User talk:Springpfühler

Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but should take a step back
Your edits about the Italian language and 100% correct, and the other user entirely wrong. However, being right is not enough to edit war (unless it's obvious vandalism, and that's not the case here). So even though you're right, it's better to sit back and let other users step in. The article is highly visible, and others will remove the nonsense even if you don't. As long as it's just you and him, it becomes edit warring despite the fact that you're right. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Italian language
Please join the discussion in the talk page (Talk:Italian language). Even if it's not much spoken, Italian is a "Recognised minority language" in those countries, which is the one requested by the page, not the countries where many speak it. You said that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages "is not any official document neither from Romania nor from Bosnia"; it’s wrong, because it is used as a source in many other page. Look at German language, Polish language, Hungarian language, Turkish language, Macedonian language etc.; they are all recognized as minority languages in Romania or Bosnia thanks to that Charter, and nobody cares about the number of people who speak their. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously a mistake. Not because people who write German language page already made a mistake, it is an excuse for us to make another one. Anyways, German is a minority language in Romania indeed, where there are old communities of speakers and some villages have German names. Hungarian even more: Hungarian is official in Transilvania (specially in the area of Miercurea Ciuc), and there are many people who speak mainly Hungarian and hardly Romanian. Of course they are not minority languages "thanks to that Charter"; they have always been such, the Charter does not have any effect on it. Nevertheless, neither German nor Hungarian are minority languages in Bosnia. I am not following the pages of Polish or Turkish language, but I am sure they aren´t neither. Moreover, a page of Wikipedia obviously can't be a source of another page, never. This European Charter of course is not an official document in the meaning it is not compulsory and does not have any practical effect. Think just that many countries, between them Italy itself, have not even signed this charter so far! Thus, it is not compulsory for anyone, and it does not affect the real protection of languages each country pursues. It is not like Italian is just "not much spoken" in Bosnia or Romania, it is that there are not any communities of speakers! Neither historic, nor whatsoever. Italian was NEVER spoken as a local language, at any level, neither in Bosnia nor in Romania. Practically, only Italians living there (there are some in Romania, almost none in Bosnia though), or Romanians or Bosnians who study it, speak this language. It would be a huge lie putting Bosnian or Romanian flag between the countries who have Italian as their language. Then, if we do that, what should we write about Romanian in Italy, with like 2 million speakers? It should be defined official language, I guess ; ) You can put a notice in the text mentioning the fact that Italian is included in the list of languages of the Charter, in spite of not being spoken in those countries. I wrote it, but somebody cancelled it. That is something different as putting Bosnia or Romania under the countries where Italian is spoken, just like Croatia (Istria), this is definitely incorrect. --Springpfühler (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction: the Charter was signed by 33 countries (out of 46). Both Romania and Bosnia had signed it. Also, the Italians in Romania are an officially recognised ethnic minority, Italians have one seat reserved in the Romanian Chamber of Deputies. This was held by the Italian Community of Romania between 1992 and 2004, and the Association of Italians of Romania since 2004. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Join the discussion in the talk page. At the moment, the sources that I found seems ok. Where are your sources? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Recognised minority languages in Romania:
 * Albanian
 * Armenian
 * Bulgarian
 * Czech
 * German
 * Greek
 * (Italian)
 * Yiddish
 * Macedonian
 * Hungarian
 * Polish
 * Romani
 * Russian
 * Ruthenian
 * Serbian
 * Slovak
 * Tatar
 * Turkish
 * Ukrainian

