User talk:Harac

Hello, Harac, and

so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

You might also want to consider changing your

. I would suggest that you do this. I can certainly understand that you might be uncomfortable using your real name online, but, in this case, I recommend that you choose an alias that resembles a real name. For instance, my name is Nat Krause, but I could just as well have a username such as "Eli Miller" or "Abe Sokolov".

If you are choosing a pseudonym, please do not use the names of famous people or fictional characters. An obscure literary reference is probably all right. As always, please avoid anything that could be considered

.

Note that, on Wikipedia, you can use spaces and capital letters; for instance, "T. K. Truong" is possible, rather than simply "tktruong".

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

To do

1. Band's visit
2. Independent Spirit Awards
3. Tamara Jenkins
4. Ryan Fleck
5. Rodrigo Garcia
6. dernek.ba (vidi Kaltura)

Hi Harac

Hi Harac,

I know you will probably think me even more of a nitpicker for reverting your edit on the grounds that it is 'not minor', but I believe it is an important point of principle (as I say, I'm not going to fight over the tag per se).

But if you click on the link 'What's this?' regarding 'minor changes', you will find the following: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." (my emphasis)

I realise you may have genuinely not realised your edit was not 'minor' in this sense (it certainly was in all other senses) -- but it's an important issue because often edits tagged as 'minor' will not be reviewed, or come up in people's watchlists.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I've reverted my edit, so you don't have to. Just wanted you to take the point on board about 'minor edits', that's all. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, it was a mechanical action, or rather automatic. Most of my edits fall in that category anyway; still believe edit was justified. The banner was to vague as to what it was contesting, giving impression of general falsification of history, which to me, as a person who studies this matter (from legal perspective predominantly), seemed unacceptable. --Harac (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; like I say, I wasn't keen on edit-warring over the tag itself. My reasoning was that the article now contains *unverified* statements (namely, the one about elderly and women being killed). Also it was something of a response to what I saw as unjustified and anonymous reverts (almost certainly Historicar, in my opinion, although I have no solid proof). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harac

I've just read your latest contribution to the Srebrenica Massacre talk page.

I just thought that as you seem like a reasonable person (and I believe I am as well!) it might be worthwhile my spelling out what I see as the major flaws in the article (calling it 'laughable' was probably a bit harsh on my part, but I was getting very frustrated by what I saw as silly blind reverts, and an unwillingness to discuss or accept any contrary arguments).

Basically, it seems to me that the article has basically been hijacked by editors who are NOT interested in writing a clear, non-biased and factual article about the events at Srebrenica. Rather, they simply want to include as much anti-Serb information as possible, while downplaying or ignoring anything which is negative to the Bosniak side. However sensitive this topic may be, Wikipedia is still an ENCYCLOPAEDIA which is meant to be a NEUTRAL source of information, and those who cannot abide by this principle should simply not be editing such pages.

I'm happy enough for the ICTY judgement to be used as a primary source of information, despite my own personal reservations about the neutrality of the ICTY.

But what I think is problematical is:

a) the information from the ICTY judgements is apparently 'pruned' to make the findings appear more anti-Serb/pro-Bosniak than they in fact are (see my 'POV pruning of ICTY judgement' topic on the talk page for one example of this);

b) there appears to be an unwillingness to allow any sort of *summary* of events, even though the article is clearly way above WP guidelines for length as it is -- editors clearly want every gory detail spelled out verbatim, and like I say this is (IMO) clearly due to the strong pro-Bosniak/anti-Serb bias of most editors;

c) there are obvious violations of NPOV just in terms of things like the gravestone of a 13-year-old boy being right at the top of the page, even though the vast majority of victims were *over* the age of 13 (and I realise this could be seen as 'nitpicking', but why not simply accept that it *is* vaguely inaccurate and allow its deletion rather than fight for it, if it is indeed a non-issue);

d) there are some downright stupid edits (some of the language is very poor, we have the ridiculous instance now in the intro where THREE footnote references are listed to the SAME SOURCE!) -- and while I have HUGE respect for the fact that many editors are not using their first language (after all, 'Kako ste?' is about the extent of my Serbo-Croat!), it makes parts of the article pretty poor in terms of readability -- earlier in the year, or maybe it was last year, I began trying to tidy up the language and got to a point where it was just too unclear what had in fact happened to even understand, and thus tidy up. (I'm talking about where the march of the Tuzla column is described -- it gets to a point where there are multiple mentions of an 'asphalt road' and it's not at all clear if it's the same road or a bunch of different ones).

