User talk:Rex Dominator

Welcome to Wikipedia
John Vandenberg (chat) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Military of Serbia
You see, when I fulfill your request and thoroughly explain my edits, common courtesy dictates that you do the same in turn, and not revert it without a shred of comment, like you did here (falsely marking the edit as minor in the way). Now that I expanded the section with some really relevant data, I hope that your objections are met. No such user (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If your questions pertain to specific edits on an article, Talk:Serbia is generally a better place to raise the issue, than a user's talk page. In the case at hand, you removed "...and subsequently expanded its territory", under the pretext that this territory was still smaller than the Empire's territory. However, its territory in 1918 was significantly bigger than in 1878, and that's what the sentence -- at least to me -- means. Comparison with the Empire, which existed 500 years earlier and mentioned 2 sentences earlier, was not made, so I don't see what the Empire has to do with expansion in 1913-1918. No such user (talk)

bad english
Your edits on the Serbia page are not "more free flowing", they contain various grammar mistakes and add unneeded verbosity. I would also like to point out that the article is written in British English as it is about a European country. If in doubt, consult the Wikipedia manual of style. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've responded on the Serbia talk page, since you reverted again we should carry on on that page.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

bad English
For the umpteenth time, I'm telling you that your command of the English language is poor. If you want lessons, I'm up for hire, but I won't sit here and teach you a foreign language for free. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your English is poor, Brutaldeluxe is right. I looked through his/her edits to the Serbia article, at first I thought s/he was being disruptive but s/he isn't. Your English is perfectly understandable and you would not have much difficulty being understood using it that way by a person in the street, but it is also quite wrong, it does require a small amount of effort to understand and no native English speaker would ever talk or write that way. 82.132.139.34 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No unwritten rules
There are no unwritten rules on wiki, there is no limit on what you can edit on, as long as you do it properly. Wikipedia does not take sides or condone gang behaviour. This is not a battle of Serbians VS Albanians or anything of the sort. Concentrate on editing and not on POV pushing. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I add something here? Rex Dominator, I understand that sometimes you'd like to see different things to be written on Wikipedia, things that support your point of view. I personally consider Kosovo's independence an illegal act, as it's in violation of the United Nations Charter, UNSCR 1244, the Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE of 1975 and the Constitution of Serbia - but the fact of the matter is that some countries DO recognize Kosovo as independent and we can't ignore that. I'll use the example of Interestedinfairness who keeps wanting to change 'disputed region' into 'country', despite large opposition to that POV, not just on Wikipedia, but on the world stage as well. The aim here is to stick to the facts and present both sides, no matter how much we may disagree with them. From what I've seen, your edits have been leaning towards POV pushing, but you are willing to cooperate and I think we can constructively work on making this a better Wikipedia. So, I'm optimistic :) Also, I'm not a Serb, but I have visited Serbia and other countries in the region many times, have a lot of friends from the former Yugoslavia and have even learned Serbo-Croatian. Samo nastavi dobro, i radujem se daljoj saradnji. Sve najbolje, -- Cin é ma C 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your pov on Kosova's Declaration of Independence is biased (POV) bc of your past experiences prejudice. It's the schema theory, your mind takes your past experience and expands on the prior knowledge to understand current & new information.  As far as Kosova, SWEETIE, no one is disputing the land...obviously the land is there, no one is stating that there is no land but there is water...what is disputed is the SOVEREIGNTY of Kosova and Serbia.  If you punch a wall you say "I punched a wall" not "the wall punched my hand".  DUH!!!  Surely, but slowly, you will learn SWEETIE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont compare the CIA to G-d yet they are more powerful than both Serbia and Albania combined! Jovica Stanisic, the president of the Serbian Secret Service, worked for the CIA. This isnt backup only by Serbian source, but by the CIA themselves! I'm trying to tell you that "Serbs" HATED Milosevic, and his "goons" might not have even been Serbian. Hard to belive for some people who dont know how the world of politics works, yet it has a high change of being true. I'm writing in hopes that Serbs and Albanians will stop this ridiculous online war.Rex Dominator (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can agree that you understand basic psychology and that Kosovos sovereignty is disputed.Rex Dominator (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think?? Basic psychology, hmmmm :)  Tung & Cao!!  Ari d'Kosova (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)  aka  SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN

