideen for six months (or until the page protection is taken off). -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have waited a week for a constructive discussion to start on the talk page. But as one has not started, I am trying another approach which will allow others to edit the page while the two of you sort out your differences. If you can come to an agreement with your nemesis and both of you agree, then I'll take the restrictions off and unblock the page. --PBS (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1RR a week includes vandalism. If you see vandalism and need it fixed then ask me and/or ask at WP:ANI. --PBS (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See meatpuppet: Do not solicit aid for your version of again as you did with this request. If user:Osli73 were to do the same thing, it would not be unreasonable for you to consider that (s)he was trying to circumvent the restrictions placed upon him/her. Instead of prolonging this edit war why not discuss you differences on the talk page? --PBS (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you consider this edit by user:Osli73 to be a breach of 1RR a week let me know with the reasons why. --PBS (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please join in the discussion on talk:Bosnian mujahideen, if you do not then Osli73 POV prevails ("silence implies consent": WP:CONSENSUS). At the moment the introduction clearly is unbalanced as it does not present a range for the numbers. Also the Swedish defence paper quotes the massacres as a motive of at least one person for joining the mujahideen, that can also be worked into the introduction. etc. But these things need discussing. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section heading "=====Introduction Osli removed=====" because it is not needed and breaks the threading of the section. Please see Talk page guidelines it is best not to start a new section when there is no topic and it is best not to mention specific users in section headers. --PBS (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please comment on user:Osli73 suggestions, or not unreasonably he will make changes as silence implies consent (see this link in WP:CONSENSUS) --PBS (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that in Osli73's case - or that of other editors with a record of disruptive interventions - the silence of co-editors should be understood to imply consent. Osli73's history on Wikipedia is one of opening up wide-ranging discussions often based on misleading statements and references and then making extensive changes without heed to what has been discussed.


 * In the past I have just given up trying to keep up with Osli73's determined prolixity. One of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is the way that it hands the initiative to determined individuals who know how to give the impression of objective neutrality to the uninformed onlooker while moving article content in a non-neutral direction.


 * I fail to understand why PBS chooses to endorse Osli73's interventions by using the words "not unreasonably" here. KM, I understand your unwillingness to allow yourself to be led by the nose by Osli73. It's a dilemma having to choose between being driven to exasperation and abandoning the attempt to sustain a reasonable approximation to truth and accuracy.


 * Too often that's the Wikipedia experience. When Wikipedia editors give up it is Wikipedia's reputation that suffers in the end. But keep going as long as you can. And when you go away be prepared to come back.  Over time more and more of the truth about the Bosnian war is irrefutably established in a way that even the revisionists can't confuse.  Opbeith (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your revert restriction on Bosnian mujahideen is ended, see Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Please note also the new restriction on user:Osli73 -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re
The article's lead is misleading. It conveys the idea that the term Mujahideen is specific to the Bosnia War, which is not true. That's the reason I've changed it per article's title. But I agree with the fact that the current version is less up-to-date than the previous ones. Journalist 007 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Celibici camp
Hi Krusko,

Just wondering if we could discuss the edit-conflict over at the CPC page -- like I say, I'm not averse to compromise on some or even all of the specific differences, but perhaps you could go first? (I've laid them out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C4%8Celebi%C4%87i_prison_camp#latest_edit_conflicts)

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Serb vs Bosnian-Serb
Hi Krusko Please engage in the discussion re Omarska camp rather than simply reverting changes that made the article less ambiguous. I reverted your changes. Please let us work together to find a best possible wording. Have a nice day. Mondeo (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Krusko. Please engange in discussion. See my comment above. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok
I'll see what can be done...Regards...--Journalist 007 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

R.E
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.170.87 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I have no idea who you are, what in the world you are talking about, and I have no idea what you're accusing me of. Can you please explain to me what is is that I have done that you have a problem with? I don't want any trouble with you, since I don't know you. Thanks! 124.179.170.87 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Bosnian cuisine
Your comment has been removed as it violated several key Wikipedia policies, including WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. You cannot make blanket accusations against another user, and expect them to sit by and let it slide. This is not what talk pages are for. If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, please start an investigation here.

You accused me of being this "Ivan Kricancic", but your are dead wrong. I have seen this person's behaviour, and I hate his guts, and his strange point of view. So stop accusing me of being this guy, because that is slander. From what I've heard, he would never call himself Bosnian, but I am a Bosnian (Catholic religion, but still Bosnian).

You also must not leave personal attacks in edit summaries, such as this. This is against Wikipedia policy, and may lead to your banning. For the record the vandalism on the Bosniaks page was made by 164.82.146.3 who is from Washington, in the United States, and it was also vandalised by User:Bg007, who is a serb nationalist, and has a history of vandalising the article. These are the people who vandalise the article, and if you could just do a little checking in the future so you don't accuse the wrong person.

I'm going to just assume this is a big misunderstanding on your part, because there are a lot of crazy idiot who like to vandalise Bosnian related articles - I know, because I see them everyday, and I also try to stop them. But if someone is doing the wrong thing, you don't just make accusations in edit summaries, or make uncivil personal attacks - you have to report them to an administrator in a calm, collected manner. I hope we can get past this, and move on.

Cheers. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate
Kruško, you seem to be knowledgeable in the legal concerns of the Bosnian War, a question for you: what exactly was the relation between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. 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.

Additionally, since you are already aware of the Arbitration Committee's decision on editor conduct in articles related to the Balkans (WP:ARBMAC), I'm placing you on a one revert per 48 hours restriction on the above article, to expire in two month's time. Should you exceed this limit you will be blocked for 1 week in the first instance. EyeSerene talk 10:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragon of Bosnia
You should know that, during my stay on Wikipedia, AlasdairGreen27 and myself reported and "put away" a very large number of sockpuppteers and their socks. Over two dozen, I think (I've stopped counting after a while :). Now you're suggesting I created my own sock? I assure you: noone is that stupid. Also, noone is stupid enough to report a guy for sockpuppteering if he's a sockpuppet as well (unless he's already been reported and is "retaliating", like you now). So you see, I'm really not a sockpuppet. :) But, if you like, you can use that template on my page, just make sure you post a checkuser report as well. (See that? If I were a sock, would I demand that you post a checkuser? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Because you lied about Federation of B&H. And it seems you're very nervous. You're just talking about that. I was accussed by many, so what, get life and let the system works. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not nervous, I just like to gloat before you get blocked ;). You've been reported as well, quite a while before. ("Get life"?). Btw, you misspelled "Kruško" on your userpage. I'd fix that. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say the following, User:Historičar. I will not allow you to block-evade any further. I will be filing checkusers for even the most remotely similar account. If you resurface again, for the 5th time or so, I will get to work making sure we get a range-block. And you're telling me to "get life", LoL... You certainly won't be the only fanatic I've worked on keeping out of this website. (This post is addressed to User:Historičar, not User:Kruško Mortale.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, welly well well. Looks like I'm not the one with the sock after all... What was it you said... "get life". Sorry for this attitude, but you did get me blocked, remember? Not something people let go of easily on Wiki. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.