User talk:Aradic-es

The repeated addition of information about Bosniaks and Turks must stop. The following paragraph alone should earn you a block from ever editing Bosniaks.

Despite the thing that some famous Bosniaks like actor

talk) 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethnic_provocation_on_Balkan_Articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, enough. Per

Also, do things like this again and you will blocked. I have little patience for that kind of editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. First, from this, I shouldn't have to remind you of our

Herzegovinian Croat goes to Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina so what are thinking that adds? I'm not going to argue about it too much, but flying-by controversial edits are not appropriate on these topics and because of the number of editors who have not acted appropriately, Arbcom has given broad latitude to administrators over this area. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There are methods to

WP:ANI may be appropriate). However, I issued the sanctions over your edits at Bosniaks, with the other point being minor to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Aradic is arguing over the minor points. The major point is adding "Ratko Mladić was famous for his statement after conquest of Srebrenica and later massacre, on July 11 1995 described it as revenge to the Turks" I won't go into it in detail but it is not right to add this to

talk) 07:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If Aradic thinks he's gone too far, he sure has an odd way of showing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. We're done here. This attitude is totally inappropriate and you continued edit warring at Blaž Kraljević is enough for me. The prior blocks show no effort on your part to improve. This nonsense is either extreme denial or a willful blindness I don't think anyone should have to bother with anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

hello! I want to clarify certain: So called edit war on article Blaž Kraljević I have explained on Talk:Blaž Kraljević User:Ricky81682 has made a unique case here with me. he threats me by blocking because of the content dispute in thearticle that he is not (obviously) informed at all My statements here can be easily verifiedAñtó| Àntó (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is a clear consensus that your conduct has been disruptive, and you are showing no signs of understanding or willingness to modify your attitude. No use talking about an unblock under these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think this is the issue that should be resolved by an arbitration comittee. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Then contact the Arbitration Committee by email. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to ask something: Is it appropriate for an admin use phrases like this nonsense for a simple discussion at talk page. Even to threat somebody?? Is that reason to block somebody forever?? I mean what is so big deal at that content: Test at google.com : *"Elizabeth II of England"-wiki :[1]:360,000 results *"Elizabeth II of United Kingdom"-wiki [2] 461,000 results Common mistake is referring entire UK as England , entire BiH as Bosnia etc.

Decline reason:

Queen Elizabeth II is not blocked, because she hasn't been editing disruptively at Wikipedia, so I don't see how she is relevant to the reasons for your block, which are related to disruptive editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I was referring to the content dispute at

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just I would like to know how is referring certain things [3] [4]with the proper name [5] [6] is innapropriate ?? What to say about an editor whose only goal is to impose to be written what he wants to be and for other things (collaterral damage) he couldn't care less about About Blaž Kraljević issue .Bosnian or Herzegovinian?? I mean what is so big deal at that content: Test at google.com : *"Elizabeth II of England"-wiki :[7]:360,000 results *"Elizabeth II of United Kingdom"-wiki [8] 461,000 results Common mistake is referring entire UK as England , entire BiH as Bosnia etc.

Decline reason:

No rationale for unblock provided. Please note that using the unblock template to continue your edit war will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@"TN:How in the world I actually can edit war here??Añtó| Àntó (talk)

Decline reason:

That isn't a reason to unblock, and you've used up more requests on this than you should have been allowed. This will have to be settled by ArbCom; we're protecting the page from now on so you don't waste our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

If you want this settled by the Arbitration committee, the proper way will be to file an appeal with their "Ban Appeals Subcommittee" by e-mail to "arbcom-l (at) lists.wikimedia.org". They will either decide your appeal by off-wiki deliberation, or if they decide they want a public case about it, then somebody will unblock you conditionally so you can participate on the Arbcom pages. Until then, the block stands, as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Burned police car in Široki brijeg.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oleola (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]