|
Please do not use this account in editing articles edited by user Aradic-en-- Rjecina ( talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For your reference, note has been left on the WP:CHU page for your attention. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, like Dado once did, Makedonija ti pruži ljubav :) Balkan Fever 10:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In a 2007
arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing
Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.
Please stop baiting the greek editors. You called their country "Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan", apparently in order to ridiculize their insistance on using FYROM [1]. That sort of statements is pretty much guaranteed to make greek editors angry and start esterile discussions that only make people waste time. Ídem with referring to other editors as "My dear Yunan troll" and "most of the trolls here are from Yunanistan" [2]. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that anyone would think that using the Turkish [1] name for Greece is somehow a blow to the Greek ego. Apart from the fact that both what is now Croatia and the ancestors of your "Macedonian" brothers were also under Turkish rule once upon a time, you're probably unaware of the Greek origin of Yunanistan, İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir, İzmit, İznik, Trabzon, and countless other Turkish toponyms. I suppose the equivalent would be to try to provoke you by using the Serbian name for Croatia. If you actually had a separate name, that is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit, diff I found below the belt, so I thought it best to have somebody to look at it here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Aradic-es.-- HJensen, talk 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to change it for you, but "This user opposes the restauration of Yugoslavia in any form." should be spelled "restoration". -- AW ( talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Yano (
talk)
19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see this important message for you: [7] William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not move the pages. The Republic of Macedonia enters the contest under the name F.Y.R. Macedonia, so the pages must be named as such. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent page moves of the Eurovision articles of Macedonia from F.Y.R. Macedonia... to Republic of Macedonia... are totally disrespectful, this is not following WP:MOSMAC which states (under Summary guidance): "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events that use specific Macedonia-related terminology. Use the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" etc)". So it would help if they where moved back. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
[[ axg
⁞⁞
talk ]]
17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see this part of the soon to be opened Macedonia arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions. While you may be right, it would be best not to move any articles about Macedonia for now. Pozdravi, Balkan Fever 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment on Template_talk:Campaignbox_Bosnian_War#Third_party_opinion and reply there if you'd like to discuss this matter further. Thank you. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
West Herzegovina Canton. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. -
Andrew c
[talk]
01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've protected this article for two weeks. To avoid future disputes, I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks, Spellcast ( talk) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of your points, but I must say that I support a further elaboration on the Karađorđevo meeting in the article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
48h, West Herzegovina Canton, details available on request William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this edit, are you aware of the Wikipedia lead section guidelines which state that the "lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article"? That section of the Branimir Glavaš article certainly needs expanding to become a proper summary, but I would have thought that his sentencing is important enough for a mention there. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked you for edit warring there. My message on the talk page was clear enough William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just please look at the following edits:
I think I gave very clear explanation: [9]
I don't know any other word but vandalism which is more appropriate for this edit(I referr to the section "holidays") PRODUCER does not read at all -he simply reverts.
and numerous others-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
24h, incivility [10]. No, "Mr Reverter" is not acceptable William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it makes no sense just throwing around such accusations and adding tags to userpages. If you have any evidence, you should submit a checkuser request. Regards, -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Before reverting people take a break. Have a think. Is this really the appropriate place to have this information? Is a wikipedia article just a dumping ground of any information related to a topic. If it was then we would simply repeat things to the extent that wikipedia would become useless. Every article on the Bosnian War and related topics would look exactly the same. The individual articles should stay focussed on topic. Polargeo ( talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have been editing the Karađorđevo agreement. I am becoming increasingly aware of your edit waring across multiple articles. I know PRODCUER is to blame sometimes but I particularly note your continual reversion of well sourced material from the lead of Slobodan_Praljak. this is disruptive edit waring and so I have put a report in to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 48 hours for slow moving
edit warring on
Slobodan Praljak. It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk
16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
if you take a look at edit history you will see the following: *PRODUCER has removed category "People from Čapljina"- [11] [12] [13] Why?? *PRODUCER has removed category "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina"- Why? *PRODUCER has removed link to Praljak personal website-Why?? What is wrong with that? About Sections: *I did not erased this link . I just placed it in another section. Sentence "Slobodan Praljak is among six accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in relation to the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia." is written below with that source and it is absolutely necessary to repeat it twice. *2 Section "indicment" and "charges" are totally meaningless because that is the same thing. also this edit [14] producer's removal of section about connection with Turks (completely sourced) is nothing but vandalism-but nothing new :whatever he disagrees he removes.
