User talk:Kreuzkümmel

Welcome

 * }

Bulgarians
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) instead of blindly reverting.  — Toдor Boжinov — 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

"Vandalism"
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. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  00:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  03:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Bulgarians
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)

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

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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)

Simeon Djankov
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)
 * 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)
 * Bulgarian Ministry of Finance and World Bank say it is spelled the other way. --Aleksd (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian ь
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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
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)

Graf Ignatiev St
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)
 * Oh, ok. I just took it from Wikimedia, sorry. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2014 (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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Does not work
"although its effectiveness has not been clearly shown. "

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