In all their page they are recognised as minority language in those countries. Italian should not be excluded. We are speaking about the "Recognised" languages, not the most spoken. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I already told you that this paper is purely formal and has no value at all. You insist and insist and insist on it, but it does not change the fact that this paper is purely formal and has no value at all. You can put a mention of this paper in the article, but you cannot assert that Italian is a minority language in Bosnia or Romania because it is false, and you asserting something false will not make this true. Apart from this paper, you haven't put any other source. And it seems you do not really know about the situation in Bosnia or Romania. It is not about "less spoken": Italian is not spoken at all, there are no communities of speakers, nothing, absolutely nothing. Italian immigrants do not count as a minority, can you understand it?? There are Italian immigrants in many countries, but that does not make Italian a language of those countries. Never. There are also many immigrants in Italy, from many countries. Are perhaps their language minority languages in Italy?? By the way, can you put some official link (not a Wiki page or something like that!) where it is said that "Italians are an officially recognised ethnic minority" and that "they have a seat in the Chamber of Deputies"? --Springpfühler (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In the page Italians in Romania. And, again, please join the discussion to see the opinion of other users DavideVeloria88 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot take Wiki itself as a source! By no means. È la norma primaria di Wikipedia, il fondamento, diciamo. Quello che è scritto in altre pagine NON è una fonte, non essendo neppure verificabile chi lo ha scritto. Così come ovviamente non è una fonte ciò che scriviamo noi. In ogni caso, ora non ho tempo di partecipare ad altre discussioni al riguardo...Se trovate un documento affidabile che testimoni che c'è un'effettiva protezione della lingua italiana in Romania, a me non importa nulla se lo inserite, figuriamoci. Il punto è che anch'io ho cercato in rete e non ne ho trovato. Per la Bosnia, men che meno, impossibile, inesistente. La lingua italiana è assolutamente inesistente in Bosnia, è come che dica boh, il bulgaro in Italia. Qualcosa così. Io vivo a Vienna, viaggio spesso in vari paesi balcanici, parlo anche serbocroato un po', mia moglie ha parenti lì. Conosco bene la Bosnia e anche l'Erzegovina e anche la Republika Srpska. A girarla tutta, da Bijeljina a Neum, da Banja Luka a Trebinje, non troverai un singolo paese, manco il più sparuto, dove sia presente uno straccio di riferimento qualsiasi alla lingua italiana. In Bosnia, inoltre, non ci vivono neppure italiani, gli unici che troverai sono i pellegrini a Međugorje. Un po' poco per parlare di comunità italiana... Inoltre, la Bosnia ha ben altri problemi che pensare alla lì inesistente lingua italiana, ehm, mi pare abbastanza logico...Prima di tutto deve pensare a tirare avanti come Stato. In Romania invece sì ci vivono un po' di italiani, ma mica così tanti. Molti lavorano in aziende e poi magari rientreranno a casa loro. Non sono una comunità storica e non hanno nessun diritto particolare né tanto meno alla protezione della lingua, a differenza per esempio degli ungheresi o dei tedeschi, comunità storiche in Romania. Se per caso promulgano la lingua italiana, non lo so, è senz'altro per loro iniziativa e non significa certo un riconoscimento da parte dello Stato rumeno come lingua minoritaria. Questa carta che citi lascia il tempo che trova, non so che vantaggi pratici abbiano avuto alcuni Stati a inserire tante lingue che manco si sognerebbero di proteggere, sicuramente un tornaconto economico, fondi... All'atto pratico, la carta non ha nessuna valenza. Prova ne sia che paesi come l'Italia e la Francia, che l'hanno firmata ma non ratificata, hanno lingue minoritarie (co)ufficiali nel loro territorio. Tutti sappiamo del tedesco in Alto Adige, che di fatto è prima lingua, del francese o franco-provenzale in Valle d'Aosta, del friulano, del sardo che è co-ufficiale in Sardegna, etc. etc. Tutte lingue co-ufficiali, insegnate a vari livelli e promulgate. In Francia abbiamo il corso, il basco e (in misura minore) il bretone. Invece in molti altri casi, lingue che sono state più o meno arbitrariamente inserite in questa carta non hanno mai ricevuto la minima protezione o diffusione. L'italiano in Bosnia, poi, è un'invenzione comica. --Springpfühler (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, ma hai hai notato però che TUTTE le lingue che ho elencato sopra vengono riconosciute come minoritarie in Romania o Bosnia nella loro pagina di Wikipedia? E tutte hanno come fonte proprio quella carta? Se seguissimo il tuo ragionamento dovremmo rimuoverla