User talk:Cinéma C: Difference between revisions

Feel free to leave me a message here. --Cinéma C

I have to be honest, I really do not see the need to explain the status of Kosovo - or any other territory - in an article about a song contest. Readers who do not know about Kosovo can click the link to read more about it; readers who already know won't need to.

We don't list the status of any other territory, and I wouldn't expect - if, as anticipated, the Palestinian Authority joins Eurovision in 2010 - that we would detail the PA's status in future.

To be honest, and I'm trying my best to assume good faith, this seems very close to imposing a political point of view that has no place in an article about a song contest.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man what is your problem with the constant edit waring, which bit do you feel strongly about, lets discuss it here. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was answered here. --Cinéma C 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an English link? I've looked and the document you linked requires downloading to be viewed in English, this might violate the rules on verifiability. Also since the link comes from Serbian government, it could be viewed by some people (not me) as an unreliable source. Not being an ass, it's just that citations on this article have to be bullet-proof. Also, could you reply on the Kosovo talk page about this issue and the sentences earmarked for deletion? Yours,Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it is difficult to find links in English, but since we are dealing with en.wikipedia, we should use that language as much as possible, and it is near on impossible to find info on Kosovo that is in English and neutral. Although I recognise that the present Serbian government is reliable, some other people (I think you know who) might not.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, if that is the link on the Kosovo page then it will stay for eternity. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you might have misunderstood, I did not dispute the Serbian language name in itself, just the fact that it is referred to as Kosovo and Metohija. I think it's all sorted now anyway. Cheers, Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you might have misunderstood, I did not dispute the Serbian language name in itself, just the fact that it is referred to as Kosovo and Metohija. I think it's all sorted now anyway. Cheers, Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mum went to Korcula and loved it, I went to the inland bit, and stayed in a quiet little village near Sisak called Srednije Mokrice, I had to walk into a minefield to dump sawdust for this guy I worked for. Lots of war damage on the houses, hence the interest in the Yugoslav wars, plus my uncle was in the air force at that time. Lakcu noc.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you had three days, and you didn't raise any objections, despite your making other edits. There is consensus to use that map now. So restore the map to the consensus version, and if you want, form a new consensus to change it back. Prodego ^talk 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily blocked you from editing, for tendentious editing. You are refusing to participate in discussion, thus causing disruptions. Dispute resolution can not ever come from edit warring and edit summaries. See my note at Talk:Serbia. This is going on far too long, and you are bringing uninvolved users and making them involved. Take a break, and discuss your edits after your block has expired. Do not continue to edit war. Keegan (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you in haste, I have unblocked. Much apologies for blemishing your log, I know how that goes. Please do not edit the page without consulting the talk page. Again, I'm sorry. Keegan (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye out on all the users involved, trust me on that number. I know I can't say it enough so I'll stop saying it after this: sorry about the block. It's for my own conscience, really...happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will not engage in edit-warring or violate 3RR. However, I see little or nothing wrong with IinF's additions: they are essentially correct, with a dash of POV concerning Kosovo. I've removed the slightly POV parts and rearranged the lede to make the paragraphs connect to each-other. I also see, on the other hand, that you are edit-warring and avoiding proper discussion. I also see that you have not properly explained your edits. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, for some reason I missed your reply. I don't check my talk page unless I get a message bar and for some reason I missed it.

I'm keeping an eye out on said user. I usually don't get involved in conflicts unless I feel the need to put a foot down, and for that very reason that I accidentally blocked you in err is why I don't touch actual users in edit warring.

So, I'm aware what's happening, and the proper thing will be done in short order. I realize that is is a non-reply reply, but I tend to be vague for specific reason. Keegan (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we need to work on a better lead and article and cut these controversial edits out, in short, make the article vandal and POV proof, the article is about the modern country of Serbia not about its history, there needs to be more focus on the current status, there is more to the country than silly disputes. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a case here [1], as this is starting to become extremely disruptive. Feel free to add any evidence of your own. Regards, --Athenean (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently deadlocked in an argument with a new editor over edits on the Serbia article, would you care tolook at this [2] and see which version you prefer? Thanks, Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thanked you for taking time to look into this, so here it is. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinéma, dont go!! It is soo hard to find someone who is npov.

• User:Interestedinfairness
• User:Mr.Neutral
• User:Sinbad Barron
• User:A_Balanced_View
• ....

This is all one user, and we have soooo much problem with him. There must be way to stop that. Please help me with Adem Jashari. There are no way for me to do this alone.

User:Kedadi is also completely pro-albanian, we dont need that kind of edits. I am just trying to keep all as true as it is.

