User talk:ICTYoda

YoYoYoYoda!

you win

OK. you're right. let it stay out. if you can find a better place for it, or a better expression, please do it in my place.

(I'm not nearly as obstinate as some of the people who know me think, nor do I refuse to budge on principle...but I might add that I didn't mean to insult anyone. it's a tenderer question than I thought, and I was wanting in forbearance. so excuse me.) --VKokielov (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in another vein. If the Bosniaks did call themselves Turks, it was only after it had been rubbed and ground into their tradition by their conquerors and the raja. It would be as strange for them to do it of their own accord as it would be for the Indians who spoke English and professed Christianity to call themselves English.

I say again: please excuse me. --VKokielov (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if we make a short note somewhere below, exactly like the note in History of the Jews in Iceland?

"A formerly neutral, currently negative term for Jew is Júði (plur. Júðar)."

I won't do anything without your consent. --VKokielov (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and you don't have to answer if you don't approve. --VKokielov (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I don't get it you say my edits are because of hate, but that's not true so don't revert, I revert because something in the article is a lie.

Before I edit I put my arguments on the discussion page so I suggest you read it, and if you have better arguments put a reply. Don't be ignorant and just revert because of your own opinion. Stürmkrieger (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Krstic judgment references to the Srebrenica massacre article. However it's a good idea generally to discuss substantive edits on the talk page first. I'm not clear why you've removed the reference to some of the prisoners not being executed. Opbeith (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karađorđevo

First map shows frontlines, and not ethnic borders. ABiH was organised latter than HVO, so HVO controled most of the central Bosnia in the early stages of the war. See this [[1]]. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Befor ABiH, there was TO, Territorial Defence, an official military formation of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to all ICTY documents related to Bosnian War. It was just one part of Defence System of B-H. The other part is MUP (Ministry of Interior). ICTYoda (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just forgot HVO which is (and was) official military formation of BiH. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kravica

I suggest you create the article Kravica massacre (1995). Thanks, --Cinéma C 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it would be better to use a redirect for Kravica massacre to Srebrenica massacre. Opbeith (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, by the Kravica massacre I was referring to the mass slaughter in the agricultural warehouse which was part of the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. Opbeith (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 attack was a massacre, this is what the article is dealing with. If the 1995 Kravica massacre was part of the Srebrenica massacre, then add that to this article: Srebrenica massacre. Thanks, --Cinéma C 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm disappointed to see you're plotting with Ijanderson977 against me. I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Do try to understand other users' arguments and not just dismiss them as 'propaganda' because they do not agree with your views. --Cinéma C 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for your support. Please read my proposals and message at "Talk:Kravica massacre". And at Cinema C, he is not plotting against you. He was saying that he supports my argument over your POV and bias. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 22:15, 8 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) 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

OK, this has to stop:

• Removal of articles related to Bosniak war crimes against Serbs from the Bosnian war template.
• Removal of the word "massacre" when sources are given.
• Redirecting article names such as Tuzla massacre (1992) to the one that happened in 1995. You can't redirect something that happened in 1992 to something that happened in 1995.

I am willing to discuss all changes but not while you're engaged in an edit war. Thanks, --Cinéma C 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Yes, that article is definitely lacking reliable sources, one of them is "Serbian Unity", clearly biased and unreliable. On a related note I've gone ahead and added references to the Tuzla Massacre article. It also seems aradic has stooped to new lows and has accused us of being sockpuppets. lol PRODUCER (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded

I responded to his lies and distortions, please see my talk page. It is amazing how people want to twist things around. Bosniak (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back

ICTYoda. It looks bad that you have come back into Karađorđevo agreement after a break and when PRODUCER is blocked, particularly after Aradic has accused you of being a sock. Your editing looks different to me than PRODUCER's but it does make me suspicious. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trolling the Čemerno massacre talk page? You keep rambling about Milosevic while not even remotely trying to look at the topic area objectively. First off, just because the Milosevic government talked about crimes against Serbs, doesn't mean it's automatically a conspiracy to project pro-Serb propaganda onto the world. Many Western governments made shocking statements about deaths in Bosnia and Kosovo that were obvious exaggerations and were purely meant for media consumption. Second of all, just because there's a video of a massacre that was made during the Milosevic era doesn't mean it's automatically a conspiracy against Bosniaks or Croats, or whatever - can't you just accept that crimes actually took place? Can't you except that, oh gee, Serbs were actually the victims in some cases? Western media was very hesitant to report any of these crimes, and yet the deaths are still there, so it's not surprising that the Financial Times didn't have a cover story about this... So, please, take it easy on the POV pushing and stop accusing every source (including B92, a heavily anti-Milosevic station, shut down by his government many times in the past) you don't agree with as being pro-whatever... --Cinéma C 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]