Jump to content

User talk:Kreuzkümmel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Kreuzkümmel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Piast93 02:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Bulgarians

[edit]

Hi, please stop using IPs like User:78.83.195.137 to revert, it is considered sockpuppetry and it will not save you from WP:3RR. Also, you should participate in the discussion that I initiated (Talk:Bulgarians#Related ethnic groups) instead of blindly reverting. Toдor Boжinov 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim, that I have used any IPs, prove it. I also don't see reason to participate in a discussion: the sources show clearly which nationalities are related to the Bulgarians.Kreuzkümmel (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

[edit]

Hi, since you're new, I thought I might want to give you a tip about conduct with other editors. Referring to another's behavior as vandalism, as you did in this edit summary and repeated in this talk page comment, is expressing that you believe another editor is acting in bad faith. The next time you want to label an edit or series of edits as vandalism, take a step back and ask yourself: is this user intentionally acting to the detriment of the project? If called to do so, would you be able to make a clear and convincing case that this is so? Will identifying it as vandalism be preferable to simply discussing your concerns? This latter question is important because some people react strongly to accusations of bad faith editing and this may hurt the process of discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your motivation and lack or presence of "bad faith" is not the point, I suppose. Removing unsourced, but reliable content immediately after it has been added, instead of adding [citation needed] tag with the explanaition, that similar unsourced information has already been removed from the article, does not really represent "good faith" for me though. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from in this particular case (though I disagree). My point is more general; charging someone with vandalism is often more inflammatory than helpful. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting without a proper explanation still doesn't seem really mature for me, but I could apologise, if I am supposed to. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I may have been brief, but I was under the impression that my edit summary was clear enough, particularly since you began the discussion as a response to it. I suppose in the future I could point to the relevant talk page discussions. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, you did give a summary, but I still consider the immediate removal of information to be not the standard solution at Wikipedia. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

[edit]

Your point was already discussed and rejected on talk, and the "South Slavic people" statement was already sourced in the article before your edit. I'm not saying you're a troll, but I don't really see a point in discussing this issue further with you. I think you yourself already know that the views you're attempting to add to Wikipedia articles are non-mainstream and original research.

P.S. "Reverting is vandalism" is one of the funnier things I've heard lately, thanks for sharing :) Best, Toдor Boжinov 18:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-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. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can 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. Toдor Boжinov 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated above, that reverting could not be vandalism? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. Jingby (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reverting ≠ vandalism. However, persistent edit warring is a blockable offense and this has been made clear above. Also, I find it rather amusing that someone who is not aware of Wikipedia's policies considers it necessary to inform me about them. One would assume that for my time here I'd be aware of how things work. Toдor Boжinov 14:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me, that I am not aware of Wikipedia's policies? You remove well sourced information on the one hand and remove the [citation needed] tag for unsourced information on the other and you are telling me, that I'm not aware of Wikipedia's policies?? Why didn't you comment on the matter of the credibility of the sources, but instead tried to threaten me? Why didn't you instead tried to find any sources about the slavic classification, because the already provided contain nothing but claims without proves or analysis, or are mainly about the language? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Djankov

[edit]

Officially, this is the spelling. Your 'feeling' about how it should be spelled really does not matter. --Aleksd (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling?! This is NOT the official spelling, there is an official system for transliteration of Bulgarian names; see the article Romanization of Bulgarian. I personally prefer the j-spelling, but this is not a concern. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarian Ministry of Finance and World Bank say it is spelled the other way. --Aleksd (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian ь

[edit]

I already told you why you are wrong regarding the IPA handbook here: Talk:Ge (Cyrillic). The other source that you cited is clear: "In Bulgarian phonetics and phonology, it is a widely-accepted interpretation that the feature [palatalness] has a phonological value, that is to say, that it is a distinctive feature and there are 'weak (palatal)' phonems in the consonant system of contemporary Bulgarian language." Please don't replace the widely accepted version with not widely accepted alternative versions. --V111P (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarian National Socialist Workers Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attack! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Ignatiev St

[edit]

The photo in your edit is from another street - Dyakon Ignatiy Street, not from Graf Ignatiev Street. That's why I've reverted it. Regards, gogo3o 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I just took it from Wikimedia, sorry. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Kreuzkümmel. 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)[reply]

References

[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Kreuzkümmel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not work

[edit]

"although its effectiveness has not been clearly shown.[1]"[1]


We need more details? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Kreuzkümmel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference chou was invoked but never defined (see the help page).