Please, write to me. Also, User:Vanjagenije is also very NPOV, we should talk to him too.

Best regards, Tadija (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your Serbian is EXCELLENT, might i say, the sentence was perfectly constructed and well developed. I was impressed. Im a truly balanced editor, as my future edits will hopefully show.Rex Dominator (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always thought that SpanishBoy was SinBadbarron, I get a feeling that all these guys are acting in unison, so I think we should start a puppet investigation again.

Hello Cinema. I read your latest edit on Kosovo talk: I wouldn't take seriously a threat that you of all editors should be banned. I for one would come down heavily on your side if the committee should try you! It won't happen though. I appreciate that you have been objective throughout the entire disupte chain over the past months, but sadly we seem to be dealing with individuals presenting an outright Albanian version of statistics and anyone opposing them is Pro-Serb, or Anti-Albanian. Maybe if a few Serb knuckleheads joined the battle to present the article as "Kosovo is a province of Serbia which is bound by the conditions of UNSCR1244, currently in the hands of ethnic Albanian rebels. The rebels declared independence in 2008 and 62 countries have illegally recognised this unilateral claim", then the Albanian editors would see that you and I are both fair in that we'd oppose their revision too in favour of "disputed territory". Perhaps if they persisted to use their own and dismissed us as Albanian propagandists, maybe then the others would realise that this is not the case. As for the disruptive users, I suggest we do not worry too much about them. They are outnumbered by non-Serb/non-Albanian editors whose purpose is to present a decent article. These include ThuranX (with whom I admit having taken issue over sources), Brutaldeluxe and Dab; none are Serb or come from the region. I have no dea what has happened to Interestedinfairness but the rest of the opponents are Spanishboy2006 (who I find hard to believe in as Iberian as his name makes out) and Kedadi. The other two you mentioned, I don't know who they are or how they came about but they do seem disruptive. But rather than get them banned, why don't we battle them and beat them properly!! Spanishboy2006 out of the blue, recited a pathetic verse by Noel Malcolm from his apology for a historical account "Kosovo: a short history". Not that I know which part of the article Spanishboy wishes to use his source to amend, or what he wishes to use it to add, I spent the best part of two hours responding to him on the talk page. Over issues such as these, I will never throw down my sword and admit defeat. I answered back, and there's more where my last lot came from!! Let's grin and bare these annoying users. I don't suggest we feed disruptive users, but by responding to them every time we can expose them as simpletons! Evlekis (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Cinema. I wish more editors were like you and I am sadned to see that you have once been blocked in the past; though I am pleased that the admin quickly came to his senses and cancelled his earlier action. On the subjects we were discussing: Noel Malcolm is, unfortunately, a "decent Wikipedia source" because of his noted positive feedback, his works used by other scholars and his profession as historian. His writing is very tactful and he occasionally (when writing about Kosovo) denounces Albanian theories, and these factors are enough to fool the less knowledgeable that he is "neutral" on the issues. However, he has a catalogue of criticism as long as the the Tropic of Capricorn; he is forever involved in disputes, having to defend himself, from other scholars whose findings differ from his. The web is full of articles in which he is attacked, then he responds and so on forever. There is a link between his Kosovo and his Bosnia books, they are both anti-Serb and look to ridicule the Serbian nation wherever and whenever possible. As far as Noel Malcolm is concerned, the farther forward in time you go is the greater the Serb "myth". He seems to accept its historical empire, but everything from the middle ages onward concerning them is one thing to Noel Malcolm and another to the Serb nation. He believes his books "dismantle the Serb myths" but I haven't read any Serbian replies thanking him for "enlightening" them on the truth. His writing is plagued with personal opinion and erroneous information; mix the two together and you get "the perfect calculated lie". Serbs in general also know that his works are not original: it has been observed that what the controversial Rexhep Qosja writes in Albanian, Malcolm writes in English. If you look at the bottom of the Talk:Kosovo page, you'll see my reply to Spanishboy who cited Malcolm. In the meantime, something more important: you'll be pleased to know that Spanishboy2006 is begining a 14-day ban from today thanks to J.delenoy. However the rest of us are all on probabtion, Nishkid announced on the talk page that editors on Kosovo are bound by a 1RR. There could be blocks left, right and centre here. I agree with your change on state to territory but I wouldn't advise you to revert back if someone switches it. I still have one revert because my