da tutte. (la pagina dell’italiano è l’unica in cui non viene menzionata) DavideVeloria88 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Come ho detto, un errore fatto da molti non diventa giusto. Però: 1) io avevo inserito una menzione a questa pagina nell'articolo e al fatto che l'italiano è citato in tale carta come "lingua protetta" in Romania e Bosnia, nonostante in questi paesi non siano presenti minoranze italiane storiche (immigrati, lavoratori temporanei e turisti esclusi, ovvio) e l'italiano non sia una lingua di minoranza in tali paesi. Questa menzione è stata tolta, si può rimettere. L'unica cosa che ho detto è che non aveva senso mettere la bandierina di un paese dove non esiste l'italiano, come la Bosnia, al fianco di quella di uno dove c'è una minoranza storica, come la Croazia. Se per altre lingue hanno fatto cose di questo tipo, è ugualmente senza senso e non aumenterà di certo il numero di parlanti di tale lingua. 2) bisogna vedere lingua per lingua quali sono quelle elencate in tale carta. In Romania sì che esistono minoranze storiche, io conosco l'ungherese e il tedesco, ma ce ne sono altre, immagino la lingua rom, etc. Sicuramente non tutte le lingue citate nella carta saranno messe a pera, alcune magari sì. Per quanto riguarda la Bosnia, veramente non mi risulta che in questo paese ci sia alcuna minoranza linguistica, escludendo serbi, croati e bosniaci, che poi parlano varianti o dialetti della stessa lingua. Stai sicuro che non ci sono minoranze di nessun tipo, né in Bosnia né in Erzegovina (diverso è il caso della Serbia o della Croazia). Se pure dalla Bosnia qualcuno ha messo altre lingue nella citata carta, sono sicuro al 1000% che non ne "proteggono" nessuna, figuriamoci. Ripeto, se le hanno messe sarà senz'altro stato per ottenere qualche fondo o roba del genere. --Springpfühler (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Grazie per le tue argomentazioni, non voglio creare alcuna edit war. Dato che si parla di lingue "riconosciute", quindi definite tali da documenti, cosa ne pensi riguardo l'inserire quelle due nazioni nell'infobox e aggiungerci di fianco "(de jure)" ? In precedenza c’era scritto così. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ero stato proprio io in precedenza a scrivere "de iure", poi però era stato tolto. In ogni caso, non avevo trovato manco il minimo documento in tutta l'internet che accennasse a una benché minima presenza dell'italiano in Bosnia, cosa che è impossibile da trovare perché si tratta appunto di un'invenzione ideata da chissà chi... Per questo, senza neppure un accenno da nessuna parte, è impossibile dire che in Bosnia sia "de iure"..."inesistente" sarebbe la definizione più adatta. In Romania invece "de iure" potrebbe andare, infatti ho messo un link a un documento che se non altro proviene dal governo, gov.ro, e che quindi è appena appena più affidabile... A pagina 25 in basso troverai la lista delle lingue presenti a qualsiasi livello in Romania, l'italiano è tra le prime dieci (protezione generale), ma non tra le seconde (protezione avanzata), ed è quindi escluso da cose come insegnamento, promozione, co-ufficialità etc etc. In ogni caso, ho dato un'occhiata alla famosa carta e posso confermare che all'atto pratico vale ben poco. Se avesse avuto una qualche valenza sarebbe stata firmata e messa in pratica da tutti gli stati dell'Unione. Basti pensare che tra le lingue presuntamente "protette" dalla Germania ci sono dialetti ormai scomparsi, come il Plattdeutsch o Low German...che la Germania per l'appunto non ha mai protetto, portandolo all'estinzione. Passando all'Austria, dove vivo, solo tre delle 5 lingue citate sono veramente co-ufficiali, minoranze storiche o protette: il croato del Burgenland, in alcuni villaggi dell'estremo sud-est; lo sloveno, in Carinzia al confine con la Slovenia, e l'ungherese, nella zona di frontiera tra Burgenland e Ungheria. Poi vengono citati lo slovacco e il ceco, tra l'altro come presenti a Vienna (!), e la cosa è ridicola. Non troverai una sola scritta in slovacco o ceco in tutta Vienna manco a cercarla per mesi, non vengono insegnati a scuola, etc. Invece, sempre a Vienna si possono trovare scritte e varie altre cose in serbocroato o in turco, le lingue delle comunità di immigrati più numerose, nonostante non siano citate in questa carta. --Springpfühler (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, grazie ancora per le argomentazioni, allora forse più avanti inserirò con la scritta " (de jure) " e nel frattempo cercherò altre fonti per la Bosnia. Già che ci siamo volevo parlarti di altre due cose: per prima cosa pensavo di inserire la Santa sede (Holy See) tra le organizzazioni, in quanto l’italiano è lingua