User talk:The Spanish Inquisitor

Welcome!

Hello, The Spanish Inquisitor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ShadowHalo 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Che-Vukovar91.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Che-Vukovar91.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions Operation Storm

Why mine contribution from yesterday was deleted? Things like: main reason for operation storm was that third of Croatia teritory was unther occupation of Serbian JNA forces? (penkala)

You have to understand there are some rules in editing that must be respected. First of all, the Operation Storm article is very 'hot' topic with a lot of people who argue before reaching a compromise and putting something on - before making large changes at such articles, go to the discussion page. Secondly, there is this thing called the NPOV (neutral point of view) which must be respected and, sadly, the edits you made are not in line with that. Thirdly, the additions you made had very bad grammer - sorry.

And finally, all sensitve subjects like this are best backed by info, which is why almost every important sentance in the article has that small number next to it - it's the link to a source for the sentance. All contribution is welcome, of course, but you must respect these few ground rules and there will be no problem, otherwise people might see your edits as vandalism.

Also, when commenting on talk pages like this, don't just edit anything, but press the "+" button on the top of the page (it opens a new title) where you can write and also always sign your posts by typing "~" four times The Spanish Inquisitor 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(penkala): OK But it is a fact- Main cose for Operation Storm was that third of Coatian territory under Serbian JNA ocupation and that is a fact. How more neutral can you get? If you like I'll add numbers.

I think it is bad¸ and not neutral that Laughing man edits things about Croatia because he is clearly Serbian as can be seen from his page.

I know, and it says so on the article, just neutrally. Saying "Serbia attacked Croatia" is not neutral, but saying (for example) "40.000 Serb troops moved into Croatia" is (of course while providing link for such a claim). Every such sourced statement (either from internet or books) is welcome, as long as you add the source. If you have such, I'll help you add them, just ask.

Regardless of anyones nationality here, people who edit Wikipedia try to remain neutral and Laughing man is no exception. Anyone who edits needs to try to be objective and if you present facts and sources to back up your statements - he can't remove them.

Again, to sign your name and time of posting, just type "~~ ~~" without the space.

The Spanish Inquisitor 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Eagles

Thank you for your edit to White Eagles (paramilitary). When you provide content ii is a good idea to provide the reference, in this case for their involvement in the Voćin massacre. Neither of the two sources for the Voćin massacre article, http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/cis/milosevic/cis-060330.pdf or http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/cis/seselj/cis-seselj.pdf mention the White Eagles, either by that name or by the name Beli Orlovi. I am not doubting their involvement, we just need to provide a reliable published source, especially since this is a sensitive area. I have had good luck with finding information in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. However, that is a primary source, and secondary sources like the ones above are preferred. For example, the secondary source Blaskovich, Jerry (1 November 2002) "The Ghastly Slaughter of Vocin Revisited:Lest We Forget" The New Generation Hrvatski Vjesnik--English supplement could be considered as biased, but together with the primary source of the October 2002 testimony of the former police chief of the Croatian town of Slatina, Djuro Matovina,Testimony of Djuro Matovina, Transcript of 7 October 2002, p. 11049, lines 12-16, it would adequately substantiated, but not proved. In a similar vein the text of the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia would not be useful, since it is only an allegation and doesn't squarely put the blame on the White Eagles, i.e. from the words of the indictment the massacre could have been entirely the work of "Seselj's men" (Not that I personally believe that). I have gone ahead and added the references on your behalf. If you have better ones, please do add them. --Bejnar 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my primary source was Blaskovich's book: Anatomy of Deceiet in which he says Croatian soldiers who have retaken the village captured and interrogated a few men who admitted being White Eagles. I just forgot to source it :) If I find another source, I'll add it. The Spanish Inquisitor 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dalmatia

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Battle of Dalmatia, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 14 where you can improve it if you see fit. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Dalmatia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- KNM ^Talk 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks

How about rephrasing for a compromise. For example, it was never the Chetniks' official policy to conduct ethnic cleansing - nor did they wholesomely conduct it (only certain detachments), contrary to the Ustashas for example. --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm welcome for compromises, if you have an idea I'm listening. I've just reverted other deletions because they remove any mention of deaths and the point of the text along the picture is to represent why non-Serbs were/are allergic to that kind of imagery - for the same reason Serbs would be on Ustashe imagery... As for official policy, there are several documents which would claim it was such (Mihajlovic, Djujic documents and orders), but I'm not intrested in pushing such a radical claim without significant sources. My only point is that thousands died. According to Vladimir Zerjavic, Yugoslav historian who documented WW2 casualties, Chetniks killed 18 thousand Croats and 29 thousand Moslems, and that's not an insignificant number. [1] The Spanish Inquisitor 06:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea, over here I'm just trying to stop yer edit war. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSI, sorry about not explaining myself. I only got halfway in my edit before Wikipedia froze. Pls see the Talk:Chetniks page for my full reply and suggestion. Sincerely Osli73 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why did you put cn-tags after the term "serbian genocide"? Are you denying that Serbs were victims of genocide during WW2? Paulcicero 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm denying the use of the word "genocide". As you know, Wikipedia has rules such as WP:RS, WP:ATT and WP:POV which require a use of a neutral source for such a strong accusation. Considering that no court of law ever declared it as genocide (unlike, for example, the Holocaust and Srebrenica), it is disputed to say the least. Personally, I think it was a genocide, but neither I or you are reliable sources. I did not delete anything, just would like to see a neutral source describing it as such. The Spanish Inquisitor 06:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not called the serbian genocide because it is widely accepted as part of the holocaust, but that does not change the fact that what croats did to serbs was genocide. I think that most historians would agree that it was a genocide. And furhtermore it is not just a legal term, if you read up on the terminology of genocide and then on the goals of the ustasa you will find a strong similarity. Paulcicero 09:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I agree that it was genocide. I would be happier if there was a source calling it a such, but I'm not going to dispute it or delete it. The problem is that without proper sources anyone can claim anything was genocide, which is the whole problem. Milosevic's politics during the Yugoslav Wars is also very close to definition of genocide, but so far only Srebrenica is called as such by a neutral source which is why the articles on those wars are not entitled, for example, "Bosnian Genocide". The Spanish Inquisitor 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously comparing Milosevic to Pavelic and co. ? Paulcicero 10:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Pavelic clensed about 75% of Serbs on his territory. Martić and Babić clensed 95% Croats from their territory and Karadžić clensed 90% of Bosniaks and Croats from their territory. Is the first genocide just because his territory and population was bigger??? The Spanish Inquisitor 11:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stalking

"Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." This is considerd stalking by Wikipedia. I am not follwing you to harass you but to correct and try to make your edits npov. Also I am trying to check your sources because you have a tendancy to lie about what your references say. But i encourage you to report me if you think im stalking you. Paulcicero 21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way which one of my edits were unconstructive?

You don't "correct" edits to make them NPOV, you always revert or delete them. As for if you reverts are constructive or not, we'll leave that to the admins to decide if you continue. -The Spanish Inquisitor 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and report me because i am going to continue to correct your mistakes and lies. Paulcicero 11:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which "lies" are that? Also, you obviously accept those "lies", since you always give up reverting at the end... You do nothing constructive, just force me to find more sources for every single sentance I add, and that's just so sad. So much for "lies". -The Spanish Inquisitor 13:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about jasenovac? Up to 550 000 contradiction? Listen I am not going to discuss further with you, I am going to continue to correct your mistakes and if you want to report me, PLEASE do so! Paulcicero 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, touchy, aren't we? So its a "lie", not "lies". As for the Jasenovac "lie", if you bothered reading the source to the end, you would have learned where I got the figure from. While you were self-obsessed with the number of Serbs killed there, I actually read the source to the end and learned it mentions another 50,000 Jews. So, basic mathematics: 500,000 + 50,000 = 550,000. Get it? Probbably not. -The Spanish Inquisitor 06:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for reporting you, we'll see... If you continue to remove sourced statements without any just cause, everyone will see it as vandalism. Then I'll report you. -The Spanish Inquisitor 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOS

As the main editor of Croatian Defence Forces article, you should add sources or I (or someone else) will delete everything and leave only the beginning part as the text is unsourced and obvious POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Martic-order1995.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Martic-order1995.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zagreb May Rocket attack1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zagreb May Rocket attack1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zagreb May Rocket attack2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zagreb May Rocket attack2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assistance with article Bosnian Mujahideen

Hi, I'm having a problem with the editor The Dragon of Bosnia who has repeatedly deleted an article which I edit called Bosnian Mujahideen (see edit history here [2]). He has also deleted links to the article on other articles. [3][4][5][6]He seems to be basing his deletion of the article on two sets of arguments:

that the term Bosnian Mujahideen does not exist. In fact the term is used by published (research and books) experts.[7]. I admit though that there are other terms often used, such as El Mujahid, El Mujaheed or just Mujahideen (spelled in various forms).
claims the article is based on "false info/original research"[8] or "propaganda attempt or original research if you wish, based on unverified sources per WP:RS"[9]. As you will see from the references used in the article it is quite thoroughly sourced from what must be judged to be neutral and/or reliable sources.
states that "there is already particular article"[10] This refers to an article called 7th Muslim Brigade, which The Dragon of Bosnia is an editor of. Not only do I find this article to be blatantly POV and lacking in verifiable sources it also does not cover the Bosnian Mujahideen.

In the interest of avoiding an edit war I would like some assistance from you as an adminstrator, either in censoring user:Dragon of Bosnia or recommending or initiating an arbitration process. Regards Osli73 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Slovenia

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination). Slovenians try to delete the article Greater Slovenia as if the concept never existed. Please participate in the discussion, the article has been thoroughly sourced. -- Imbris (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tepić

Sve sto je izneseno u u Tepicevom clanku je istina... Nije vazno sto sam ja Srbin a sto si ti Hrvat, jednostavno to je istina... Ne glupiraj se, znas i sam da ne mogu da nadjem nista o Milanu Tepicu iz izvora koji nisu srpski ili hrvatski.. Postuj svakog heroja, nebitno koje je nacionalnosti... Milan Tepic je ucinio herojsko delo i zasluzuje clanak na vikipediji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damjanoviczarko (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tepić pobio 30.000 ljudi... ajde ne lupetaj... Što se Ratka tiče, da, mislim da je heroj! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damjanoviczarko (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Babić (soldier)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Marko Babić (soldier), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello The Spanish Inquisitor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 336 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Jozo Radoš - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]