last one came before the regulation was implemented. I only hope the admins are literate and can differentiate between times, because I did revert a short time before the ruling. Mine was on the issue of naming, with Kedadi and Spanishboy insisting we use Albanian names for the towns. I just don't know whether the admins will block simply for reverting twice or for doing so on two occasions on the same issue. The names of the towns and the disputed status are separate issues, but you know which editors are pushing for which versions. So how the admins act, I don't know. Evlekis (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are nobody, therefore don't try to act all ape shit. Frankly we're all getting sick of your povness and edits. If you wanna troll these parts of WP then I can play tit for tat. Buh Bye little boy. :) Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo I'm soooo like gonna cry and like shit ... ha ha. you think i care? i dont even use wikipedia. look at the serb reporting me to the geek squad, what are you like 5? Rumor has it that you are another canadian serb. Rumor has it that you have pissed off a select few from B93 & WP.  : ) BYE BYE. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you're a bitch. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are unacceptable. Comment on content, not the contributor. If I see any further disruptive behavior from you, I will either block you or ban you from editing the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone has their opinions on a such a heated/ controversial topic. And for arguments sake, I don't really think of him as hero these days, he a rather rubbish politician, he could be doing his job much more effectively IMHO. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create Kravica attack. Thanks. ICTYoda (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure that you read "Talk:Kravica massacre". Also your allegations of ICTYoda and I plotting against you are false, unsupported and themselves not in good faith. He was supporting my argument that you made the articles "Kravica massacre and "Kravica" biased and POV. You need to be more constructive, neutral and more willing to compromise instead of accusing everyone who has a different opinion to as not acting in good faith. We need to neutralise the article "Kravica massacre" so that it passes WP:NPOV. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get a more authoritative editor aka an Admin to warn you of the importance of NPOV Ijanderson (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created "Kravica incident", "Kravica incident (1993)" and "Kravica incident (1995)". "Kravica massacre" now redirects to "Kravica incident". Regards Ijanderson (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if these articles don't exist yet. What you could do is create a list of massacres/ killings of Serbs and of Croats during the Bosnian war, which don't have an articles yet. If you do that, I will help you look for source and we can create a couple of stubs for the killings. They don't have to be feature length articles. But if we get a good basic groundwork down, other editors can help improve the articles as time goes on etc. I'm sure you can see the bigger picture. Would you be willing to come up with two lists? One for Croats and one for Serbs? Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bratunac massacre, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bratunac massacre. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for listening to the other side's argumentation and agreeing with some of the points made.
Btw, I notice you have added on your userpage a babel box with 5 (!) languages marked as native tongue. How come, have you just learnt all of those up to the native level when staying in those countries? :) --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Kudos to you, Cinema C. It's very rare that anybody here has the good sense and human grace to change their mind - particularly on a topic whose context understandably arouses passionate feelings. And like Miacek, I'm impressed (and shamed!) by the fluency in 5 languages. Writegeist (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just turned up here and found the acknowledgments above. I'm so used to "going round in circles" arguments over events in Bosnia that I'd expected we'd find ourselves in the usual deadlock. Don't be put off by the onslaught. Although as I mentioned the accountancy of atrocity means that inevitably there'll be an imbalance in references to civilian deaths, the innocent dead on all sides deserve respect. If you do want to pursue the issue of the deaths of non-Bosniak civilians as a matter of principle there are trustworthy Serb and Serbian organisations who may be able to help. As your first point of enquiry you could try Natasa Kandic's Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade - http://www.hlc.org.yu/ (though the link doesn't seem to be working at the moment). Opbeith (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the exchanges at ljanderson's Talk page I'm starting to think again about my assumption of your good faith. You do appear to have done enough research to come across the RDC/IDC post on the Myth of Bratunac which you chose to dismiss as sensationalist while describing RDC as pro-Bosniak.

