Jump to content

Talk:Vojislav Šešelj/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

youngest PhD?

in 1979. becoming the youngest PhD in former SFRY

He would have been 25 at that point. Is this information true? --Joy [shallot] 01:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Yes,that is true,Dr. Seselj is youngest "doctor" as we call it in the history of Former Yugoslavia...Hes also a lunatic,but he makes pretty good points someyimes,thats why hes party is the strongest party in Serbia...Hes a populist,plain and simple


This article has very Serbian POV

I've added some external links about Seselj where he is described as warcriminal,founder of a notorious paramilitary group White Eagles and a close Milosevic ally responsable for many deaths through hatespeech,propaganda and his White Eagles.This article portrayes him as some sort of a martyr for Serbian people?!?!?!

What is wikipedia coming to?!?!--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

rhotacism

It's joined together with reference to oratorical skills because it is often an obstacle to the latter. (Disclaimer: I suffer from a mild form of the condition as well - so please no "you anti-rhotacist nazi!" comments :) --Joy [shallot]

Ability to communicate

I removed the part about his inability to communicate with his family or legal advisors because, simply, it's not true. It is true that he was forbidden from communicating, for two months, with anyone other than his legal advisors or the Serbian consulate after he revealed the identity of a protected witness in the summer of 2005, but such an antic is hardly noteworthy for someone like Šešelj.

Photos

Sorry, I added the photos, but I wasn't logged in. So, is this the best way for me to remedy that? Mattwhiteski 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Part about his talks in front of the Tribunal.

Is that really necessary to have it, with or without translation? I suggest removing it.

War Criminals category??

I removed the Category:War criminals. He has not been convicted of warcrimes, in fact his trial hasn't even started yet.65.94.134.29 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, he is no more war criminal than Solana and Clinton. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He is in the Hague right? Jesus Christ,F ultranationalists!--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More info of his involvement in the Balkan wars

Shouldn't there be a "bit" more info of his involvement in the Balkan wars? After all, he was one of the main serbian "madmen" at that time.

There should *really* be mention of his deranged threats to non-Serb Yugoslavs - as in "we will dig out the eyes of Croats with a rust spoon". But most perplexing - why did this great brave hero of the Serbian people, so abjectly surrender to the Hague Court? Doesn't really reflect too well on his intelligence... -- A patriotic Serb...

Haha, you lobbyists on Wiki are funny. Well, he surrendered to the Hague so he could educate the resident prosecutors and judges, primarily on law and history. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.30.80 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the thing about killing with a rusty spoon, was a joke in a comedy show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.28.176 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Who?

Who deleted the page that i linked on this site, where i SPECIFICALLY quoted his absolute contempt for the Hague Tribunal where he tells basically the entire tribunal to [expletive deleted]? Who deleted this?

hey, calm down --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Wow is right

I think it would be time to at least include what crimes he has been indicted on. There are obviously some users here who have issues with the article which go beyond the function of wikipedia, without naming any names, but it is obvious who that is.

Seselj hasn't been arrested because he has committed some sort of crimes, he simply wasn't politically alligned with the projects of the United States and is now being persecuted for his thoughts. Bh3u4m 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


How sick those one have to be to make this conspiracy theory alligations!??!

Have you read the ICTY indictment against Vojislav Seselj and do you know what is his accused off?? How long will wiki tollerate these kind of nazi apologists???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Duke

The Chetniks are not the KKK, so the translation of "voivoda" as a Grand Duke is highly inappropriate. There is a Wiki article that explains the meaning of this term, but if you insist on adding a translation you could use "commander" or "general". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.201.44 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

White Eagles weren't organized by Seselj or Serbian Radicals

This is huge mistake...I also noticed this mistake in White Eagles...Seselj organized "Voulonteers of Serbian Radical Party.White Eagles were organized by Vuk Draskovic and Serbian Renewal Movement. Fix this ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


This article is retarded

The article has a Serbian apologetic POV. Vojislav Seselj is a ultranationalist and a fascist in my view. Here is his profile by BBC and it deals a lot more with Seselj then this Nazi apologist article on wiki.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2317765.stm --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The charges agaist Seselj by BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2795235.stm --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ICTY custody

I believe that the section on the ICTY custody should be changed to better reflect the indictment and the trial. The current section deals more with his statement about the tribunal and a book he wrote. I added info about the indictment but it should probably be expanded to include further delineation of the charges. The actual trial should also be written about.