I just saw the video link you left in my talk page. Keep buying into state sponsored PROPAGANDA. SAMU (Serbian Sceience & Acedemic) is at it again. I was there, it was not NATO killing Kosovars...trust me it was DEF NOT NATO. Of course you can believe whatever you want from your comfy bed or couch. All I can say is, you have no idea what happened. :) Ari d'Kosova (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The CIA isn't God to dictate every coup and war. Albanians have been lobbying for equal rights or freedom since Ottoman times. The UCK moment did start with Serbian police messing with Adem Jashari. America nor anyone wanted to intervene until Serbia massacred the village of Racak, which I had the unfortunate luck of passing by 45 minutes later (homes were still on fire). The serb army turned their tank heads at the bus, blocked the road, stopped us, and beat the shit out of everyone of us. I was young, and pretended to be asleep. The serb chetniks beat every person on that bus and after about 20 something minutes let us go. I will never forget that, never. After that incident as soon as CNN / BBC saw the attrocaties I bet you money that CIA jumped the bandwaggon to send weapons to a pathetic 2 man bad UCK who more of a human shield than soldiers. You can perceive the war however way you would like but remember one thing..if you blame x for war 1, blame x for war 2, blame x for war 3, blame x for ..... people will just turn off their attention. I believe we should all move on, Kosova as a whole has completle been rebuilt and I DO HEAR SERBIAN in Prishtina..I've also seen serbs scream Kosova is Serbia in the capital and been beaten up. The point is that we can live together as long as you do not try to harm anyone or offend people.

PEACE --Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Balkan warning
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chetniks, and WP:ANI notice
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.

There is also a discussion at WP:ANI about your editing. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. -- Deville (Talk) 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning collaboration
Axis collaboration section is based on a single, poorly referenced source. This is beyond content dispute. This is you being disruptive by not acknowledging this simple fact.Rex Dominator (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now its sourced by six professional publications, three of which you can even read for free(!) on the net. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there are just offline books. Show me, one source which you are talking about.Rex Dominator (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No they're not, READ the references. But even if they weren't free, so what? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, mate, you've got to tell me: why did you report me? Don't you realize that you're revert warring as well? If I get blocked, so will you (maybe even for a longer period). Not because of me, but because its obvious from the history page. :P Not that you were necessarily wrong in doing so, but I'm interested in your logic? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, your actions are horrible. You havent been cooperative at all. You edit war, even tho you are an "experienced" user and you attack me calling me a "newbie". Then you keep arguing that a section can be cited by a blog. I keep telling you that blogs are not ok. Then you remove my templates. You also remove well cited information, and claim that BBC is not a valid source even tho the WP:SOURCES clearly states that news articles are good sources. Above all, you somehow think that you own Wikipedia, that your picture preference must be accepted. Then i spend my time providing you with a encayclopedia sources that claim that Chetniks were against the Germans, yet you think that a blog is a well enough reason for saying that they collaborated; once again, you think you own Wiki. I literraly no reason to hate you except for your actions which have been disgraceful.Rex Dominator (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(This post is long, but please bear with me...)
 * Concerning your above post. Man, here's the most basic Wikipedia "cooperativeness" for you: If you edit an article, and your edit is reverted with an explanation on the talkpage - you WAIT; you discuss; you bring in sources (real ones). You absolutely do NOT start revert-warring to push your edit. Why? Well, no only is it 1) impolite haughty and "uncooperative", 2) it may well get you blocked and 3) it will not actually help you keep you push your edit in any way. All I said by "newbie" was that you're doing these things because you're new.
 * Re:"Then you keep arguing that a section can be cited by a blog." I argued no such thing, and you know it. I said that the citations for the section were in the blog. A blog can't be used as a source.
 * Re:"Then you remove my templates." I removed your templates because they were wrong. You're supposed to use that template on an article or section with no sources at all.
 * Re:"You also remove well cited information, and claim that BBC is not a valid source even tho the WP:SOURCES clearly states that news articles are good sources." Ok, now there are three MAJOR problems with that edit of yours: 1) it does not belong in the lede (obviously), 2) you completely misquoted it (the BBC article does not claim what you wrote, you embellished it), and 3) you took what liittle of it was real completely out of context (the article is critical of the Chetniks as well, but you omitted that - you were not objective).
 * Re:"you somehow think that you own Wikipedia, that your picture preference must be accepted" Completely untrue. Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends photos over works of art when depicting people, and there is no reason to move or remove the perfectly valid, related, and interesting image that was in the Chetniks article lede for a long time.
 * Concerning the images. Your move of the image is opposed, and you know that. Be sure that there is no way I'll let you move images around because of your nationalist POV. Maybe you can reduce it in size as well, make it REAL tiny and delete the caption. :) Why in the world should you have your way with where each image goes? As for the medal, its completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Its just some medal. Its a random object, just as relevant to the article as a picture of Ravna Gora or whatever. Again, it was added to further your nationalist agenda of glorifying the Chetniks. This will not fly, mate. You calimed it was WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, the sources proved otherwise. It is not WP:UNDUE WEIGHT - what are you still arguing about? Its the only good image of Chetniks in the article, of course it sin the lede! I didn't put it there, its only natural! --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Although i appreciate your sudden enthusiasm however your actions have wasted massive amount of energy of admins, and myself. I have spent tons of time creating mediation requests which you never signed. Please sign the mediation request and we can get a 3rd party to decide on the issue. As for the possible ban on your ip or account, your actions have spoken already. If you feel like you are not a menace to Wikipedia then you shouldnt worry about it too much. Rex Dominator (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have to sign them, man... :) I filed for few mediations myself, I don't think anyone signed them. More likely the request was simply ignored - that happens sometimes. (Don't worry, I didn't actually expect you to READ all that. ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You really ought to put the template back, you know... rules. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Easy4all
You've been reported for abusing multiple accounts. See report here. Big mistake, Rex... I thought you were smarter than that. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are as smart as I thought you were. :) Kudos. Sorry for calling you a sock, I'm sure you can see how anyone could have made that mistake: the account just appeared the same evening and started supporting you in everything you do. Anyway, my bad -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning DIREKTOR
While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).

