User talk:Mostssa

Obviously, you don't seem to understand why I'm reverting the pages History of Croatia, Minefields in Croatia and Tourism in Croatia. Let me explain.

• In History of Croatia, the terms that you added at the end of the article are alreay included in the section on WWII. Adding them again to the end is completely arbitrary and betrays a POV agenda of the user.

That certainly does not mean that they shold not be included in the see also list. Also, it is not true. There is no link to Danke Deuchland in the article. If you think the links are POV, add other that show a better side of croatian history.

OK. Now please think for a minute. What reason would there be for adding all the links AGAIN at the end of the article? And what reason would there be for adding the link to Danke Deutschland when it should obviously belong to the page Music of Croatia? --Zmaj 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all links are included in the text in the first place. What reason is there to remove the links to related pages, if not to obscure them? The see also section serves exactly to point to related pages, and these pages are clearly related. That some are mentioned in the article makes no difference Mostssa 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• In Minefields in Croatia, your version of the text is heavily biased. Phrases like "worst nightmare" are appropriate for a Rambo movie, not for an encyclopedic article. Moreover, no tourists ever stepped on any mine remaining from the 90s wars, simply because the mines are not in tourist areas.

The mines are in tourist areas, and they should be aware of the danger.

Maybe you are not aware that this is no light matter. Your claims are very serious and potentially damaging to the whole economy of a country. Therefore, they should be supported with evidence. Please provide evidence that there are mines in tourist areas and state their location. If you have no evidence, you're slandering an entire country. --Zmaj 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it will hurt any economy - if it depends on link here, then it is a poor thing indeed. It might save some people and instruct them to be cautious. It is wrong to remove this information. Wikipedia is for free speach and POV censorship (with the agenda which you in fact admit - to HIDE the facts from the purely material interest, denying complete information to tourists). Evidence is provided on the minefield links, and clearly, even some marked minefields are very close to popular touris destinations like Dubrovnik or Plitvice.Mostssa 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• As for Tourism in Croatia, as I already said, the mines are not in tourist areas. If we put the link on that article, we should put it on all Croatian pages, which is absurd.

That is not true. Why there are warnings at australian goverment site, SPECIFICALLY FOR TOURISTS, otherwise? It is vandalism to remove this.

There are mines in Croatia, but not in the tourist areas. The Australians made a mistake by being too cautious. Or would you claim that the Australian government is better informed about mines in Croatia than the Croatian government? --Zmaj 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Do you define tourist destinations as those which do not have minefields. It is malicious to hide this relevant information. Australian goverment clearly wants to warn its citizens, and wikipedia readers SHOULD NOT BE DENIED the warning! Mostssa 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

These are my arguments. If you have nothing sensible to reply to this, I'll report you to the administrators as a troll. --Zmaj 11:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You should report yourself as a POV vandal who removes relevant info Mostssa 07:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: quoting POV does not make it NPOV. True, but I'm quoting something. You only have your biased opinion. So my version stays until you come up with some proof for what you're saying. --Zmaj 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting the warning of australiant goverment in fact. if you want I will add a quote from that source too. Also, other security issues should be mentioned. - you removed them Mostssa 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Lonely Planet guides are generally considered very reliable sources, so try to find something on that level. --Zmaj 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

certainly a comercial guide. goverment warning is more neutral. Mostssa 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've put both Lonely Planet and the Australian government warnings. However, I can't let you put that text about attacks on buses without any proof. You should prove:

• That those were indeed tourist buses and not e.g. footbal fan buses.
• That (any) attacks on buses are more frequent than the usual frequency of such incidents in any European country. If there are indeed frequent attacks on buses from Yugoslavia, we'll put a special warning for tourists from Yugoslavia.

As for this paragraph: Tourists should also bear in mind that there are networks of car robbers that operate in Croatia using various hoax scenarios. For instance, they will stop a car asking for help, because their car is supposedly broken. While the well meaning tourists try to help, the property from their own car is robbed. - It's just plain silly. Cars are robbed all over the world, it's nothing special. It's a normal (although criminal) occurrence in any society and does not deserve a special mention. --Zmaj 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion should be on article talk page, not mine Mostssa 06:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Tourism in Croatia. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can report it, but I cannot block him; I am not an admin, just a vandal watch member. --OrbitOne 09:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems he has been blocked in the meantime. Mostssa 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you have reverted the Tourism in Croatia article on three occasions already. Pay attention to 3RR. EurowikiJ 15:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware of the WP:3RR - the rule which prohibits more than 3 reverts in 24h period. Consider yourself warned and please do not violate the rule. --Elephantus 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert to Medule's version on the Franjo Tudjman page? I wrote that the quotes are practically unsourced for reasons specified on the talk page. Read it. They are very unreliable. You're just edit warring, and reverting withot attempting to discuss at all. If you want to include a proper critique of Tudjman, you should incorporate it in the article and provide reliable sources (I don't think that would be so difficult), not just add some dubious quotes in the end. After all, it's much more important what he DID, not what he SAID.

Now it's perfectly reasonable that the thing about his alleged war crimes should be mentioned in the beginning of the article, so that people know, at least, that he is a controversial figure. But the quotes simply won't do. --85.187.44.131 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Belgrade was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Please add your statement on views at the top of the talk page in the designated area. Asterion ^{talk to me} 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Mathematics was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Hi. You have broken the 3RR on Tourism in Croatia article. Please self-revert or I will be forced to report the incident. EurowikiJ 11:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep vandalising the page. You cannot remove sourced material. And removal of warnings is a serious vandalism! Mostssa 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Content disputes are not vandalism; now that you've been warned of 3RR, you'll not receive warnings about it again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to help. They have been vandalizing my page and harrasing me. Mir Harven in particular; Also they have created User:SrblzLike account to harrass and inpersonat me. But that is what you can expect from them, I am not surprised. SrbIzLike 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. thanks, he is tiresome vandal, one should know... Mostssa

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)