Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs into Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa . I see, I was not aware that attributes were put for other articles writing were lifted from. I assumed only the source of the information used from books, websites, etc. I will keep this in mind next time. I did not mean to plagiarize the edits as my own. I apologize. Thank you. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadkσ I am very familiar with this quote as it is latched on to by a certain group I will not say. Except he says this in respect to collaboration with Axis forces. He also states on page 262, “Genocide (of Serbs or Croats) in the occupied and divided Yugoslavia during the Second World War is very difficult to prove.” But I wouldn't delete the Genocide Of Serbs Link. Majority of Wiki articles about WWII Yugoslavia are sourced from Tomasevich so I trust his judgement. There are historians that deny the Holocaust. I have no ill intentions here. Not trying to compare Chetniks to Ustase or equalize. But it is an injustice to ignore the genocide the Chetniks comitted. Even thought it was partly as reprisal for Ustase genocide. Theu did not only target Ustase collaborator like Partisans did, they targeted unarmed covillians guilty only of being born in the wrong ethnic group. Fortunately both Ustase and Chetniks were stopped before reaching completion in their goals.74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for Genocide of Serbs are mostly unanimous. Sources and authors do not have a consensus regarding the crimes/massacres of the Yugoslav army. They are very different in nature and scale. Only some of the authors have called it genocide. That is a fact. We can not go with pushing the titles which we as editors (and several authors) prefer. P.S: A number of vojvodas were not under de facto rule by the general Mihailovic and a number of them went renegade. Several vojvodas and their officers were later assassinated by the order of general Mihailovic. The issues is very complicated. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a must. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a fact that MacDonald claims the Ustase didn't commit genocide so not really unanimous. I disagree with him obviously. But there are multiple sources claiming Chetniks committed genocide[2][3] ( Also Jozo Tomasevich's Book on The Chetniks). Mihailovic approved of the 1941 directive to establish a greater Serbia of witch is to be Serb only. All others to be cleansed. He knew what was going on and was for it. That much is simple. This is NPOV. It happened. And not based on opinion. The Yugoslav Partisan army was not ever accused of Genocide. There are more sources stating Chetniks committed genocide than not. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template you are editing is about negation of such crimes, there is no standalone article with the name, there is no negation of crimes done by the Yugoslav army (compared to Holocaust denial, for example) you linked it to a page which covers several cases of revisionism (most of the textbooks and other issues were soon fixed after they became a public matter; but the real problem is how that happened in the first place) and not the denial of masssacres, per se. Show good faith and undo your last edit. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a separate article be a prerequisite? The link takes one to a page section that talks about denial of Chetniks engaging in mass murder. And the revisionist stance government and educational systems take. So you trying to pressure me is uncalled for. I wish there was a better developed page to go in more detail of the genocide denial. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we need for the inclusion of mass killings by the Chetniks on this template is evidence that the mass killings by the Chetniks have been denied. What evidence is there of that in reliable sources? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples I have come across are Dubravka Stojanović, a Serbian historian talks about the effort to portray Chetniks who engaged in murder as "renegades" to distance them from the Chetnik name. Also to deny crimes committed against the Croatian and Bosnian populations in Croatia and Bosnia. [4] . German Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Höpken discusses the effort to pain Chetniks as equally anti-fascists to Partisans which he says historians dub to be a dubious claim.[5]. Bosnian Professor Edina Bećirević claimed that the crimes committed by Chetniks against Croats and Muslims in Serbian historiography are overall "cloaked in silence".[6] . There is also the rehabilitation of Chetnik leaders as absolved from crimes against civilian populations. The Legacy and Contemparyr Period secitons of the CHetnik page talk about this as well. Funny enough, the intro for the Chetnik page includes a MacDonald quote denying genocide yet historians that conclude a genocide did happen and was waged [7][8] ( Also Jozo Tomasevich's Book on The Chetniks), are left out of the intro. Again, this is what I have seen so far. