User talk:Croq

Hi,

Serbo-Croatian is not a mixed language. There are two uses of the word in English: the one you're using (the standard, or maybe bi-standard, of Yugoslavia), and the more WP:common one: the language/diasystem of which Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are the modern standards. We generally use the word with the 2nd meaning. I've suggested that we split the article for clarity, separating off "Standard SC" for the Yugoslav standard, but so far that has met with little enthusiasm.

The problem seems to be a conflict between what srpskohrvatski means in Serb/Croat, and what Serbo-Croatian means in English. They aren't the same thing. The situation is quite similar to that of Hindustani: Hindustani is not a "mixture" of Hindi and Urdu. Rather, Hindi and Urdu and standardized forms of Hindustani.

The clear consensus among native English speakers on WP is that SC should be used the way it is being used, as the Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian language. "Yugoslav standard", as many Serbs and Croats read it, is not implied in English.

Anyway, if you wish to change how the word is used on Wikipedia, best to bring it up for discussion and convince us. Low-grade edit warring won't get you far, since you're fighting the current consensus. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Serbocroatian" is a controversal term, and I am one of those who think that it never existed. It´s just a political language. So it should at least be mentioned that it is conrtoversal. Otherwise it´s POV--Croq (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As the Yugoslav standard, it was really a bistandard, Croatian+Serbian, rather than a single entity. (Except of course legally, and official languages are defined legally, so that counts for something.) I believe that this is already discussed in the article, in the section of the Yugoslav standard. We can, of course, expand that section. (It was because of that controversy that I proposed splitting the article.) Unfortunately, there is no good term for the language as a whole (in the linguistic sense) in English apart from SC. There is BCS / BCMS, of course, and Central SS diasystem, but the first is jargon and the 2nd never caught on. And of course neither is as common/well known in English as SC. So it would seem we're stuck with SC, unless we wish to paraphrase everything, which gets to be awkward and tedious for the reader. Of course, I think everyone's open to suggestions if a better solution can be found. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, for native croatian language and serbian language speakers the dispute about "serbocroatian" is really not necessary and difficult to understand . If youtake a look serbian wiki that has more than 100.000 articles and croatian about 80.000 . The "serbocroatian" has 29.000. If it was the same language the figures would be different. It is a controversal political language. And that should be mentioned clearly in the article. Best regards--Croq (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why B/C/S wikis are mutually copy/pasting thousands of articles from each other, with trivial modifications? If they were so "different languages", how on earth could such thing be possible? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes some people like you are trying to do this. Obviously also your method of restarting "bratstvo i jedinstvo" (brotherhood and unity) in a new Yugoslavia? --Croq (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

block warning

Please stop pushing POV on this article. You have edited, it was reverted and discussed. You have continued to push your edits. Stop now or I will have to report for vandalism. Wikipedia vandalism reporting guidelines

• The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism. Continually reediting (Basically breaking the 3revertrule) to push a POV is vandalism
• The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. This is the warning
• Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent. check

As you can see, the criterion is almost fulfilled. I'm sorry to have to do this. Please try to be a constructive member of wikipedia. Thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this will get you blocked, regardless of whether one thinks of it as vandalism. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a mediation. You, Stambuk and Director are trying to push your POV through wiki, other opinions are not allowed. Same as in ex Yugoslavia... LoL. One party, one opinion LoL. Pure Yugoslaw vandalism and nationalism. --Croq (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:Mediation or WP:Dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary 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. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)