Additionally, the fact that 7 hours remained in the prosecution's time limit is stated twice. The only information needed in the introduction is that the trial is delayed. The background for this can be given in the body of the entry. Backstroke54 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin

This was rightly reverted because the ref is a youtube copyvio of an unattributed Goran Milić report, so whatever it says, that just doesn't cut it WRT WP:BLP. Nevertheless, the topic has been the source of fairly widespread media speculation, so when something remotely reliable comes up, it should be included, if only to prevent more bad material from getting spammed in. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

For example:

Nacional (weekly) interview with a Croatian amateur geneaologist Mladen Paver (#790, 2011-01-04)
http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/98947/neobicne-zgode-i-otkrica-istrazivaca-obiteljskih-tajni
NACIONAL: Kada smo već kod prezimena iz drugih krajeva, sjećam se da su prije deset i više godina vas pozivali da kažete svoje mišljenje o tome je li Šešelj hrvatsko prezime i je li stoga Vojislav Šešelj zapravo Hrvat.
- Bavio sam se i prezimenom Šešelj. Postoji veliki broj prezimena koja su zajednička Hrvatima i Srbima pa čak i Bošnjacima, a Šešelj je jedno od njih. Šešelji su velikim dijelom katolici i čini se da je Vojislav prvi koji se prebacio na onu stranu.

But, again, that's also not a reliable source. Amusingly enough, it contradicts Milić's hearsay. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the topic being addressed so long as it complies with policy, ie is properly referenced. RashersTierney (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning

It wasn't just other professors Seselj was in conflict with. Many individuals from the University, especially those from the Faculty of Law or the Faculty of Political Sciences were directly involved in politics and some of them even held political posts. Hamdija Pozderac was a politician, and a very powerful one at the time. Brano Miljus was also a politician in addition to being employed at the Faculty.... My point is that the event of Seselj ending up in prison is a direct consequence of him voicing his opinions from the platform that the position of university professor/lecturer provided him. Therefore, it is another event form his academic career. Besides, "Conflict with law enforcement" suggests he robbed a convenience store or vandalized a shop window.

