Welcome to Wikipedia, Hammer of Habsburg! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Censoring sourced info that you don't like, as you did at Croatian language, is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. You are aware of the dispute about this; the consent has been that for linguistic classifications, we use linguistics, not politics. If you wish for a change in this instance, please bring it to the talk page; if you feel that you are not getting a satisfactory response there, there are other options outlined at WP:dispute resolution. Edit warring is not the way to go. — kwami (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Croatia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your edits for Croatia have been reverted many times. Please stop linking to Mitteleuropa.Rabbitfang (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Croatia. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that I've tagged the Croatia article for having too many images, and checking the history I notice that most of them seem to have been recently added by you. Although they're all useful pictures in themselves, the sheer number of them is crunching the text together and (at least for my particular browser size) some of the indented images are overlapping and indenting up to three levels deep. MOS:IMAGES discourages "sandwiching text between two images that face each other" - you might like to go back and decide which images are the most illustrative for each subject, and try and cut it back to at most one or two images per section. --McGeddon (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much if you're finding it hard to choose the best images; other editors will help reduce the number, over time. Bear in mind that Geography of Croatia and Culture of Croatia both have their own articles, though - there's less need to get all the images in the main article, if they can be placed in a related article isntead. --McGeddon (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all famous Encyclopedias use the Central Europe term. All European Geography society of national scientific academies use the C.E. term too. Therefore the denial of this term is unencyclopedic and unscientific. It is a geographical (scientific) qustion rather than political.
Encyclopedia Britannica
Cambridge Encyclopedia
American Columbia Encyclopedia
German Brochaus Encyclopedia
French Larousse and French Encyclopædia Universalis
All of them Use the Central Europe term.
United Nations is chiefly a political organisation rather than scientific.
Geography is one of exact sciences. For that reason, geographic center of Europe is located in Ukraine. If you argue that C.E. is something that does not include the center of Europe - it is no longer scientific in the scope of geography, but some other approach. E.g. West Germany is located in the west Quarter of the continent and according to nongeographical criteria is located in C.E. Likewise, Ukraine is geographical central Europe, but due to usage of nongeographical criteria is classified into east Europe. All of the sources that you listed above use political borders (the borders of modern states)to determine the term. Therefore, they (even though encyclopedias) use political, cultural, historical or other criteria (not geographical) to define the term. I don's see a reason why all other marginal views deserve their space on this article and the worldwide institution not? Explain why do you dislike UN? It is the most quoted source in Wikipedia, btw. Please sign your work next time.
Your map is based on political (country) borders instead of geographical!
UN use old cold-war terms. Ukraine is not located in the geographical center of Europe. It is easliy determinable when you see a map! Encyclopedias were written by academic scholars and scientists, they represent te official scientific viewpoint of a country. And all important Europen encyclopedias use the Central-Europe term! Please don't write nonsenses!--78.92.106.176 (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must have skipped history classes about cold war. Depending on geographic method used, the center of Europe is either in Belarus, Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine. French National Geographic Institute defines Lithuania to be center of the Continent. [1](This is science). Even if the most western point in Poland is taken, it is still dubious that Switzerland is CE and Belarus and Lithuania or Ukraine are not. This is evidence enough that the article is not explaining geographic CE but rather political or some other perspective.
Geographic c. of Europe [2]; Lithuania [3]; Ukraine [4] etc...
If you were little more scientific, you would know that "official scientific viewpoint" does not exist, except when in the field of mathematics, and still, even there, there are contoversies.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse geometry and geography:) Countries with Eastern Orthodox majority aren't Central European. They have neveer called as Central Europe. Why do you try to dispute an academic/encyclopedic fact? You can find Central Europe term and its countries in every national Encíclopedia. Therefore you lost the debate. Europe is a cultural term rather than physical reality. Europe and Asia is 1 and the same Continent. Read the Eurasia article. There are an artificial borderline between the two. The idea of separate Europe from Asia is based on a very old cultural border and background. Toponyms and Geographical names are based on traditions rather than geometry!
This dispute has been going on for some time, motivated primarily by nationalism; all of the WP:RSs support the current version of the article, that Croatian is a register of Serbo-Croatian. Please note that you violated the 1RR WP:ARBMAC restriction placed on the article, which exposes you to being blocked.
P.S. "Macrolanguage" is an in-house term coined by Ethnologue. No-one that I'm aware of follows their usage. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've now violated the restrictions on the article twice. Please revert yourself in the next few minutes, or I'll ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for edit warring on 1RR article in line with ARBMAC[edit]
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Croatian language. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFOWR 16:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have broken the 1RR again on Croatian language again. If I were you' I'd self-revert before you're blocked once more. I mean, you can't do much when you're blocked! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that. Hammer of Habsburg, disregard my 3RR warning, consider this a 1RR warning, and consider yourself lucky I was asleep at the wheel and didn't block you. TFOWR 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Croatia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your edits for Croatia have been reverted many times. Please stop linking to Mitteleuropa. Rabbitfang (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Croatia. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.svg)
