User talk:IE linguist

Welcome!
Hello, IE linguist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Florina, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
LOL. You didn't even read the edit warring notice, did you? LOL. Read WP:BRD. 1) You edited. 2) I reverted. 3) You then failed to build a consensus on the Talk Page. That means that you stop trying to insert your material in the article.  The edit warrior is you.  --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Read what consensus and three revert rule means. You have been edit warring on removing Bulgarian since 2017 from the article and you do not have consensus on it. You have been replacing relaible sources with your original research, for which you don't have consensus, since long ago. IE linguist (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You are just in denial about the history of the article.  You're a newcomer to Wikipedia and you start on a crusade to push your POV no matter what.  I've seen it a hundred times before.  You simply believe that your POV is God's truth and therefore all others must move out of the way, no matter how long we've been working on Wikipedia or the experience we have.  There is, indeed, a consensus for leaving the Bulgarian language out of the article.  If you actually wanted to form a consensus for a brief (very brief) mention of the linguistic complexity other than what there already is in the article, then you have done nothing to start that discussion.  You have just pushed your agenda and accused me of falsifying data.  That's not the way to build a constructive consensus.  Use your brains.  The article isn't even about linguistics, but you're doing everything you can, including edit warring, not to build a consensus, just to push your POV.  I'm willing to let you start over, but you need to approach your vision with a different attitude.  --Taivo (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't have to beg for chances for five days or more an edit-warring intruder, only to revert his violation of WP:NPOV. If you try a different approach we can amke it, so far you are solely disrupting. IE linguist (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't read WP:BRD thoroughly. You're trying to push your POV into an article against an existing WP:CONSENSUS without building a new consensus on the Talk Page.  Instead of using a sledgehammer, perhaps you can take a step back and think about abandoning your original research, abandoning your warrior attitude, and thinking about what exactly it is that you want to propose.  Then propose it briefly (no Wikipedia editor is going to read your six long paragraphs of original research).  Then we can discuss and come up with some compromise language that all editors can agree on.  (And I'm not the only editor with an interest in this, I'm just the only one responding for now.)  --Taivo (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell this to yourself, you are violating all this, and then you are mischarectarizing my actions for your own ends. IE linguist (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not violating WP:BRD. You are the one trying to insert controversial material without building a WP:CONSENSUS for it.  Just because you insert something into an article doesn't mean that it is acceptable.  It clearly isn't.  So it's your job to build the new WP:CONSENSUS.  You finally started that process with your last productive post (from yesterday or the day before).  So offer a suggestion for wording on the Talk Page based on the quote that you put there (I forget who it is from).  Remember that this article isn't about language, but about the people as a whole.  --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demographics of Greece, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages L2 and L1 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Demographics_of_Greece check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Demographics_of_Greece?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - Balkans
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
Hello, I'm BlackcurrantTea. You may notice that I cut quite a bit of the text you quoted in Slavic dialects of Greece, and I wanted to explain why. Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyrighted material says, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. ... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The quotes are still rather long, and it would be better if they could be further reduced. You don't have to have an exact quote in the article to support every point. If the writer takes five or ten sentences to say something you could summarise in one or two, then please do summarise it. As long as you can tell readers where to find it for themselves, and the meaning remains the same, it's fine. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)