Intellectuals and academicians in various communist countries were and are persecuted (including being thrown into jail) for holding unpopular opinions. I don't why is it so difficult for you to comprehend prison in the context of an individual's academic career.99.225.202.45 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The entirety of the content about UDBA and imprisonment should be a separate section because his academic career appeared to have became non-existent at that point
— Joy — continues after insertion below
Not true. He worked at the Social Research Institute when he started being followed by UDBA.
99.225.202.45 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- yes, the later events happened as a result of something he did during this academic career, but that's still a separate topic because there's a non-trivial difference between endless controversy outside of law enforcement and actually being arrested several times, trialled and sentenced.
I've tried to accommodate your concern by using the more specific term "law enforcement", but now you insist that law enforcement is something that only applies to robbery and vandalism, which it doesn't. You previously understood the term "Yugoslav authorities" to include university staff (and their party connections), but English readers will by and large understand what this phrase means in context - when someone is in conflict with "the authorities", that doesn't mean they're merely in conflict with authority as a concept, they're in practical conflict with government officials such as police, secret service agents, etc. There's plenty of conflict with authority as a concept in the earlier sections, and then there's where it changes to law enforcement.
More generally, English readers will be confused by seeing the topics of "Prison" and "Move to Belgrade" under "Academic career" when nothing about actual academia is discussed in there. Heck, we might as well move "Academic career" to "Political activism" because there's only about three sentences in the preceding text that directly relate to academia - everything else is politics, so we might as well acknowledge the academic factoids to be only context for the politics. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You're continually mixing contexts.
You seems to be trying to bring communist verbal offence (something so loosely defined and introduced solely out of desire to make it possibly for communists to legally go after the dissenting individuals) into the realm of common criminality, as if it's just like any other offence and as such grounds for being sanctioned by the authority. You're basically saying: "lets just take a case from 1985 as defined by the laws that existed back then and then lets just bring it into the present context as is". So, according to you, "since Seselj was convicted for verbal offence in 1985 and as such sentenced to a two-year prison sentence, we can just put all that under the heading of 'conflict with authority' or 'conflict with law enforcement'". It's misleading and doesn't provide sufficiant context.
And then you claim to be motivated to do so out of concern that "English readers won't otherwise understand what's going on". I don't what your opinion of the "English readers" is (not very high obviously), but you're not giving them enough credit. Most are intelligent and aware enough to discern that dissident intellectuals and academicians were persecuted in communist countries.
— 99.225.202.45 — continues after insertion below
This is all fine and well, but the content is barely notable without the verbal offence stuff. This part of the article isn't actually discussing his academic career, it's discussing how he got in trouble because of politics. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
And then there's there's another larger issue here, also. You're continually suggesting that academia and politics are two different universes. And yes, I guess they are if you're an electrical engineer or a software developer. However, in a communist/socialist country with a single-party political system such as SFR Yugoslavia, academic posts at social science faculties like the Faculty of Political Sciences or the Faculty of Law were intricately linked with nomenklatura and the ruling class. The ruling party closely controlled and oversaw the goings-on at these faculties. Furthermore, many individuals employed at these faculties were simultaneously involved in politics (holding high political posts), and, even furthermore, those faculty members that weren't directly involved in politics through appointed political posts still weren't free to publicly state and espouse unpopular opinions as Seselj quickly found out for himself.99.225.202.45 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You make it sound as if he was a notable academic who was then persecuted. The description of the period between his doctorate in 1979 and 1989 contains basically nothing about his academic credentials. It says that he analyzed someone else's thesis, and it says that a US university employed him at an unspecified moment in time (it seems inconsistent, I can't exactly infer when it was). That's not a notable academic career, instead it appears to be ten years notable mainly for his conflict with Yugoslav authorities. (If you will, the list of those authorities may include the people at the university with more clout than himself, and it goes all the way up to the supreme court.) That isn't a value judgement, it's a neutral description of the events. Conflict with authorities wasn't inherent to an academic career there - if you want to claim otherwise, then you're making a value judgement with regard to the rest of those people who didn't get in the same amount of trouble that Šešelj did. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Aha, so now you're passing judgement on whether Seselj's academic career is impressive enough. And on top of that you're even trying to pass your personal opinion of Seselj 'not being much of an academician' as "neutral description of the events". I mean, when he applies for a teaching position at Joy University, feel free to tell him what you think of his academic credentials. Otherwise, this POV is irrelevant.
— 99.225.202.45 — continues after insertion below
No, I'm merely passing judgement on the content of the article. The current article describes his academic career like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well then feel free to expand it with sourced info, don't section it off in completely inappropriate manner that pays no heed to the context in which the events described took place.99.225.202.45 (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
And this statement that mentioning specific parts of Seselj's academic career such as disagreements with collegues, dissention, prison, persecution by the communists, etc. is actually an implicit value judgement on others that DIDN'T get persecuted by the communists and were NEVER thrown in prison by the communists....... Are you actually trying to tell me that you believe that merely listing actual events from Seselj's academic career is a slight against someone else who doesn't have those same events in his/her academic career? ....... wow, talk about reaching for the argument. The point of Wiki articles is imparting real information in proper context, not construing wild rhetorical conclusions.99.225.202.45 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the article says almost nothing about what he did academically. There is no proper academic context for a section that is supposed to be called "Academic career". There's basically only politics there. It's very informative politics, but it's still politics, not academia. It looks like a decade that Šešelj largely spent in political trouble, because the description of his academic work from the same period is missing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
First off, "Academic career" section does NOT contain "basically only politics". Secondly, the fact that you're not satisfied with the amount of information imparted within a section does not give you the right to further section off that section in a manner that completely disregards the context in which the events of the subject matter described in that section took place. And thirdly, we were down this road before so since you don't mind repeating yourself until you're blue in the face, I don't mind repeating myself either. You're continually suggesting that academia and politics are two different universes. And yes, I guess they are if you're an electrical engineer or a software developer. However, in a communist/socialist country with a single-party political system such as SFR Yugoslavia, academic posts at social science faculties like the Faculty of Political Sciences or the Faculty of Law were intricately linked with nomenklatura and the ruling class. The ruling party closely controlled and oversaw the goings-on at these faculties. Furthermore, many individuals employed at these faculties were simultaneously involved in politics (holding high political posts), and, even furthermore, those faculty members that weren't directly involved in politics through appointed political posts still weren't free to publicly state and espouse unpopular opinions as Seselj quickly found out for himself.
You're continually passing judgement on the quality of Seselj's academic career and in the process purposely disregarding the context in which his academic career took place. For the millionth time, prison took place within the context of his academic career.99.225.202.45 (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is completely disingenuous. An academic career of a person who is supposed to have an academic career notable enough for a biography section is not defined by a single sentence noting employment at something called an institute. Did he teach, and if so, what and where? Did he write and publish papers, in journals or in books? Was any of it peer-reviewed? All of this information is missing, so it's irrelevant whether we take your claims about humanities universities in Yugoslavia at face value or not. I or anyone else is not actually able to pass judgement on his academic career because it's not described in the eponymous section of the article. You've had your turn at a WP:BRD style revert of my sectioning fix; you've failed to discuss your way out of this apparent hole. Please don't just revert further, because it'll just be a proof of a WP:OWN violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, so now you've crossed over into the borderline insult territory. You operate in your own private Joy universe where projections onto others (pretty much every word YOU yourself have said so far has been shallow, empty rhetoric), arbitrary and completely inaccurate referencing of Wiki guidelines that you callously misuse for baseless accusation, and ridiculous rhetoric fly in the face of logic and common sense. The problem arises when you want to impose your private universe onto the larger one. And you don't seem to mind twisting facts in order to achieve this, either. The section "Academic career" is NOT defined "by a single sentence noting employment at something called an institute".
In addition to passing judgment on Seselj's academic career, now you've appointed yourself the arbiter over which person is 'winning the discussion' accourding to the rule: Joy - GOOD, the other guy - BAD. and lastly, since you clearly don't mind repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself again: the fact that you're not satisfied with the amount of information imparted within a section does not give you the right to further section off that section in a manner that completely disregards the context in which the events of the subject matter described in that section took place.99.225.202.45 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm done here; you've managed the amazing feat of accusing me of projecting while engaging in first-class wiki-lawyering where you - surprise - project your problematic attitude onto me. Bravo. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Teaching in Michigan