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the reason why you have been sanctioned, except where you attempt to justify your edits. Raising questions regarding other individuals edits is irrelevant, since it is your own block that is at issue here. Since you seem unable to realise that it is the fact of edit warring, and not the reasons why you feel it necessary to violate policy, I do not think it wise to unblock you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Well, my reson is that I was preventing POV pushing ,vandalism and removal of sourced material by other user (and I have shown the examples).I do not remember that I have violated 3RR,anyway.I do not see what else I should say... -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your main activity here appears to be having stalked PRODUCER ( talk · contribs) and reverted dozens of edits. Solid block. Toddst1 ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|I might be stalking
PRODUCER (
talk ·
contribs) or he might be stalking me
Aradic-es (
talk ·
contribs). I have put certain article on watchlist- most of them he is constantly reverting .PLus some other articles... where he reverts totally sourced sections just because he dislikes them.
Ahmići massacre i.e see sectin propaganda
[15]
I have reported you for continuing your edit war Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo ( talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this complaint at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have explained my reasons at Talk:Slobodan Praljak.Even other editors agreed with them. Other meaningless accusations I have denied there but I could not continue because I was blocked in the mean time.
Decline reason:
As was said, "Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles." Otherwise, no. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You may be interested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar/Archive Polargeo ( talk) 08:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the matter with you, Aradic?! You'll get idef blocked(!), STOP block evading. Final warning or I'll report you myself. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Either way, you can still use your talkpage to voice your opinion on the issues. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I still stand at 100% at this!! I write smth negative about Bosniaks and I get banned. My edits are beeing labeled as "inflammatory"
PRODUCER writes gossips about some Croats trying to present them as "facts" and nothing-his edits ,on the other hand , are NOT beeing labeled as "inflammatory". Houston, we gotta situation!-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My block history is exclusively related to conflict with Bosniak POV pushers (
Kruško Mortale,
Journalist 007 ,
Historičar,
ICTYoda,
PRODUCER etc.) Most of them appeared to be sockpuppeteers.
[16]
Now ,could anybody explain me:why my edits against Bosniaks are inflamatory PRODUCER's edits against Croats are not inflamatory?? Any difference??-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Related to this: are you aware what kind of nonsense comparison did you make?? Ustaše were all declared Croats (about 40% of their ancestors today declare themselves as Bosniaks!!) but not all Croats are Ustaše. This is the case when one ethnic group is identifying itself with another one-given by leaders!!You probably do not know that the leader of Sandžak muslims made the similar statements about "mother Turkey".-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I gave bunch of reliable sources... i.e for Bosniaks and Turks: I sourced Bosniak press ! That is not the secret!-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is gossip because these are statement of people who were not present at the meeting but they told the stories they (supposedly) heard from others. So, these are 2nd 3rd 10th hand sources. and here are beeing quoted as absolutely reliable.
Why in the world are neecessary :they do not say a word about the karađorđevo meeting!!! Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with you here. This is getting excessive. The subsection on the Serb leadership was added in to balance the bit about the Croat leadership. This was requested by Ceha. But my understanding was that these sections should be kept to a minimum just for context or else they should be a separate article. I have been away on holiday, and still am, so I will have a look at this in a few days time. Polargeo 30 Aug
Holy (edit) war has started again [19] [20]-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Please do not use this account in editing articles edited by user Aradic-en-- Rjecina ( talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For your reference, note has been left on the WP:CHU page for your attention. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, like Dado once did, Makedonija ti pruži ljubav :) Balkan Fever 10:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In a 2007
arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing
Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.
