User talk:Seader

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Seader, 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!  —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 03:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Please accept my sincerest apologies for my gruff demeanor. That page sees a lot of POV pushing, and sometimes the "negative energy" remains. :) See you around -- Director (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely no problem I can completely understand that. regards Seader (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WB discussion[edit]

Hi, Seader! I just wanna do a break with our discussion about this theme. I feel that we are going in a wrong way with all of this. Just to mention, I disagree with many things in your latest post and have a lot of objections to your sources (in previous posts I wrote about that) but to avoid wasting your and my time and to prevent revert-wars, I suggest a deal. Do you agree? I invite you to show a goodwill. Billiboom (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this edit here. The thing is that I really think that u believe what u are arguing for and what u edit in this article and thatfore its normal that you disagree with me. But like I already explained: without any sources which clearly proof that claim that croatia left the western balkans with joining the EU, this is just PoV and original research for which is no space in the article. I also have doubts about your sources and I already explained why I think that these sources are inferior to mine. But I agree with you that we should not waste our both times. MfG Seader (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thnx for answer. Maybe I should express my point once again. My aim is to do a list of countries which are considered to be a part of WB. I have sources that mention 6 countries and I think that is clear which countries belong there if you look at my sources (without WP:OR) and also you have sources that mention 7 countries (+Cro). I have sources from EU and non-EU institutions and you have them also. That's all valid and fair. Main problem, from my view, is their time of acting and I suppose that we'll not be agreed about that. So my suggestion is to edit an article in this way: WB countries are: 1, 2, 3,... Also there are sources that claim Croatia was part of this area, at least until its entry into EU. I think it will be fair for both of us.Billiboom (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No I clearly disagree with that. This is not a fair proposal in any way, not here and not in the croatian Wikipedia. Your suggestions is to understand that the sources which claim that croatia was part of western balkan at least before it joined the EU were the minority. But actually the contrary is the case that these sources are the majority. I also have a source from world bank which even after croatia joined the EU clearly counts it as western balkan state. And I think u misunderstand the comparison of our sources. You actually have only one EU source which supports your approach. I have shown 8 and many other sources from other institutions like United Nations Development Programme, The World Bank Group, several think tanks and others. So for the question if croatia was part of western balkans till it joined the EU the answer is a clearly "yes". To the question if croatia is now not a part of western balkans anymore because it joined the EU u still failed to show a source which prooves this claim. I have a source from world bank which is younger than the croatian EU join which still sees it as part of western balkans. regards Seader (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Republika Srpska[edit]

Please, read the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, and then you can change something.

Article 7:

Paragraph 1 of Article 7 has been replaced by Amendment LXXI, reading as follows:

“The official languages in Republika Srpska are: the language of the Serb people, the language of the Bosniac people and the language of the Croat people. The official scripts are the Cyrillic script and the Latinic script.”

In regions populated by other national communities, their languages and scripts shall also be in official use, as determined by law.

Please stop changing the text, otherwise your IP address will be blocked. CarRadovan (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please no threats since the content of my edit was not wrong no matter how you see it, just a question of phrasing and I tried to find a consensus here and started a discussion. About being blocked: In the end it was actually you who edit warred. Kind regards Seader (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note[edit]

The best policy of dealing with the disruption is by avoiding of lending any kind support to CarRadovan's edits. The map he is introducing is superfluous, and yes Bosniaks were recognized as "Muslims" in the former Yugoslavia but that is not an important fact to convey in the background. What is of importance are the actual ethnic groups that were involved. This postulates relevant verbiage, and not focus on some quasi-ethnic designation implemented by the Yugoslav government. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Either way, I've included an explanatory paranthesis. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Seader. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

As you can very well imagine from the unpleasant encounters in German WP, I consider your changes in International Human Rights Tribunal, Lighthouse Wien and Christian Michelides as (a) vandalism and (b) hounding. Politely I ask you t stop these unnecessary changes that are distorting the articles.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

as you can also very well imagine from the voices of me and other users in German Wikipedia, that these informations need reliable sources and without these they are only based on pov. Don't falsely hide behind the accusation of hounding, especially when you are editing in a clearly identifiable conflict of interest. informations need sources and not edit warring. Kind regards Seader (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)