Sources are inconsistent about this. The Mueller reference says "University of Michigan", but doesn't actually state it's the one at Ann Arbor. His official biography, which is arguably incomplete because it's an interview, mentions only something that should translate into the Grand Valley State Colleges. At List of University of Michigan faculty and staff, someone linked http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2317765.stm which says: going on to teach first at Michigan and then at Sarajevo universities. That's also an implied reference. A google search for seselj site:umich.edu doesn't bring up anything about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't find anything on the University of Michigan either. It seems to be one of those things that a few sources keep on copy-pasting verbatim without precise info whatsoever. Mueller says "Šešelj spent a year teaching at the University of Michigan". I've no idea where he got this much like his other information on Seselj. Honestly, based on the sheer density of events in Šešelj's academic career from 1980 to 1984 I can't see where he could have squeezed in a whole year abroad. Not to mention that the likelihood of Yugoslav communist authorities allowing a person of his profile to go abroad for a year and come back without problem isn't very high.99.225.202.45 (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
"Spent a year teaching at <school>" could also be considered a turn of phrase, it doesn't have to mean literally an entire year's worth of teaching, especially coupled with the other apparently ambiguous or inaccurate reference to the place. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The University of Michigan human resources department has no record of him ever being employed as a faculty member.35.2.58.61 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed that statement from the article [1]. Feel free to put it back when more reliable source is found. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Seselj, later, seems to have become mentally unbalanced" claim by John Mueller

This extreme disqualification by Mueller about Šešelj's "seeming mental unbalance as a result of the torture and beatings he endured while in prison" is made in passing as part of a footnote explaining who Seseljevci were. Is John Mueller a psychiatrist? A psychologist? A psychoanalyst? Has he had access to Seselj and spent time with him? Did he perhaps have access to Seselj's medical records? No, none of that, he's a political scientist interested in international relations as well as a scholar on the history of dance. In support of his claims he cites an unnamed "academic colleague of Seselj's who described Seselj as disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind". Then furthermore, Mueller cites something called "Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)". And finally he cites Tim Judah's book The Serbs.

I've looked through this Final Report.... and couldn't find anything on Seselj's "mental balance". I've also looked through Tim Judah's book The Serbs and no dice again (although the free preview cuts off at page 185).