Please stop baiting the greek editors. You called their country "Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan", apparently in order to ridiculize their insistance on using FYROM [1]. That sort of statements is pretty much guaranteed to make greek editors angry and start esterile discussions that only make people waste time. Ídem with referring to other editors as "My dear Yunan troll" and "most of the trolls here are from Yunanistan" [2]. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that anyone would think that using the Turkish [1] name for Greece is somehow a blow to the Greek ego. Apart from the fact that both what is now Croatia and the ancestors of your "Macedonian" brothers were also under Turkish rule once upon a time, you're probably unaware of the Greek origin of Yunanistan, İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir, İzmit, İznik, Trabzon, and countless other Turkish toponyms. I suppose the equivalent would be to try to provoke you by using the Serbian name for Croatia. If you actually had a separate name, that is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit, diff I found below the belt, so I thought it best to have somebody to look at it here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Aradic-es.-- HJensen, talk 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to change it for you, but "This user opposes the restauration of Yugoslavia in any form." should be spelled "restoration". -- AW ( talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Yano (
talk)
19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see this important message for you: [7] William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not move the pages. The Republic of Macedonia enters the contest under the name F.Y.R. Macedonia, so the pages must be named as such. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent page moves of the Eurovision articles of Macedonia from F.Y.R. Macedonia... to Republic of Macedonia... are totally disrespectful, this is not following WP:MOSMAC which states (under Summary guidance): "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events that use specific Macedonia-related terminology. Use the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" etc)". So it would help if they where moved back. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
[[ axg
⁞⁞
talk ]]
17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see this part of the soon to be opened Macedonia arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions. While you may be right, it would be best not to move any articles about Macedonia for now. Pozdravi, Balkan Fever 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment on Template_talk:Campaignbox_Bosnian_War#Third_party_opinion and reply there if you'd like to discuss this matter further. Thank you. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
West Herzegovina Canton. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. -
Andrew c
[talk]
01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've protected this article for two weeks. To avoid future disputes, I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks, Spellcast ( talk) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of your points, but I must say that I support a further elaboration on the Karađorđevo meeting in the article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
48h, West Herzegovina Canton, details available on request William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this edit, are you aware of the Wikipedia lead section guidelines which state that the "lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article"? That section of the Branimir Glavaš article certainly needs expanding to become a proper summary, but I would have thought that his sentencing is important enough for a mention there. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked you for edit warring there. My message on the talk page was clear enough William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just please look at the following edits:
I think I gave very clear explanation: [9]
I don't know any other word but vandalism which is more appropriate for this edit(I referr to the section "holidays") PRODUCER does not read at all -he simply reverts.
and numerous others-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
24h, incivility [10]. No, "Mr Reverter" is not acceptable William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it makes no sense just throwing around such accusations and adding tags to userpages. If you have any evidence, you should submit a checkuser request. Regards, -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Before reverting people take a break. Have a think. Is this really the appropriate place to have this information? Is a wikipedia article just a dumping ground of any information related to a topic. If it was then we would simply repeat things to the extent that wikipedia would become useless. Every article on the Bosnian War and related topics would look exactly the same. The individual articles should stay focussed on topic. Polargeo ( talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have been editing the Karađorđevo agreement. I am becoming increasingly aware of your edit waring across multiple articles. I know PRODCUER is to blame sometimes but I particularly note your continual reversion of well sourced material from the lead of Slobodan_Praljak. this is disruptive edit waring and so I have put a report in to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 48 hours for slow moving
edit warring on
Slobodan Praljak. It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk
16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
if you take a look at edit history you will see the following: *PRODUCER has removed category "People from Čapljina"- [11] [12] [13] Why?? *PRODUCER has removed category "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina"- Why? *PRODUCER has removed link to Praljak personal website-Why?? What is wrong with that? About Sections: *I did not erased this link . I just placed it in another section. Sentence "Slobodan Praljak is among six accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in relation to the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia." is written below with that source and it is absolutely necessary to repeat it twice. *2 Section "indicment" and "charges" are totally meaningless because that is the same thing. also this edit [14] producer's removal of section about connection with Turks (completely sourced) is nothing but vandalism-but nothing new :whatever he disagrees he removes.