Anyway, I'm not a Serb nationalist, or even a Serb, but I do have a major problem with ENCYCLOPAEDIA articles being used as (as I see it) anti-Serb (or anti-any other nationality) propaganda. The facts should *speak for themselves*, after all.

Feel free to reply with any of your own thoughts on my talk page (or on here).

Do vidjenja :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was writing a reply, but then my mother came in my room to tell me that Karadžić has been arrested. As you can imagine I cant write now, or for days --Harac (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Yeah, I just saw that there in Wikinews actually -- going to go have a read. Take care and reply whenever you want to get around to it. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

I DON'T mean to pester you at all, but when you get around to replying, you might want to check out the complaint raised at the talk page under 'Error in US Congress Resolution section' (near the bottom of the page). It's been fixed now, but I don't know how long that utterly outrageous and defamatory (and incorrect, to boot!) statement was on the article -- and to me it sums up the poor quality I'm talking about. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harac, Jonathanmills speaks with a self-conferred authority on matters he seems completely ignorant about (wilfully or otherwise) - for example his assertion that he knows nothing about Foca - he said something along the lines of not knowing what Foca is. Someone willing to declare that level of ignorance should be more careful about meddling with sensitive subject material. He obviously doesn't know that Mladic declared that he wanted to kill every boy child over the age of 13 which is why it is perfectly reasonable to have the grave of a 13 year old prominently featured. Unfortunately it's difficult for me at present to be involved with the Wikipedia article in the way I was a couple of years ago but I'm very glad you're prepared to stand up for the truth. Opbeith (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally a lot of the information from ICTY judgments that Jonathanmills considers "pro-Bosniak" is actually information that was added specifically in order to provide objective facts that refuted misinformation inserted by pro-Serb apologists. Don't be misled by the air of polite naivety. Opbeith (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harac, can you e-mail me about the Hasan Nuhanovic civil action? Go to my user page and click on e-mail in the "toolbox" section. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harac.

The Nuhanovic and Mustafic cases are being considered by the Dutch Court separately from the Mothers of Srebrenica case being handled by Van Diepen. The Court is due to deliver its judgment on September 10, but whichever way it goes there is likely ot be a lengthy appeal process.

If you're interested go to http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2008/06/netherlands-srebrenica-genocide.html That's a useful place to find out more and if you have any queries the Blog's author will put you in the picture.

All the best. Opbeith (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've now taken out all of my edits including the sources so the article should now feature your modifications. I did this by reverting to the last edit you made before I returned to the article. As I blanket-reverted you, I presume you were restoring the details which I did not mean to wipe. Obviously, the Bleiburg chapter is long, controversial and complicated, I accept that Septmber 2nd 1945 seems to be an official date to the end of the war, so anything I may have said about it happening in the aftermath, is now irrelevant. Sorry to have entered a minor dispute with you.

]

• I am sorry for looking like a "Bleiburg denier". Doing anything on Srebrenica article is dangerous for sanity anyway. --Harac (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know yet will get back to you within 48 hours. --

]

Omarska camp

Hi Harac Thanks for the additions to Omarska camp article. I checked the reference and page/paragraph number (the court document) seems to be inconsistent. Can you please take a second look? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You used the same reference for Trnopolje, so please check that one too. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was the Court's conclusion on all the camps (Batković, Sušica, Foča kazneno-popravni dom, Omarska, Keraterm, Trnopolje, Manjača, Luka) in relation to Article 2(b) of Genocide convention (there is actus reus but no dolus specialis - I'm not sure if you have legal background, but what it says is that acts there did not amount to genocide), thus I used the same one for both camps (other camps are not listed on wiki). I have checked the link and it is fine - page 119, paragraph 319 (I also have the judgment in paper form and its the same paragraph although not the same page, because of formatting). Regards, --Harac (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, than everything is fine, but paragraph 319 (that you rightly quote) is on page 115 in the PDF-document. Although the conclusion was for all the named camps, paragraph 319 seems to be located within the chapter on Luka camp - this also confused me. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted an excerpt from ICTY Appeals Chamber finding on Krstic. Opbeith (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harac,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in

, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{
  anchors}} in Wikipedia (example
  ).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using
  WP:Hornbook
  as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add

Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants

.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards,

]

Glasanje na bs.wiki

Zamolio bih te da nas posjetis i glasas za ili protiv novog provjeritelja. Pozdrav --WizardOfOz (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mato Tadić - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harac, re your comment about the Legal Proceedings section, you're right that it needs updating - any chance that you might do it? Personally I'm not convinced about the merit of removing closely relevant lists to other articles, I think it makes them less practically useful, so my preference is for sub-articles. However given the desirability of reducing the size of the article (will that be so necessary/desirable in a couple of years' time? One wonders), some sort of warehousing solution seems inevitable. Opbeith (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If you're working on Herak that's pretty useful, concentrate on it. It would be interesting to know the background to/substance of Herak's discrediting, it was quite convenient for some people. Don't worry about the SG article, it's been chaotic for a long while but gradually since the ICJ judgment things have become quieter, there's less real-world incentive to create diversions, smokescreens and inaccuracy, so less need for bushfire fighting. If it stays reasonably quiet that will make it easier to devote time to the article rather than spend time on repeated-thousand-times-over arguments and defending the substance from saboteurs. Opbeith (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited A Separation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Slant, Nathaniel Rogers and Ray Greene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address you are using is listed in various lists of proxies, and is listed at www.spamhaus.org because it has been the source of spam emails. Assuming that neither you nor anyone else using your computer is doing anything malicious, there are two likely possibilities. (1) You are using a proxy server to edit Wikipedia, and someone else has used the same proxy server for malicious purposes. If that is so, it is very unlikely that the IP address will be unblocked, but it may be possible to give you IP block exemption if you have a good reason for editing via such a proxy, but you will have to make it clear that you really do have such a good reason. (2) Your computer is compromised, and being used as a

talk) 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Trial transcripts and assertions about a living person

A heads up see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons#Do not use trial transcripts and other court records ... assertions about a living person -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zero Dark Thirty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For adding all the awards (with refs) on the article for Amour. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was not intentional. Looking at my edit history I was looking at my watch-list on a slow connection and I must have hit the revert (which would have been just above the article name I had intended to click upon). Sorry for that. -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited China Miéville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Kelsen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jim Harris and John Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

If user user:Harač is an account that you also use, then please add two templates to the home pages of your accounts:

• {{User alternative account name}} to the main account
• {{
  User alternate acct
  }} to the secondary account.

-- PBS (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively if you have been using Harač by mistake because you use that for other language Wikipedia, I can block the account for you so that you can not accidentally use it on English Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Harac is the main account for English, and Harač for Bosnian wikipedia. I must have been logged in with the other one. --Accursius (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a different account on some wikis and sometimes would accidentally log into en.wikipedia with those accounts (because the browser could only handle one login at a time). My solution to stop myself accidentally editing under the wrong user name was to block the none en.wikipedia account on en.wikipedia. If you would not like that to be done, then add the two templates to the home pages of the accounts -- I do this with my main account and my AWB account see User:PBS and User:PBS-AWB.

I think you must take one of these two choices I have offered, because you are editing in an area that comes under

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions ( Balkans), and editing with two accounts that are not explicitly linked could create an unnecessary editorial conflict. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions: 08:35, 18 July 2017‎ Harač ‎ . . (137,667 bytes) (+466)‎ . . (→‎The Netherlands) (diff)

I don't mind which user ID you stop using but make a choice (either template or a block) or I will make it for you. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Block Harač here, but leave it for Bosnian wiki. --Accursius (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]