This statement is ridiculously poorly sourced.99.225.202.45 (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually cite Mueller's opinion as anything resembling a medical source - it's attributed to a seemingly notable person and quoted with the caveat. The internal referencing of his opinion also doesn't have to refer to medicine. That notable people think (and have published in notable journals) that Šešelj has such issues is not a WP:BLP violation - it's a statement of a fact over a notion that is so widespread in non-Serbian places previously frequented by Šešelj that the lack of its acknowledgement in the article should basically be considered whitewashing.
More generally, I don't think you should complain about sourcing that notion in an article that is so egregiously faulty with regard to WP:BLPSPS. Either we employ a very strict interpretation of the biographies of living persons policy here, or we don't; simply censoring well-known and well-referenced criticism is not the point of that policy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
First of all, this person who Mueller quotes as having supposedly said that Seselj is "disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind" is unnamed, which is no obstacle for you to call this unnamed person notable. You don't even know who this person is, yet you know he/she is notable.
— 99.225.202.45 — continues after insertion below
No, nobody ever said that person is notable. Mueller is the one who's notable and who's had it published in International Security. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So to conclude, the fact that this notable person is unnamed, the fact that Mueller's qualifying citations contain ABSOLUTELY NO MENTIONS of Seselj's mental balance, let alone a claim that "he's mentally unbalanced" are of no concern to you, but you're calling me strict and overly picky. Then you claim that Seselj's "mental instability" is "well-known....well-referenced.... and widespread in non-Serbian places frequented by Seselj". Since in addition to Serbia, he set foot in Bosnia, Croatia, Germany and United States, you seem to be implying that his "mental unbalance" and him being "disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind" is widely accepted in those four countries. Wow, talk about being in your own universe.99.225.202.45 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think people generally think well of a person that names his books "Đavolji šegrt, rimski papa Jovan Pavle II" or "Smežurano kengurovo mudo Kevin Parker" and similar, you might want to take a walk outside. Heck, even Ratko Mladić recently publicly called Šešelj a moron and a disgrace. The reason people don't call him out more often is likely two-fold: either they know from history that he's dangerous and don't want to have anything to do with him, or he's not actually notable enough for a lot of people to simply bother commenting on. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you pretending again or are you actually not cognitively capable enough to grasp the huuuuuuuge distance in time and space between the instance of calling someone "NOT mentally UNbalanced" and the instance of thinking well of that person.
I guess I'm getting another unique insight into the Joy universe where "I don't think you're mentally unbalanced" is the same as "I think you're great".
Do you understand the burden of proof you're taking on in order to support the claim that someone is "mentally unbalanced as a result of prison torture". Quoting a guy whose two out of three references are completely invalid while the third one is an unnamed source is ridiculously poor.99.225.202.45 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
With regard to the "mental" interpretation, please feel free to look up cretinism (kreten). As for referencing, refer to AN/I. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you even regularly use Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, BCS, or combinations there within? Doesn't sound like you have a grasp on the spirit of the language. kreten, idiot, mentol, budala, moron, debil, bolid, etc. are in 99.9999% percent of the cases used as nothing more than an insult, it's certainly not a medical diagnosis. According to you, I guess the Wiki entry for just about every politician of note should have a section with a collection/summary of insults their notable opponents hurled at them.99.225.202.45 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually do, and I will tell you that when you call someone a "kreten" you can't avoid the fact you've insulted someone's intelligence and mental state in a manner much less benevolent than saying someone's been gravely hurt by torture. Regardless, Mladić's disqualification may be discarded as self-serving because Šešelj had implicated him in crimes; Mueller's isn't. And, once again, neither was meant as a medical diagnosis, and it's only you who are disingenuously interpreting it as such in an effort to argue a red herring. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 140#John Mueller on Vojislav Šešelj and nobody objected to my argument. I'm provisionally restoring the full citation and its actual meaning to the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Change the picture

The current imagine is inappropriate. 109.245.92.191 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this drawing is really annoying. Added an image request tag at the top of the page. Buttons (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
We should put a more appropriate (and recent) picture of Seselj. --Reollun (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"talk duel"?

In English, the word is "debate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Release from ICT

Can someone add this ? http://www.dw.de/war-crimes-tribunal-approves-release-of-serbian-ultra-nationalist-seselj/a-18046332 http://news.yahoo.com/un-judges-approve-provisional-release-serb-174224511.html 

24.135.50.156 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vojislav Šešelj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vojislav Šešelj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vojislav Šešelj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vojislav Šešelj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vojislav Šešelj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vojislav_Šešelj/Archive_1&oldid=1212733816"