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the reason why you have been sanctioned, except where you attempt to justify your edits. Raising questions regarding other individuals edits is irrelevant, since it is your own block that is at issue here. Since you seem unable to realise that it is the fact of edit warring, and not the reasons why you feel it necessary to violate policy, I do not think it wise to unblock you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Well, my reson is that I was preventing POV pushing ,vandalism and removal of sourced material by other user (and I have shown the examples).I do not remember that I have violated 3RR,anyway.I do not see what else I should say... -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your main activity here appears to be having stalked PRODUCER ( talk · contribs) and reverted dozens of edits. Solid block. Toddst1 ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|I might be stalking
PRODUCER (
talk ·
contribs) or he might be stalking me
Aradic-es (
talk ·
contribs). I have put certain article on watchlist- most of them he is constantly reverting .PLus some other articles... where he reverts totally sourced sections just because he dislikes them.
Ahmići massacre i.e see sectin propaganda
[15]
I have reported you for continuing your edit war Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Polargeo ( talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this complaint at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Aradic-es ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have explained my reasons at Talk:Slobodan Praljak.Even other editors agreed with them. Other meaningless accusations I have denied there but I could not continue because I was blocked in the mean time.
Decline reason:
As was said, "Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to an article restriction that prevents editing of Balkan articles." Otherwise, no. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You may be interested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar/Archive Polargeo ( talk) 08:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the matter with you, Aradic?! You'll get idef blocked(!), STOP block evading. Final warning or I'll report you myself. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Either way, you can still use your talkpage to voice your opinion on the issues. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I still stand at 100% at this!! I write smth negative about Bosniaks and I get banned. My edits are beeing labeled as "inflammatory"
PRODUCER writes gossips about some Croats trying to present them as "facts" and nothing-his edits ,on the other hand , are NOT beeing labeled as "inflammatory". Houston, we gotta situation!-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My block history is exclusively related to conflict with Bosniak POV pushers (
Kruško Mortale,
Journalist 007 ,
Historičar,
ICTYoda,
PRODUCER etc.) Most of them appeared to be sockpuppeteers.
[16]
Now ,could anybody explain me:why my edits against Bosniaks are inflamatory PRODUCER's edits against Croats are not inflamatory?? Any difference??-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Related to this: are you aware what kind of nonsense comparison did you make?? Ustaše were all declared Croats (about 40% of their ancestors today declare themselves as Bosniaks!!) but not all Croats are Ustaše. This is the case when one ethnic group is identifying itself with another one-given by leaders!!You probably do not know that the leader of Sandžak muslims made the similar statements about "mother Turkey".-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I gave bunch of reliable sources... i.e for Bosniaks and Turks: I sourced Bosniak press ! That is not the secret!-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is gossip because these are statement of people who were not present at the meeting but they told the stories they (supposedly) heard from others. So, these are 2nd 3rd 10th hand sources. and here are beeing quoted as absolutely reliable.
Why in the world are neecessary :they do not say a word about the karađorđevo meeting!!! Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with you here. This is getting excessive. The subsection on the Serb leadership was added in to balance the bit about the Croat leadership. This was requested by Ceha. But my understanding was that these sections should be kept to a minimum just for context or else they should be a separate article. I have been away on holiday, and still am, so I will have a look at this in a few days time. Polargeo 30 Aug
Holy (edit) war has started again [19] [20]-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)