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stojanović sounds promising, but the others aren't actually claiming denial of mass killings. The intro for the Chetnik page says that Chetniks didn't collaborate for the purpose of conducting mass killings, it doesn't say they didn't actually commit those crimes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bećirević describing crimes against Croats and Bosnians as cloaked in silence implies a censorship or whitewashing of those killings, no? She make mention of mass killings of Bosnians, for example as being omitted from Yugoslav historical discussion. Also the MacDonald quote has been misconstrued in the past by readers as if stating killings didn’t happen regardless of collaboration or not. It can come across as so. Which is why I think the intro should state outright as sourced that there was genocidal intent. To clear confusion 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look further into it. I would have thought intentionally leaving out those events would be a form of denial or revisionism. For example the Genocide of Serbs page deals with revisionism and leaving out parts of history in writings and discussions as examples of denial of mass killings. Also again for the MacDonald quote, Sadko showed as example of someone interpreting the quote as claiming genocide did not happen. Which is a concern I have for other readers as well.74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we are talking about a template here, not an article, so let's not parse the wording too closely. What we are looking for is reliable sources that indicate that people are/were denying the mass killings by Chetniks took place, not whether they are ignoring them. The template is titled Denial of mass killings, not Ignoring of mass killings. BTW, this discussion should be taking place on the template talk page, not here, that way it will be preserved. I suggest copying it and continuing there. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point I am trying to make. Looking at other mass murders and genocides on that template, they direct to their respective article in which revisionism or ignoring of said events is talked about. As far as I see there. I will continue looking at sources though. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Template:Genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You have been asked politely by various editors to revert yourself. I will asked you again to undo your edit here. You have now far exceeded WP:3RR. Wikipedia is not interested in anyone's personal perspective, but in mainstream thought. What you are basing your contentions on is WP:FRINGE thought rather than what are clearly identifiable as reliable sources. I am not reverting it as, then, I would be overstepping the 3 revert rule. Please think this over carefully and do the sensible thing - revert - in order to demonstrate that you are WP:HERE to build an Encyclopaedic resource.Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend registering an account if you are going to edit in controversial areas. That way others can see your editing history. IPs dipping their oar into Balkans topics are generally ignored or reflexively reverted. That may not be fair, but it is what happens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors I mentioned to you seem to analyze every square inch of my edit history anyway. Though perhaps they confused me with another IP as some of the claims were bogus. You are right that I should make an account as it would clear confusion. Question. How did you come about your username? And have you ever seen the movie Peacemaker, by chance? Funny enough the movie is about the 90's conflict in the Balkans, hehe. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is harder to remember a string of digits than a name, assuming your IP isn't dynamic. My username is a reference to the three peacekeeping missions I served on. [[User:|Peacemaker67]] (click to talk to me) 23:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever discussions are to be had, this IP is not interested in following Wikipedia policy and is, as far as I can establish, WP:NOTHERE. If s/he simply responded, it would be a different issue. Based on the WP:DE methods employed employed by this IP, I have reverted the template to it's WP:CONSENSUS state. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy Quite an inflammatory statement. I am actively working with editors to discuss these changes. Your initial removal of my edit was on the basis not having sources. I then included sources but another editor then deleted them. So clearly I was working with you to answer your concerns. Claiming in the edit commentary that I am not trying to work with editors is quite at odds. I have not reverted edits since your warning. So what this extra comment is about I don’t know. I agree that instead of reinstating edits, I should have gone to the talk page for discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and still getting used to the rules here. For that I apologize. However I don’t plan on reverting edits. I haven’t done so since your warnings. Although I am being told some other editor on the denial talk page that I am not allowed to open discussion on a talk page either essentially that I am to shut up on the matter for good. Seems agenda driven to me on their part. Closing ears to new RS items. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's a strange place for novices. Contributors work in so many areas/subjects, but there are a some very, very contentious areas, and the subject of genocide is up there in amongst the serious ones for edit wars and immovable opinions on what does or doesn't constitute an overview of the subject. I consider myself to be fortunate in starting out as an anonymous IP making a few proof-reading/copy editing corrections. I eventually got an account because I'd been pulled into a lot of fields while just gnoming around, although I didn't know there was a term for it. All in all, this is a long-winded way of suggesting to you that you try working on articles that no one has touched for years: and there are plenty of them. There are also a lot of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and Wikiquette you can also learn on the way. Jumping in the deep end feet first is not a good way to introduce yourself to Wikipedia. More so, as Peacemaker67 noted, editors are far more likely to be wary of an IP than they are of someone who has taken the time, and committed themselves, to contributing by becoming a card-carrying Wikipedian. Comments initially directed at you weren't personal, but your attitude froze some toes. If you really want to edit, don't just edit in the limited area that suits you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted content from talk page.
