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 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)
 * 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


 * 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)


 * Is a census (see the source in the article) a nationalist source? --Croq (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A Balkans census? Very possibly. But regardless, it is certainly a falsely quoted source at least. Croatian = Serbo-Croatian, being an ethno-political variant of Serbo-Croatian. This and much more has already been patiently explained. This is not hrWiki where stupid nationalist myths such as "Croatia-Hungary" and "Triune Kingdom" are being perpetuated. Here science, real international, non-Balkans science holds sway.


 * You can probably just forget right here and now about pushing this silly notion of there being a "few hundred" Serbo-Croatian speakers. I cannot imagine the article ever saying something like that. You have been formally warned. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For you this official result of a census "nationalistic". So you are discriminating 99 % of the citizens who took part on the census and don´t share your opinion. And that is discrimination! People who are discrimination other people should be blocked. That is my formal warning to you! --Croq (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit-conflict] I will ask you once more to get serious. The issue here is not what people call their language, everyone accepts that Croats primarily refer to the language they speak as "Croatian", Serbs as "Serbian", etc. Congratulations for proving the obvious. The fact we are discussing here is that those three are, in obvious, fact - one language.


 * And for the last time - NO the general public does not get to "decide" whether they speak the same language as someone else or a different one. Obviously because people are generally uneducated in languages, and decide on things based on whether or not they personally "like" the idea of speaking one language as some other nation they despise or have been at war with. This is not how things work outside the Balkans fairy-land where we live. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BLOCKED
You have been WP:blocked for edit warring at Serbo-Croatian language. Such behaviour is disruptive and will not be tolerated. If you feel that you are not being treated fairly, or that other editors are biased, please take it up at WP:arbitration. That article explains how we resolve conflicts. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBMAC
Please note that the article Croatian language and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular ARBMAC, which states
 * "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.  Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project. Knepflerle (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Geht es Dir ums Englisch oder um die Inhalte, Knepferfle?--Croq (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying in English for transparency: there is no excuse for your repeated blanket revert, which removes the corrections made to the infobox and to the poor English throughout the article. If you disagree with one part of an article, edit that part.
 * Needlessly reverting improvements to other parts of the article is a disruption of the normal editing process, and subject to the sanctions outlined in the ARBCOM decision I linked to above.
 * This is independent of, and supplementary to, your continued reinsertion of the material that was rejected on the talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I now see that you were notified of the ARBMAC sanctions back in July by User:DIREKTOR here. Knepflerle (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Croq was working with us, and I thought we were getting somewhere. It's the other editor who's been inflexible, though it's disappointing to see Croq revert to edit warring. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, you made absolutely nostep in the direction of a compromize. You know very well that my edits make sense...--Croq (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits only make sense as propaganda. You have only Croatian nationalists on your side, and everyone else against you. You can continue until you're blocked, or you can cooperate. The choice is yours. — kwami (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your POV pushing of pure propaganda is finished. I guess that there are only some sockpuppets on your side. And you will see, that time of your POV pushing is over. No compromize ==> no way. Sorry about that. Try to block me, if you find a reason. Be careful not to loose your admin rights. --Croq (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Block warning
I have requested to have you blocked here, since you have reverted to edit warring. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 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."


 * Pursuant to the terms of ARBMAC I am hereby blocking you for one week for edit warring on Serbo-Croatian language. After this block expires, you are hereby placed on a 'one revert per 24 hours restriction indefinitely for all Balkins related articles, broadly construed.  Violation of this 1RR will lead to an extended block or overall topic ban. Courcelles 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hrvati
This might interest you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croats#Infobox_picture --78.1.124.164 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) and please, vote for your options!--78.1.116.102 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
Please cease reverting at the above article until you can get consensus for your changes. As you may recall you are under an indefinite WP:1RR restriction per WP:ARBMAC. You violated this on June 13. If this continues, the next admin to consider your case will have to decide whether to block you or place you under a topic ban from these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bog, Croq!
živijo rođo! ja san ti jedan od suradnika hrvatske wikipedije i šteta je što nema tvoji doprinosa. ugl, ono za što ti se javljan je taj što san naiša na jedan članak dosta zanimljiv pa bi bilo super kad bi moga napisati članak o tome na našoj wikipediji. bia bi ti zahvalan! lipi pozdrav! 46.188.241.35 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternate account
Croq, is there any reason why you created an alternate account in order to make this edit? It looks a lot like sockpuppetry, given that WP:SOCK says: Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. ST47 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course ther eis a reason: Ive been blocked on German wikipedia because of ma "harish nationalism" https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fausto_Veranzio&type=revision&diff=152661532&oldid=152629589 as this person has nothing to do with Serbia and serbian cyrilic. As you see I didn´t any discussion with this acount. But we have in German wikipedia obviously misuses of admin rights... --Croq (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

...and I see that left wing user deleted European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe (2019/2819(RSP)). hahahah --Croq (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)