User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveBalkan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

De Admin warning[edit]

Please stop pushing POV on this article. I have have edited the article but is is continuesly reverted by a team of POV pusher vandals. I have continued and changed my edits, but everyone was reverted. Stop now or I will have to report for supporting POV pushing vandalism.

  • The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. This is the warning

--Croq (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides the terrible spelling/grammar of De Admin warning, and the fact you copied my warning, I am not pushing POV, or supporting POV pushing vandalism. There was an established status quo, which you broke, leading to wikipedias edit, revert, discuss cycle. You however skipped the discussion part, and went on to re-editing, forcing many of us to keep reverting your blatant vandalism. Any wikipedia admin will see this. Best regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Official data[edit]

Please do not delete official data collected by government institutions, and call it POV. Your edit is actually POV. Thank you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of that without saying where it was. Additionally, assume good faith. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your vandalisms[edit]

Hello. 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. Thank you. Kubura (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Administrators noticeboard (not for you) about the Serbocroatian article[edit]

LoL, silliest post in the world. Wouldn't worry, just don't fall for these bullying methods. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

zap[edit]

easy to revert, isn't it?

easier, I should hope, than to rewrite the introduction!

what can I write that you won't obliterate?

this was also mine: easy to press "revert," isn't it? much easier than to read and discern my intention.

what can I write that you won't obliterate? and the question isn't rhetorical. --97.168.52.177 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC) --VKokielov (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I understand what this is about. I did read it in fact, and while I like the idea in principle of a discussion of the separation in standards I don't think talking about a serbo-croatian nation will help. You can write plenty I won't obliterate, I just walked onto the article and saw the edit war and request for comment, and thought your edit brought too much politics into it. I'll see if I can bring some of it back later, edited slightly, okay? It's a C-class article, plenty of room for lead improvement. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I tried to rewrite slightly, moving details of other standards to the second paragraph and some other changes. If you feel that was detrimental, then tell me here and I'll self-revert, saving you the 1RR bother. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

croatian[edit]

Hey,

Considering the emotion at Croatian, I thought I'd better explain my partial revert. (I preferred your order for parts of it.)

"These four dialects, and the four national standards, were created due to the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the ending of a Serbo-Croatian standard.":

No, the four dialects have nothing to do with Yugoslavia, and are centuries old. They probably predate the concept of Croat and Serb. As for the standards, only Bosnian and Montenegrin were created after the dissolution; Serbian and Croatian were AFAIK never fully unified, unless perhaps in the 19th century.

"this term ... is not used in Croatian."

Actually, it is, it's just not very popular. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I don't think I have an emotional bias either way. I just read through the reverts and constant lead changes, and the talk page, and tried to work some sort of consensus into the lead, with arguments from both "sides". If what I had posted was incorrect, no reason to keep it. Perhaps expanding on the history of the Croatian standard would be useful? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References for Croatian Language[edit]

I'm not sure which references you'd like to have based on what you wrote on Kwami's page. If you want quotes from the English-language sources that I've cited in the past, let me know and I'll post them here. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Any sources would be fine really, as long as they're used properly. Please add away. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "To the southeast of Slovenian is spoken Croatian, which is closely related to Serbian farther to the southeast and to the recently named Bosnian in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Serbian and Croatian are mutually intelligible; but the differences have sometimes been exaggerated for political reasons, and they are written in different alphabets--Croatian in the Latin alphabet, Serbian in Cyrillic. Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian shares with Slovenian the preservation of the mobile pitch-accent system." Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (2010, Blackwell), pg. 431. --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You can just add the information into it yourself if you want. I've added the relevant information from the above quote in, although not as a direct quote. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, are you also a member of this Serbo-Yugoslav nazi-communist anti-Croatian gang in English wikipedia? Why don't you pay attention on what is really going on there? 78.3.120.112 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I'm not Serbian, or Yugoslav, or anti-Croatian. I also don't see how someone can be nazi and communist. Whatever's going on, it won't be solved by changing what other's say. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Serbian extremists are nazi by nature. They are hiding behind Yugoslav communists concerning S-C. Practical use of S-C in reality is speaking Serbian. It has nothing to do with Croatian. Both of these groups want to hide this fact. They are in coalition here on this matter.
I didn't change what other's say, I was only restoring my own comment, you have "undo" tool, I've used it. Was it so hard for you to check what was removed by whom or what was restored by whom?
Well, maybe I'm asking too much, it seems you are all drowning here in some policies and you don't care what is written in the articles... You know we have a joke in Croatia: Why does it need 3 policemen to change 1 bulb? One is holding the bulb, two are turning the chair. 78.3.120.112 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor policemen, how did that become a saying? Unfortunately, wikipedia is run through policy. If you feel there is real censorship, try the avenues at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And don't be mean to policemen, they're just doing their job! :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language article[edit]

