User talk:Journalist 007

1

Redirect of DANI[]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DANI, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DANI is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DANI, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there[]

Hi there,

I just received a warning from you that I was engaging in -warring. I'm a little uncertain about the justification for this; while I have engaged in reverts on the Srebrenica Massacre page (and, just now and for the first time, the Čelebići prison camp page), I have ALWAYS sought to resolve issues via the talk pages (you can take a look if you want).

Indeed, I would argue that I have generally been *opposing* those who make large, unjustified (via the talk-page I mean) reverts... so I feel a little hard done by (while not personally upset).

Could you explain your position any more at all? It would be much appreciated.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your s at CPC page!
I will take a closer look at the issues before I make my next there, but it appeared to me that while KM was correct that the phrase about 'killing civilians in their houses' was not in the reference provided, that was his main stated issue, and he was deleting much more than that (I've had a similar issue with KM over at the Srebrenica page, so perhaps I was jumping to conclusions unfairly). Jonathanmills (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen[]

Hi there, I've seen that you ed Bosnian mujahideen page - [1]. I don't agree with the title you support "Bosnian mujahideen" because there is no Bosnian mujahideen just Mujahideen, but the fact is user:Osli73 reverted my version to one of his old versions, and you didn't have other complaints about my version except the title, and he also delete all other updated information such as new ICTY verdicts, he quotes Trial Chambers but not the Appeal Chambers. So I suggest you to be involved in ing this article. Regards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have joined in with a revert please join in the conversation on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached over the competing versions of the article. --PBS (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, noted your revert of the article. While I'm happy if more people join into the debate about the article, it really would be good if you tried to join into the debate. I have posted a number of points defending the original version of the article against the version proposed by Krusko Mortale (and now by you as well). Could you try to address those points? Otherwise you are just adding to KM's revert war.Osli73 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with Osli73. I would like to invite you to participate aslo in the discussion related to Bosnian mujahideen article, because I think my work is not appriciated there by the certain admin whose approach, in my humble opinion, is biased because it seems to me he is helping (user:Osli73), you can see more information here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Osli73_(2nd). And you don't have to agree with me, that's not the point, I just want logical arguments in the discussion, not biased approach of some users, non-stop removal of some parts of the article without logical explanation etc. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Grateful[]

For your support on the Bosniaks article. Although with the article being protected still some pov-influences manage to get heard. It hurts me to see that etasblished users can act~in this way. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Massacres[]

Heres what I could find [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] PRODUCER (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian language[]

Hi, just thought you'd appreciate a heads-up on my response on Talk:Bosnian language. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Croatian language is called Serbian by some" ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that some Serbs, particularly radicals, consider Croats and Bosniaks to be "Serbs". This belief, of course, probably includes the languages :) Of course, I have no idea what relevance that may have to the debate on Talk:Bosnian language... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

3 revert warning[]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an war according to the reverts you have made on West Herzegovina Canton. 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 warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from ing. Please do not repeatedly revert s, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among ors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Andrew c [talk] 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on Bosnian language[]

Further to this thread on WP:ANI, I'm notifying you of WP:ARBMAC, which states:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any or working in the area of conflict [ie Balkans-related articles] if that or fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal orial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from ing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the or in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Further reverting, -warring or disruption of any sort will lead to sanctions on this account. EyeSerenetalk 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)