New.

You are quite right that they were Serb forces. PBS is also right that they were to date identified by ICTY/ICJ findings as being under Bosnian Serb command. PBS is a stickler for what he considers the primary legal precedent, and has also defined the framework of the article in a way that narrows down the substance of what others understand by the term "Bosnian genocide". You'll waste a lot of time going round the houses arguing with him. I'm not clear what the basis of his rigorous "legalism" is but I consider it inimical to an adequate coverage of the subject. I have argued with him that the article requires a different introductory definition, but this requires careful thought to avoid the usual going round in circles in this area and unfortunately over the last month domestic circumstances have got in the way of my following up. However hopefully I'll be in a position to get down to dealing properly with the topic in the very near future. In the meanwhile maybe you'd like to read through some of the arguments on the Bosnian genocide Discussion page to get the general feel of the situation at the article.Opbeith (talk)09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your last contribution at the Bosnian Genocide article Talk page, there has been prolonged discussion of the issues and a proposal to move the article to Genocide in Bosnia as a way of resolving some of the problems associated with the title "Bosnian Genocide". If you have any thoughts, your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated.Opbeith (talk)10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you make edits such asthese, please make sure that you don't change referenced material without changing or adding to the references. You edits made it look like the existing reference supports the claims about more than 80 shells being fired at the bridge and about the Croatian army being involved, when it mentions neither of these.Cordless Larry (talk)21:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to explicitly weigh in atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Bosnia, Anthony converted your speedy deletion request into an AfD request. --Joy [shallot] (talk)15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articleDijana Culjak has beenproposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, allbiographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least onesource that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

place reason here

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, seeWikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask atWikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least onereliable source, you may remove the{{prod blp}} tag.Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.Baseball Watcher23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just started to work on it.

Please, responddiscussion.If you do not do that, I'll assume that you agree and map will be removed. Best regards, --Čeha(razgovor)15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The atrocities perpetrated by the Mujahideen should be adequately reflected in the article, probably under their own section heading, rather than in the ICTY trials, which deal with command responsibility. You just deleted an insertion about the execution of Dragan Popovic. It seems to conflict in detail with the ICTY source, so the deletion was consistent with the explanation you gave in the edit summary, but nevertheless the Popovic element of the edit was substantively legitimate so perhaps you could edit and include reference to the Popovic killing. The ICTY Hadzihasanovic-Kubura case account of Mehmed Alagic's follow-up is indicative of the way the Mujahideen under Abu Haris were operating in disregard of the ArBiH command.Opbeith (talk)06:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onOperation Corridor. Users are expected tocollaborate with others and avoid editingdisruptively.

In particular, thethree-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that representsconsensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporarypage protection. If you continue to edit war, youmay beblocked from editing without further notice.The Mark of the Beast (talk)22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is a discussion about this matter on theWP:ANI page.The Mark of the Beast (talk)22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editingBalkans-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.Toddst1(talk)03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 week foredit warring, as you did atDeath of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the text{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a 24 hour block, but since you continued edit warring unsourced allegations into the article after being warned about theWP:ARBMAC decision, it's a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any issues with the page, please use the discussion page to explain yourself. I find it hard to understand your one sentence retorts in the history page. I want to direct you toTypes of vandalism:Blanking, illegitimate,Try to fix problems, andWikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies. "Please remember the use of blanking is often considered a form of vandalism." --Jesuislafete (talk)18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you. --Jesuislafete (talk)02:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add your own comment atWP:AN3#User:Alan.Ford.Jn reported by User:Jesuislafete (Result: ). I have not checked whether this revert war seems to have ethnic motivations, but if it does, then the sanctions underWP:ARBMAC could be relevant. I notice that you've already received a notice of those sanctions. Good discussion can help avoid getting yourself identified as an ethnic warrior. From a quick look, you have made ten reverts atCroat–Bosniak War since mid-April. During the same period you have made exactly zero postings on the article's talk page. This does not suggest good faith. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you. --Jesuislafete (talk)05:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.Ford.Jn, if you continue to make large changes to this article with no discussion on the talk page, you may be sanctioned for ethnic edit-waring. It is in your interest to repond to the complaint about your edit atWP:AN3#User:Alan.Ford.Jn reported by User:Jesuislafete (Result: ). Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the talk page of Croat Bosniak War, please check it out.Alan.Ford.Jn (talk)14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentionedhere. It is risky to get into an edit war on an article subject toWP:ARBMAC, since the possibility exists that one or both parties to the dispute could be banned by any admin from making any Yugoslavia-related edits. At present you seem to be the more stubborn of the two sides, since until very recently you would not discuss your changes at all. Yourmost recent comment at Talk:Croat-Bosniak war seems to be little more than a charge that the other side has engaged in ethnic warring. The phrase 'nationalistic trash' suggests you see only the other side as having any nationalist motivations, and you yourself are blameless. You also seem to assume that it's the duty of the other side to provide rationale, and you will keep on reverting until they do so. Some admins would treat this declaration as itself being a violation ofWP:Edit warring. It's in your interest to provide substantive reasons on the talk page for why your version is correct. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifiaction. I tried to reach the editor who is trying to provide false information about me, but he is just reverting article without argument.Alan.Ford.Jn (talk)12:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've largely reverted your SECOND edit, my reasons were 'first sentence says done BY all, second says done TO all' … … 'VRS = Bosnian Serb … … Arkan etc. are covered by 'Serb paramilitary units'. As you see I'm too lazy to type and have copy-pasted my edit reasons. This is just a courtesy post as my 'two stage revert' might seem 'sneaky'. There is something of a back-story on the lead, my involvement with which is largely copy-editing.Pincrete (talk)21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is not logical. Intro of the article is very clear. It states: "total number of women raped" means women of all ethnic groups. Regards.Alan.Ford.Jn (talk)10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue over the 'women of all etc.' sentence, since it is largely an 'overhang', however, 'Serb forces of the VRS and Serb paramilitaries' doesn't make much sense either, especially since it is unclear to non-experts whether the first 'Serb' is being used to describe an ethnicity or a nationality. I propose 'Bosnian Serb forces of the VRS and Serb paramilitaries' I don't watch user pages, so please 'name' me if you wish to reply.Pincrete (talk)15:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]