Info from Music and Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion.

On a positive note the check and balances on the Wiki English Site do help minimise POV. Some of those articles pertaining to the Balkans could be a lot worse. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He is a vandal and POV pusher when it comes to Balkan related articles. Examples are simply too numerous to list. I have opened a vandal report on his activity. You are the 3rd person to agree with the POV actions of this user. Sorry for a short reply.Rex Dominator (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, that's not a "vandal report", that's an edit-warring report you made while edit-warring even more yourself at the same time. Your "vandal report" was immediately rejected. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi User:Rex Dominator, your post on Talk:Chetniks has been replied. Please discuss the images issue as well. (I am posting this because we are supposed to get the article unblocked as soon as possible. If you feel I should stop notifying you please say so.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rex

 * RESPONSE to Rex - From 1992-1995, militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica had been used to attack and terrorize Bosniak civilians living in nearby Bosnian Muslim villages and the town of Srebrenica. Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. In the spring of 1992 the Bosnian Serb Army, remnants of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and paramilitary forces carried out systematic attacks and widespread ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak civilian population of the Podrinje - the Drina Valley region of Eastern Bosnia where Srebrenica is located. In the course of these attacks alone, at least 11,391 Bosniaks were killed and more than 100,000 were expelled from their homes. Thousands of refugees sought shelter in Srebrenica only to find themselves trapped in a crowded ghetto with unbearable living conditions. From 1992 to 1995 refugees were frequently the target of artillery attacks from militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica such as Ratkovići, Dučići, Fakovići and Brađevina. The Serbs around Srebrenica never demilitarized despite of being required to do so under the terms of the 1993 "safe area" agreement. In July 1995 the Bosnian Serb army staged a brutal takeover of Srebrenica and its surrounding area, where they proceeded to perpetrate genocide. Over a period of several days the Bosnian Serb soldiers separated Bosniak families, forcibly expelled 25,000-30,000 people in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing and systematically murdered at least 8,372 boys, men, and elderly in fields, schools, and warehouses throughout the local area. Despite efforts to conceal the crime, as of May 2009 the remains of more than 6,000 victims of the genocide have been exhumed from some 70 mass graves and more than 6,000 genocide victims have been identified by DNA analysis. According to the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo (RDC), whose work has been validated and certified by experts working for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), at least 24,117 Bosniaks lost their lives in the Podrinje area between 1992 and 1995. This figure includes the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. Source: www.srebrenicagenocide.org. In other words, you ignore suffering of 100,000 Bosniaks that were terrorized by Serbs in Podrinje - region where Srebrenica is located. Additionally, you ignore the suffering of more than 20,000 Bosniaks that were slaughtered by Serbs in 1992 in Podrinje - region where Srebrenica is located.
 * I just had a discussion with another user where i tried to explain to him that blogs are not good sources. I cant argue with the Srebrenica massacre because i havent studied it at all. I do know, first hand, that the media was against the serbs in that war. So i have extrapolated that fact onto the data when i analyse. Please be mindful when you do the same. Serbs were in fact a victim when it came to the media. See Serbophobia. Regards.12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike...?
Mike?! Is that you!? I honestly thought you were a more sensible person, and I can't believe you caused so much trouble for me. You're no newb and you know full well that I'm right on the article. I don't like it when people deliberately cause trouble even when they know its wrong. Well, be sure that I'm on the lookout for your socks and IP now... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Are you getting paid to promote propaganda? You seem to know when to be "nice" in order to achieve your goals.
 * 2. I was blocked for sockpuppetry. True. Yet I'm not sock puppet. I did have 2 account when I was a newbie on Wikipedia. I had to have two accounts since a banned user Rjecina would harass me and follow my every edit. I was new and i didnt know better. Yet a year after you open up a sock investigation, which turned out to be not connected to me, and i get banned for the former reason.
 * 3. I want to warn you that further comments will be deleted since i dont want to spend my time on small things such as this argument, tho I'm apologetic for that. Its just that time is the most precious commodity on earth and i would be mad to waste it.
 * Rex Dominator (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, is User:Formyopinion your new sock? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. "Am I getting paid?" Are you nuts? I wish... :P By whom would I be paid, ffs!? And what "propaganda" are you talking about? There are no less than five university publications describing Chetnik collaboration in detail! I actually am nice, but I also debate rather aggressively when confronted with irrational arguments of nationalists. Mike, the bradonje were pretty much scum, and that's not "my opinion" either, its a sourced fact. If you can't accept that, you've completely lost your objectivity.
 * 2. Heh, please no silly stories ;), I was harassed a lot more than you. You just report the guy for WP:HARASS, and the article will get semi-protected or his IP range will be blocked. It makes no sense to start a new account because of that. Also, nobody cares if you were a "newbie" or not when you sockpuppeteered (and now you're no newbie). You knew full well that it was strictly against the rules on almost every website.
 * 3. Like I care... xD


