User talk:John Gradwell

John - you are edit warring and editing disruptively on Chetniks. One post on the talkpage - not followed up - is not sufficient. Please discuss the changes you propose to make. If you continue to simply remove material and misrepresent sources in this way without endeavouring to reach consensus on the talkpage you are running the risk of being blocked.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring on Chetniks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I see you are interessted in editing the Chetniks article and some of your edits are in agreement with the edits I also tryied to add to the article but I was being reverted by another editor back than. The difference is that we started a long discussion back then that ended with a mediation process. The mediation is still going on, and since many of the issues you have edited are the ones we are dealing there, you should expose your view to User:Sunray on his talk page, who is the mediator, and ask him if you can participate and if he can indicate you the mediation discussion page. Now, the article is somehow in a "frowzen" state until the mediation is concluded, and unfortunatelly many involved editors have not found much time lately to conclude the discussion. While the situation is clearly convenient to one side, some other editprs and myself are the ones oposing to the current article. From what I understood you and I agree on a number of issues and for you to be active, not only in the mediation but generally on articles in wikipedia, you need to stop edit warring and you need to have a look at WP:Policies. The person that reverted you, User:Fainites didn´t done it because he agrees or not with you, but because there is an agreement that no major changes are donne to the article without passing them trough the discussion in the mediation first, so he as a administrator takes care so the policies are applied. I know that is unfair for us, but we need to discuss all the issues there so the changes donne on the article became definitive and their removal will from then on become disruption. If editing was allowed in the article, the editors from the other perspective (the one expressed in the current article) will revert you, than you´ll revert then, and we´ll end up in a continuos edit war.

Now, you need to stop to revert the article and you need to contact User:Sunray on his talk page to ask him if you can participate and expose your point of view on the issue. I am also availible for you to help you if you need but after all I am just another editor here, anyway feel free to contact me whenever you need. I just hope you want get sanctioned for your last reverting, but I knowing how things work, I garantee you will if you revert again... FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry to bother you, but don't edit 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia because some guy named Denniss is going to revert it for no good reason. I put reliable resources and he just goes ahead and reverts it, not even looking at the sources so I'm just letting you know this guy is gonna piss you off because he does not really know anything about resolving this with people Tankman786 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rudolf Scharping, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Horseshoe

I noticed that over at Operation Horseshoe, you removed this:

According to the [[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]], by March 1999 (prior to NATO bombing), more than 200,000 Albanian civilians were internally displaced, almost 70,000 Albanians had fled the province to neighboring countries and Montenegro, and a further 100,000 Yugoslav nationals, mostly Kosovar Albanians, had sought asylum in Western Europe.<ref>UNHCR Press Briefing Note: Kosovo, Tuesday, 2 February 1999.</ref> Also, thousands of ethnic Albanian villages in Kosovo had been partially or completely destroyed by burning or shelling.<ref>UNHCR Pristina,"IDP/Shelter Survey Kosovo: Joint Assessment in 20 Municipalities," 12 November 1998.</ref>

And replaced it with this:

According to the [[United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights]], the first recorded their first external refugee on the 28th of March, three days after the Nato Bombing campaign had begun.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9YWoroJUv8]</ref>

Your edit summary was "punctuation corrected"; perhaps you hoped that would cover your tracks. It's pretty bad. Plus, the pattern of your editing since then appears consistently... asymmetric. I would encorage you to read through WP:NPOV; no doubt you feel very strongly about one issue, but perhaps it would be a good idea to try improving some other articles separate from that issue. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You are again edit warring at Chetniks. With 93 edits you have already been blocked once. Please don't let it happen again. Take your matter up on the talk page; Wikipedia is a collaborative project and works by way of consensus. (And I reiterate: removing sources is generally frowned upon.) Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit-warring on Chetniks

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/topic ban. Thank you.

Please stop edit-warring on Chetniks. This is your last warning. If you continue you will be topic -banned or blocked. If you are banned or blocked you will not be in a position to contribute to discussions about this article. All of the articles dealing with Balkan's disputes are subject to remedies following the arbitration. You should read this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks

Please don't add nonsense tags for deletion to pages. It is obvious the page is not going to be deleted. I have already advised you that if you wish to improve the article you should raise the matter on the talkpage with appropriate sources. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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/topic ban. Thank you.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]