RDC's work has been audited and approved by the ICTY. An ICTY press release issued by Florence Hartmann confirms what the RDC said. Mirsad Tokaca is fiercely committed to the truth, he is not a propagandist. I've spoken to him and heard him insist on the importance for the former Yugoslavia of acknowledging the realities of all atrocities, specifically mentioning Jasenovac.

You have chosen to ignore what the RDC analysis reports. Instead you endorse the propaganda version of events formulated by Milivoje Ivanisevic, a member of Milosevic's and Karadzic's legal defence teams, and relayed by countless pro-Serb apologists and genocide deniers. This doesn't appear to confirm your claim to objectivity. You've agreed to the deletion of the article, but are you prepared to say anything more about the overall reality of Bratunac? Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinema C. I think we agree on some things and disagree very strongly on others. Essentially I don't believe that life is as two-dimensional as you portray. And just because you insist that you won't blindly follow anyone's words, that doesn't mean that you're entitled to assume that other people do so just because they have a different take on the world to you.

The economics of the 1980s did help prepare the ground for nationalism and opportunism. But "South Slavic unity, solidarity and identity in what constituted a multiethnic society" makes it sound as if everything in the garden was rosy beforehand. Are you referring to the Tito era, or earlier? I simply don't believe that it's possible to reverse engineer the Western Balkans back to a Yugoslavia that felt apart mainly because of Western interference

You accuse the rest of the world of not understanding the relationship between economics and nationalism, but then try to argue that nationalism in the FRY is the creation of Western economic influence, that internal politics and economics are irrelevant and that social, ethnic and religious issues are irrelevant. Grey isn't white, that doesn't make it black.

You say that anything at all can be fabricated, but that begs the question, is it? Does no-one else but you have the wit to analyse / deconstruct media reports and carry out research? That's intellectual arrogance, and the same two-dimensional vision of the world that allows you to condemn RDC's work simply on the basis of its funding bodies.

Just because international development funding is often an alternative channel for foreign policy doesn't mean that all NGO projects are self-serving or doing nothing except promote the political agenda of someone else. I've seen enough myself to know that's the argument of someone who doesn't care to look at the real world.

Similarly the ICTY isn't a perfect institution. Like any institution it threads its way between principles, pragmatism and influence. But principles, or theoretical constraints or whatever you choose to call them, mean that at least part of the equation can be subjected to analysis and appraisal.

I don't understand the basic objection you have to the ICTY. Of course a tribunal can be seen as a measure to restore international peace and security. Why not? Not on its own perhaps, but certainly as one among others. And the cases the ICTY has tried, along with the ICTR, have set a pattern of establishing some form of truth and justice in conflicts where civilians are the target of those who control the mechanism of justice. A priori arguments are not enough.

The ICTY has its defects, like all institutions. You seem to assume that citing the ICTY implies some sort of wilful blindness or intellectual shortcoming. Please give me and other people credit for being able to read transcripts of evidence and judgments and to form an objective opinion as to the authenticity of the outcome. Krajisnik's acquittal on the genocide charges is evidence that the ICTY can get things wrong. But nevertheless I can see see that on the whole the ICTY's proceedings have substance to them. It's not a perfect system and one of its imperfections is the latitude it allows to people that my own judgment tells me are evil, and another is the offence and further suffering that that causes to the victims (though of course comforting the victim is incidental to international criminal justice). Whatever its faults, on balance I'm rather more inclined to trust the ICTY than I am its enemies.

And I am capable of thinking for myself about genocide at Srebrenica. Do you seriously think that after all this time that it's not clear what went on. Your comment about Srebrenica that I should take all statements concerning the Balkans conflict from the West with a bit more reservation is patronising but it's also pointless. It has no anchor to anything you can know. If you don't think genocide occurred, please stay in your own version of reality and let me get on with mine. If you want to insult my intelligence feel free, but don't expect any response.

Your theoretical insights may allow you to assume that everyone can be fooled except yourself, but perhaps you ought to get out and meet some real individuals and then subject them to the test of whether or not they should command your trust.

For all that some aspects of his work may be criticised Mirsad Tokaca doesn't stray very far away from his basic commitment to establish the facts in a way that will resist manipulation. You urge me to disregard the Myth of Bratunac simply on your say-so that it is pro-Bosniak. You seem to want me to take your word - without any evidence, simply on the basis of unsubstantiated hypothesis - that Tokaca is a liar rather than Milivoje Ivanisevic. Why?

From your comment I'm willing to allow that you may be honest in intent, unlike so many people I bump into coming from your direction (who have certainly helped me to form my opinions). That doesn't mean that I'm prepared to accept your claim to have more contact with the real world than I do. Sorry to go on at length but I found your comments quite unsettling. Opbeith (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinema C

Thanks for your reply. As you probably detected I was quite upset by the content of your message. My knowledge of what happened in the Former Yugoslavia is second-hand. I wasn't there when it happened. But I have friends who experienced what other people call into doubt and I've met a substantial number of other people, unconnected with those friends but who I believe I can trust, and they confirm what I've been told. You take a sideways approach to expressing your views which is confusing. Your words imply that you think I have given limited thought to views largely determined by partisan and manipulative media reporting, even if you don't say so directly. My apologies if I've misinterpreted you but you don't make it clear who else you're referring to in your rather sweeping comments.

