User talk:Grandy Grandy

Correcting terminology...

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Grandy Grandy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide

Please note you edit ( Bosnian Genocide Revision as of 11:28, 11 October 2007) altered the introduction from:

On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide, but found that there had been no wider genocide on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had claimed.^{with source}

to

On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide.^{with source}

You wrote on the Bosnian Genocide talk page "PBS, I think you are biased, and that is not good for Wikipedia. You are not the God, and this is not your property." I do not think I am God nor do I think the page is my property. Wikipedia has a policy of presenting information from a neutral point of view please read that policy and the other content policies of Verifiability and no original research. If you read them I think you will see that I am not trying to do anything on the Bosnian Genocide page that is not within the spirit of those policies. I look forward to working constructively with you on developing this page further or turning it into a redirect to the if that is what the consensus is. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide request for mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide#Formal mediation --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide#Formal mediation --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bosniaks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I have read your introduction, but I don't understand why you excluded sentences about massacres in Prijedor, Foča, Sarajevo etc.? It is all confirmed by ICJ and defined as crime against humanity. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kricancic case

Please just take a look here [4] - if you know anything about that feel free to tell me. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but Later...Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans arbitration remedy

In a recently-closed arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Milosevic

Hi, I noticed that you've made a lot of contributions on Bosnia-related articles. Could you take a look at the Milosevic article? There's an anon who's been posting a lot of information that whitewashes Milseovic's nationalism, and I can't handle him alone. I'd really appreciate the help. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Thank you for the source. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi GG. I would like to inform you that user Osli73 although he was blocked so many times, continues to vandalise articles. Now he is redirecting Serbian propaganda to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia (which he wrote), instead of redirecting it to Serb propaganda (the article I wrote based on ICTY verdicts), because he nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. I think this user should be stop finally. It doesn't make any sense anymore. Propaganda isn't the same term as media role, so his vandalism is really obvious. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The source is excellent. Thank you. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments - Osli73

Hi GG. I want to inform you that I am going to start request for comment, if Osli73 continues with the same behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but I will also like you to take a part. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this: Block log:

12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

So if you have something to add feel free to do that. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

laughingman is constantly deleating my contributions... how can i report him???

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian propaganda campaign employs methods similar to Holocaust denial and revisionism Their first line of action is to create an atmosphere of relativism, as discussed above. The seccession of Slovenia and Croatia from the former Yugoslavia and their recognition by Germany is equated with the bombardment of civilian centers such as Sarajevo, Dubrovnik and Vukovar.

The second line of action is then to deny the totality of the destruction in order to downplay the purpose and systematic nature of the aggression. Dubrovnik was barely attacked, they argue. Vukovar was destroyed by Croatian forces...

There is no evidence of a systematic rape policy -- where is the commander who gave the order, they argue? Personal testimonies and eye witness accounts are discarded as 'inadequate evidence.' The third line of action is then to create their own 'facts' and 'references' and it is here where they have been most successful.

The organized Jewish community has been particularly critical of the Serbian regime and the violence inflicted on the Bosnian people. However, there is a clear counter- offensive being launched by the SUC and Serbnet to co-opt Jewish public opinion. This involves a propaganda campaign which recalls the role of the Ustashe and certain Muslim contingents who supported by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the Second World War.

Their main attack is in the form of articles written by Alfred Lipson, a leader of the community of Holocaust survivors and Sir Alfred Sherman . Through the Serbian Jewish Friendship Society and direct meetings with Jewish organizations, the SUC has conducted an energetic campaign to win over Jewish and Israeli support.

This has included efforts to overturn the position adopted by the National Organization of Jewish Community Relation Councils (NJCRAC), which endorsed a call for air strikes and the lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. According to Bosnian and Jewish sources, the Serbian lobby is also engaged in a broader campaign which has targeted the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

This is the way they work....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Informal mediation

I have volunteered to help out with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen. Please indicate on the case page if you agree to my assistance. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I am waiting for the right moment. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello, Grandy Grandy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornix_talk 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide 3RR

You have been warned about the WP:3RR before.[5]

On January 4 you clearly breached three-revert rule on the Bosnian Genocide page.[6] I am blocking your account for 24 hours. You can also observed that I have not reverted your last edit and I have locked the Bosnian Genocide page for 24 hours as well so please do not complain that I am taking a partisan stance on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary on Serb propaganda

Wikipedia:Civility defines uncivil behaviour as

personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress.

I don't have an agenda nor am I targeting any articles or editors. For you to insert you genius in a clearly mocking manner when refering to me is uncalled for. I have never said a word to you or about you nor am I putting your contributions down. If you and I don't share the same opinion on a subject, that doesn't make either one of us wrong nor should it open either one of us up to ridicule. I thought I expressed myself properly in my edit summary but you didn't think so and that's fine. But there is no room for incivility if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone on here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please refrain from such statements in the future. Thank you. SWik78 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case

Hi Grandy Grandy, I've accepted the Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case, and the discussion is going to be on the article talk page.--Addhoc (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded scope

There is a request to expand the scope of the informal mediation for Bosnian Mujahideen to include the articles: Mujahideen, Al Qaeda, War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. This would be limited to content regarding Bosnian Islamic fighters. This could be helpful in resolving the content disagreement that reaches across multiple articles. However, please be aware that a solution for any particular article may not be a viable solution for all articles involved. Do you agree to the expanded scope? Vassyana (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broader mediation has been rejected at the current time. I will be nominating Bosnian Mujahideen for deletion as a neutral party. This is based on the concerns of some editors that the title is a neologism and that the article itself inherently violates NPOV and no original research. This will allow the community to consider those concerns. We can move forward after the AfD, based on its results. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it so maybe come?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide

I just came back from vacation. What happened with the Bosnian Genocide? I think we should make an effort to improve it. Do you agree? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bosnian mujahideen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Vassyana (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article ban

Under the circumstances, I think the best thing to do here is to ban both Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month, and encourage them to discuss the article on the talk page and engage formal mediation (WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM) if necessary, rather than the current informal mediation. [7] Thatcher 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: Indefinite; checkuser proves that you have been using the sockpuppet accounts Geographer X (talk · contribs) and The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs) to edit disruptively, create a false consensus, and evade the topic ban I just applied to Grandy Grandy. In this case indefinite means "indeterminate"; I will file a report at WP:AE and ask for a decision on an appropriate block length. Thatcher 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Your accounts will remain indefinitely blocked. However, after one month you may ask to have one of your accounts unblocked if you wish to resume editing. Thatcher 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]