 * 1. you show high level of Machiavellian intelligence by your ability to ban users.
 * 2. you seem blind to the obvious fact that Croatia has pumped out propaganda material especially before, during, and after 1995 war of independence
 * 3. Philip J. Cohen, author of the book Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history graduated in University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Thats right, my friend, he was a dentist!
 * 4. I simply dont have enough time to tell you all the secrets of that war.
 * 5. I believe that fact will not change your opinion since you are either getting paid to promote an agenda or you are simply hiding your pro-ustashe bias behind a civil face.
 * 6. The more you know about a topic the more you become a lover that that subject. So i wish to thank you for developing the article called Chetniks.
 * 7. I'm regretful of my statements if they are not true yet your anti-Serb bias is noticeable.
 * Rex Dominator (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not being objective, not at all. You're just another typical Serbian nationalist. Given your background I can't say I'm surprised, but I still think any intelligent person should try to rise above the crap and try to grasp things objectively. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't ban users. I can't ban users. Users ban themselves because of the lack of intelligence (Machiavellian and otherwise). I simply report sockpuppeteers. If you're not a sockpuppeteer, I can't get you banned. No way. I'm sorry you're a sockpuppeteer.
 * 2. ALL of my knowledge on Yugoslav affairs, ALL of it, was formed from independent non-ex-Yugoslav sources (I read almost exclusively in English). I am fully aware of the bullshit propaganda Croatia was/is full of, but let me assure you, I am completely unaffected by it. Believe me or don't. As for the ridiculous Serbian 1990s propaganda, it was just as bad and worse (TV Beograd?). What does this have to do with anything, anyway...??
 * 3. I don't give a damn what Cohen did for a living, he was published by an acclaimed university, that makes him a first-rate source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm sure you'll find a flaw in the primary sources he used as well... :P
 * 4. You're going to tell me the "secrets of the war", lol... You mean the "secrets" of the 1990s Serbian rehabilitation of the Chetnik collaborators? I seriously suggest you double-check the primary sources behind every "secret" of yours, and make sure the source is completely unbiased. I think I'll learn the "secrets of the war" from university professors with actual degrees and not from bullshit nationalist blogs peddling "The Truth" and "The Secrets" about how the Chetniks were heroes xD
 * 5. Paid? RoTfLmAo! who would pay me, are you nuts??! Forget about that, its the craziest thing I've ever heard! xD
 * 6. No problem, thank you for giving me the motivation to BLOW the "Chetnik non-collaboration" myth right out of Wikipedia.
 * 7. Yeah, just a couple of weeks ago I was told I'm a Serb (in an "insulting" way) and not a "real Croat" and that I "hate Croatia". No my friend, I have nothing against the great Serbian people. In fact, I consider Croats and Serbs to be almost identical. To hate Serbs as a nation would mean I would have to hate Croats as a nation too. I think we both know I am not an "Ustaše".


 * Since you are well read, as you state, care to find me a single source that backs up the claim that Draza Mihajlovic issued "instructions" on genocide as is found in the Chetnik article. On another topic, I was banned because of my inexperience on wikipedia. What am i to do but laugh at the situation.Rex Dominator (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the "Chetnik Terror" chapter of The Chetniks?
 * It does not take Wikipedia experience to know that you're not supposed to make sockpuppet accounts on websites. Almost all webistes with membership will ban you for that. This is not some "Wikipedia thing". Also, you created "Rex Dominator" ("Karađorđević Dominator"? ;) very recently. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)