Regarding the issue of genocide, my use of the term genocide isn't the simple political choice you appear to ascribe to me. I think you fail to understand how international humanitarian law distinguishes genocide from a brutal massacre. It might help you to look at the history of the Genocide Convention and the motives and intentions of Raphael Lemkin, the individual who worked so hard to secure its adoption. The object of the Genocide Convention was to do provide an instrument that would deter or arrest attempts to destroy a particular group (with less scope than Lemkin had wanted), not simply punish them after completion. (Hence the importance of the reference to partial as well as complete destruction.)

What differentiates genocide from a massacre is intent. If you read through the Krstic trial judgment and appeal judgment you'll understand the reason why the events at Srebrenica were deemed to constitute genocide. If you read the Krajisnik judgment you'll also see how difficult it actually is to secure convictions for genocide. The ICTY has been criticised for being so cautious in developing the law relating to the Genocide Convention. For what it's worth my own view is that the ICTY should have been considerably more vigorous in seeking to give effect to the Genocide Convention. (Although it's from the ICJ rather than the ICTY itself, Judge al-Khasawni's dissenting opinion from the ICJ ruling in the Bosnia-Serbia case in 2007 gives some idea of the scope for a more constructive approach). In the end though the ICTY, like the ICTR, concluded that it was possible to convict on a charge of genocide. I hope you are able to accept I'm not "bowing down" before the ICTY just because it's "The ICTY", I certainly have thought through my support for its finding.

Again I hope I'm not twisting your words but when you suggest that if you were a Serb you might be upset at me "choosing" to call what happened at Srebrenica you don't question the legitimacy of that response. I'm puzzled. Your indirect style, without qualification, makes it quite difficult to pin down what you're actually saying. You seem to be suggesting that Serbs unanimously deny the reality of genocide.

Many of course do (with brave exceptions), and that's where the commemoration at Bratunac is significant. One of the reasons why so many Serbs deny that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide is because they believe that what happened was an act of retaliation. I presume you're as familiar with the role of the Serb/Serbian media as well as you are with that of the Western media. The accounts circulated in the past focused on the crimes that allegedly provoked retaliation. The disproportionality of the supposed "response" is presumably what led to such vast exaggerations of the scale of the crimes and omission/distortion of the wider context.

It's not hard to see commemorations such as the Bratunac event as being part of a an effort to neutralise the political impact of the public's awareness of what actually happened at Srebrenica. You're clearly aware of that and yet you back-pedal from engaging with that possibility. I'm still puzzled as to what you really think. Opbeith (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid maybe I over-reacted again to your message, and in particular to your closing remark. Apologies if my message above comes across as very argumentative, but I hope you understand why. These are sensitive issues and I think it's important to be clear why I think and express myself as I do when it's suggested that I'm talking without having thought my position through. Opbeith (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back again. Regarding your remark about how Serbs might see my reference to genocide, you may or may not have seen the letter that Humanitarian Law Centre, Women in Black, Helsinki Human Rights Committee in Serbia, Center for Developing Legal Studies, the Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights, Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Fund for Open Societies and Center for Cultural Decontamination sent to Boris Tadic calling on him to proclaim July 11 Srebrenica Genocide Remembrance Day, a day to remember the Srebrenica genocide victims in Serbia as well and pay respect to them - respecting and recognising the victims of the worst crime among crimes and starting to build shared remembrance "in which all war crimes victims from the territory of the former Yugoslavia will be included". Opbeith (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your enemy. Really. I assure you I am not. Therefore please don't treat me as if I were. I haven't any WP:RS cites for massacres of Serb civilians, neither will I be looking very hard for them (I cannot take on new priorities at the moment). And anyway it's something that you, who are clearly passionate about the subject, can do. And when you find them, I promise I shall be happy to advocate and defend their inclusion. So please. No more sniping at me! Thank you and best wishes -- Writegeist (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you have Tadija's talk watchlisted, but if not: I have enlisted the help of User:ChrisO, who is terrific at digging out neutral sources from the archives, but he is unable to take a look until he returns from holiday. Meanwhile I shall largely confine my editorial input to the article's format; i.e. breaking it into sections, removing cites from the lede etc.

There is no evidence that anyone is trying to "hide" the massacre, as you say here. Please don't make inflammatory accusations, they're not helful. Our overriding concern must be to keep the article NPOV, V, and referenced from reliable sources. When you insert cites whose conformity to WP rules and/or policies is debatable, I'm afraid you must be able to tolerate having them questioned. As you say, you are a reasonable man. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In note, it appears that only Serbia doesn't recognise it. There are majority of UN nations (130) that agree with Serbia. It this note, there are no information about that. Following NPOV, that must be changed. I invite you to join discussion, and vote.

Template talk:Kosovo-note

Tadija (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your unexplained content reversion here, I am topic banning from Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo for 1 week. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]