I saw your participation in the Croatian language article and thought that you would be interested in this: [1] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo in the Balkans page. Label status[edit]

Dear Chipmunkdavis: Do you think we need a label status for Serbia without Kosovo? In my opinion, the zero value is when the note concerning the Kosovo status within Serbia is not being located besides Serbia! We need to discuss this. Hope to have your answer! Have a nice weekend!--Estaurofila (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How does Kosovo at all affect whether or not Serbia is partially in the Balkans? With Kosovo, it is. Without Kosovo, it is. No need for the note. CMD (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible merge[edit]

Could you help me merge these two pages? - Serbian–Bulgarian wars (medieval) and Bulgarian–Serbian Wars (medieval). These articles appear to be unmaintained and so far no one has paid any attention to my request. I consider the merge between these pages to be inevitable and necessary. --Dj777cool (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo[edit]

I find your last revert on the Kosovo page highly tendentious. Please refrain from this in the future and let's work for a better wikipedia Ottomanist (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One edit, on a talk page, is not tendentious. You clearly have no idea what the word means. CMD (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria Dates in Info Box[edit]

Chipmunkdavis, please stop removing my comments from the talk page on Bulgaria's page. My block has expired and you have no right to constantly remove my comments. Please, stop as this. The topic I'm posting is important. Currently the way Bulgaria's article is structured does not follow the approach most other European countries are following. There is no consistency and we're providing poor service to the users of WP. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It hadn't expired when I reverted. I'm perfectly in the right to do what I did. Perhaps you should wonder why most European countries aren't up to GA status, and Bulgaria is. It's better than the others. Lead by example. CMD (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria". Thank you. --Ximhua (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgaria". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Chipmunkdavis. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the volunteers at the mediation committee. On the mediation request page someone said that not all the involved parties had been listed. It would be a great help if you could add them all to the list of parties yourself. It's important that all editors who have an interest in the outcome of the dispute are listed there, and it would be very useful to get your help in finding them. Also, don't worry too much about false positives, as it is no problem for editors who don't have an interest in the outcome to remove themselves from the list. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria - ottoman edit[edit]

Before you automatically revert my latest edit, please read the sources. My references are solid and respected, kindly read them and you'll quickly realize that I'm merely reflecting well established facts and not personal opinions. Best, Ximhua (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You're misreading the source, using it to say things it doesn't actually say. CMD (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the revolt of Konstantin and Fruzhin only, hopefully we can reach an agreement, it clearly says liberated and doesn't challenge the fall of Vidin in 1396. OK? Ximhua (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How was one small revolt notable enough to be included in the article's summarystyle? As Tourbillion said, we're trying to keep the article concise. CMD (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgaria, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Good one![edit]

Bravo regarding this. I always have problems to spot meaningless and controversial data that should be removed, instead of fixed. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo recognition by SMOM[edit]

First - sorry for those reverts - the same discussion (and decision to include) at International recognition of Kosovo was so long ago, that I assumed you're reverting a long time status quo text without any explanation. After your last comment about "earlier this month" I saw that actually the two articles weren't synchronized back then, but only recently (and at that - by myself!) as a by-edit along with some edits focusing on the SMOM bullet below the list. So, you can look now at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Kosovo_94th_recognition. Japinderum (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you bring Nakichevan in this issue - it's neither a sovereign state nor one of the other two entities participating in diplomatic relations and diplomatic recognition. In contrast SMOM is one of those - you can see numerous MFA lists of diplomatic relations that include "states with SMOM among them". One interesting here is also such that shows diplomatic recognition separately from diplomatic relations: Montenegro recognized by SMOM months before establishing relations. Japinderum (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not previously aware of the Kosovo page discussion. I mentioned Nakchivan as another example of a non-state, although it has been hanging in my mind lately due to all the row over NSW and Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't think it's even been contested that recognition is separate from relations. Relations cost money, whereas recognition doesn't, which is always an important distinction ;) CMD (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)