@Peacemaker67: Just wanted to let you know, a user took it upon themselves to deleted some of our conversation from your page. And in their edit comment insulted me personally. Perhaps so they can have their final say on your talk page. I reverted it. And admittedly redid the undo just to have my response to him. Obviously that was childish of me. However I wanted to make sure you were aware that they deleted over a 1,000 characters from your page. An admin came in and redid their mass deletion perhaps out of confusion. However it is false that I was continuing the argument, I was undoing the other editor’s mass deletion of your talk page. Sorry for my short temper on these matters. I tend to let people bate me and get under my skin easily. Person fault of mine I try to work on. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. Better off taking a break and cooling off before hitting enter. I don't like hosting back-and-forth disputes about other editor's behaviour on my talk page, and urge you to take it up directly with the editor concerned on their talk page when you have a dispute of this nature. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn’t like them publicly making falsehoods about me. I will take it to the respective editor’s page in the future.
However was it right for them to delete our conversation from your page though without your permission? They didn’t delete their own comments on your page addressed to me. They also insulted me in the edit comments when deleting, continuing the conflict after you requested it stop.
I’m surprised Mod Acriterion defended that and only went after me and not the other editor who deleted my entry after you told us to cease. The mod was Accusing me of “harassing” you but I was trying to restore an edit. It seems unfair towards my end. This will only enable others to repeat such tactics in arguments.
Had you been the one that deleted my reply, I would have respected and understood that.
@Peacemaker67: May I please request you remove the accusations made by the other user against me as well from your page? I don’t want to do it myself as I feel it would be wrong to delete it myself without your permission. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging Peacemaker - your insistence on using their talkpage as a forum for an argument is inconsiderate and is becoming disruptive. You were asked to stop by Peacemaker, it isn't up to you to decide when to respect their wishes. If you post on Peacemaker's page again or ping them, you'll be blocked. Acroterion(talk)16:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize every time I edit it resends the ping. I apologize. However I will let him speak for himself if he wishes. I figured being it was off his page and on mine he would be fine with it as he answered above. I have not heard him complain. This is my last edit in this section. Cheers. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: you explicitly pinged Peacemaker whenever you copied {{ping|Peacemaker67}} - I'm sure they're watching this talkpage and will respond if they want to or will manage their talkpage according to their wishes. Acroterion(talk)16:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your unexplained reverts at Linguistic discrimination. I notice that you have reverted the same, sourced content in edits by User:Александр Ашкаров four times over the past ten days without explanation. Any content dispute should be discussed at the article Talk page, and editors should not engage in a slow edit war. Also, you have not explained your reverts in the edit summary, as required. When reverting sourced content that is not vandalism, you have a duty to explain yourself in the edit summary at a minimum. The edit summary in your most recent revert says, Final warning to stop before being blocked by admins and still gives no explanation for your removals, and your block threat has no basis in policy. Rather, it is you who are more likely to end up sanctioned, either for edit warring, your failure to follow dispute resolution procedures for content disputes, or something else.
(IP: please address your views on the content dispute at the article Talk page, not here; this discussion is about your revert behavior, not article content.) Alexander, I pinged you here because I mentioned you; however if you are wise, you will refrain from commenting here, as this is about IP's behavior, not yours. Any disagreements about the article content, should be addressed at the article talk page. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you register for a free account, there are a lot of advantages, including the ability to get automatically notified when someone leaves you a message on an article Talk page. Most people won't bother coming here to leave you a Talkback box, like the one above. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted twice in a 24 hour period. Once you and once Sadko. Try intimidating someone else. It is clear to me what is going on, on that page. And what certain users are up to. My edits are well explained and follow RS and NPoV rules of Wikipedia. While others add or remove content with little to no explanation that doesn’t fit their POV. Articles are to be neutral. I welcome a neutral admin vetting and analyzing what is going on.74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you actually do have 3 reverts (I was wrong about the 4 reverts). And yesterday you did break 3rr. I decided to let it slide, but I might not do that again. And why on earth did you re-add this [1]. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was explaining, it seemed fine to leave it as Hungary was in the same empire with Austria and while Austria was welcoming refugees, Hungary was against it. It has to do with the topic of refugee settlement within the empire. I kept trying to explain this but I would just get reverted, no explanation and yet I was labeled as pov pushing by another editor. It’s ridiculous. When I take an issue to the talk page, no one talks. So it seems like a dead end. I get reverted and can’t revert back and no one talks on the talk page. Not to mention others reverting get no warning. It all makes me not trust the integrity of the page. When the other two editors removed sentences, they seemed to have no issue. And a sentence keeps getting added back right before the oassage about WWI that is unbalanced by not mentioning the actions and rising tensions from the Serbian side in the 19th century. How is that not POV pushing?74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