ufficiale. Secondo: pensavo di sostituire la lunga frase nell’infobox "Recognized as a minority language but not official in any part of the country's territory" con "Administrative/cultural", credo sia sufficientemente specifico senza dover specificare che non è lingua ufficiale; sono riportate queste parole anche in altre pagine, tipo quella della lingua francese, in cui sono elencati ad esempio Algeria e Tunisia in quanto parlata dal 60% della popolazione senza che abbia status ufficiale (pure l’italiano è parlato dal 66% dei maltesi senza essere riconosciuto come lingua ufficiale) DavideVeloria88 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bè, per quanto riguarda Romania e Bosnia ho già spiegato tutto nella nota... Se invece intendi una menzione a destra tra le lingue citate, si potrebbe mettere la Romania ma non con la Croazia e la Slovenia né con Malta e Monaco, bensì a parte, e specificando che l'italiano è citato tra le lingue protette (tra l'altro assieme ad altre 19....,il che da solo fa capire che si tratta di una "protezione" fittizia o inesistente), ma non è ufficiale, quindi sì, "de iure", ma proprio "iure" xd Poi potrei formulare la frase adatta. La Bosnia no, perché qui veramente non c'è neppure il "de iure"...Se hai tempo puoi cercare, ma io ho cercato anche in serbocroato, immaginati, e ti assicuro che non esiste nessuna menzione dell'italiano, da nessuna parte. Perché come ti ho detto l'italiano in Bosnia non esiste, non è mai esistito, a nessun livello, è semplicemente questo. Fidati, non esiste. Qualcuno l'ha inserito in questa lista di lingue e manco loro sanno perché. Poi se trovassi qualcosa di attendibile (non Wikipedia) ovviamente puoi mandarmelo, volentieri, lo guarderei. Per quanto riguarda il secondo punto, bè, "administrative" non è corretto, perché non lo è. Il numero dei parlanti non c'entra, e poi non fidarti di queste statistiche, 60 o 70%...etc. Indicano soltanto le persone che studiano o parlano un po' una lingua (non sappiamo quanti di questi 60% la parlino bene, per esempio), e non hanno nessun effetto sull'ufficialità o meno di una lingua né sul fatto che sia o meno di minoranza. L'italiano a Monaco e soprattutto a Malta non è nessuna delle due. Nel caso del francese in Algeria e Tunisia "administrative" penso sia corretto, nel caso dell'italiano a Malta e Monaco no. Se vai in un ufficio pubblico in Algeria o Tunisia, penso che senz'altro hai diritto a essere servito in francese, c'è una presenza importante del francese nell'istruzione, in documenti ufficiali, etc. Tutto questo non mi risulta ci sia per l'italiano a Malta o Monaco. Non penso che uno possa andare in un ufficio a Malta e "pretendere" di essere servito in italiano. Credo che in quel caso la reazione potrebbe essere poco simpatica, magari mi sbaglio... Se poi trovi uno che parla italiano, visto che lì molti lo sanno, magari ti risponde, magari no...non so. Ma non è un tuo diritto. Ecco perché "administrative" sicuramente non va bene. "Cultural" sì (in realtà sarebbe "cultural/touristic"...), specificando che non è ufficiale. Oppure qualche traduzione del termine "significativo", come è presente in altre Wiki e come io stesso ho scritto in alcune. In inglese la più adatta sarebbe "important", in ogni caso, quindi alla fine dei conti mi pare meglio "cultural". Ecco perché ho scritto quella frase, unicamente per cercare di scrivere le cose come stanno e nel modo più veritiero possibile. Se magari sembra troppo lunga si può facilmente sintetizzare in "cultural but not official (in any part of the territory)", per distinguerle da Croazia e Slovenia dove è co-ufficiale in una piccola parte del territorio (che poi sono pochi comuni tutti nell'Istria occidentale e l'italiano è abbastanza relegato rispetto alla lingua nazionale, per ovvie ragioni). Per quanto riguarda la Santa Sede il discorso è diverso, lì sì che l'italiano è co-ufficiale, e infatti c'è la bandiera del Vaticano sotto quelle di Italia e Svizzera. Quindi nessun problema al riguardo. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ciao, sono sempre io. Non ho ancora avuto tempo di editare la pagina, comunque volevo avvisarti che pensavo di togliere la frase lunga "Recognized as a minority language and co-official along with the national languages in parts of the country's territory:" in quanto la scritta dell’infobox Recognised minority language mi pare sufficiente; poi, come detto in precedenza, si può accorciare la seconda frase con "Cultural but unofficial". Un’altra cosa: cosa ne pensi dell'Albania come lingua minore o culturale? Oltre ad essere una ex lingua ufficiale, oggi l’italiano è parlato da 1.600.000 albanesi, ovvero il 60-70% della popolazione, ed esiste una storica comunità di coloni. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ciao, ho già cambiato io, ho scritto che è co-ufficiale in Istria County e Slovenian Istria, che sono gli unici due posti di Slovenia e Croazia dove è co-ufficiale e sono anche citati prima, poco più su, quindi non ci sono misteri. Almeno è chiaro e tagliamo la testa al toro. Non possiamo mettere che è co-ufficiale in Croazia e Slovenia perché è una bugia, sarebbe come dire che il sardo o il tedesco sono co-ufficiali in tutta Italia. Dobbiamo cercare di essere il più esatti possibile. Poi ho messo "cultural language but not official" per Malta e Monaco perché è la verità e l'ho anche spiegato nel riassunto, la pagina di Monaco non esiste e a Malta l'italiano non è "minority language", solo "cultural". Quindi anche questa è fatta e mi pare vada bene così. L'Albania come cultural credo che vada bene, magari con un riferimento. L'ho messa io stesso in altre Wikis. L'italiano era (non so quanto lo sia ancora) certamente lingua "culturale" (non "minority") in Albania, mentre non lo è mai stata in Romania, dove è risaputo che lo è sempre stata il francese. Quindi direi che l'Albania andrebbe bene, mentre la Romania non c'entra proprio, e infatti non esistono riferimenti a questo proposito. Saluti --Springpfühler (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ciao, dopo alcune ricerche ho scoperto che l'Italiano è riconosciuto come lingua etnica in Santa Teresa e Vila Velha, in Brasile, con insegnamento obbligatorio. Ciò non lo renderebbe una lingua minoritaria o co-ufficiale? Fonti:, , ,. Ciao! DavideVeloria88 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ciao, no, come può l'insegnamento in un paesino sperduto del Brasile rendere una lingua minoritaria o addirittura co-ufficiale in uno stato di 250.000.000 di persone?...Poi, "lingua etnica" non vuol dire lingua di minoranza. È come l'albanese a Piana degli Albanesi vicino a Palermo: è lingua etnica o anche co-ufficiale lì, mica in Italia. Questo non è nemmeno sufficiente a definire una lingua come lingua regionale, immaginati nazionale! È solo "lingua comunale", al massimo. Insomma, si può mettere un cenno a questo nella pagina, se veritiero, ma mica la bandiera del Brasile facendo finta che lì si parli italiano, tutto qui. Paesi dove l'italiano è prima lingua o lingua ufficiale, oltre ai noti Italia, San Marino, Vaticano, Svizzera (Ticino), Istria croata e slovena, non ce ne sono. Quindi non ce ne sono altri da aggiungere. In Brasile poi, non era l'italiano a essere presente, bensì il talian. Non è la stessa cosa: il talian è (era) un dialetto veneto. Io in ogni caso ho anche appena tolto la bandiera del Brasile dalla lingua tedesca, perché anche se il tedesco lì è presente in più città rispetto all'italiano, non è comunque abbastanza da definirlo lingua di minoranza o regionale in Brasile. Ora farò lo stesso con la pagina del portoghese, dove ho pure visto imprecisioni. Poi ovviamente non posso controllare tutto...Saluti --Springpfühler (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for warning, I knew that, but it wasn't to save or keep "my preferred version" of the page, I have no interests on it at all. It was just for the sake of truth, because someone keeps on putting Portuguese as official or minority language in South Africa when it is obviously not. That is a patent lie, and that is why I reverted it. I put a mention about Portuguese being cited as an immigrant tongue in South Africa, hence a language to be somehow "protected", but that does not make it official or co-official by any means. In this paragraph it is just about official usage, not immigrants tongues or anything like that. Nevertheless, although I explained it, someone seems not willing to understand. I could not discuss anything with the person who reverted my editions, he is anonym, so it just seemed like trolling or whatever, that is why I thought some admin should act. Cheers --Springpfühler (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically that is keeping it as "your preferred version", even if your stance is that the content being added is not true. I placed the same warning on IPs talk page so hopefully it will all cease.  If it doesn't, I suggest starting a conversation on the article's talk page and invite the IP to join in.  This gives the opportunity for other editors to assess the proposed change and weigh in.  If it does happen to be troll at least you get consensus.  Thanks for the reply and best of luck! S0091 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop trolling
Instead of being unconstructive and accusing others of trolling, don't make your inability to read or use Google the problem of others. The language is clearly given recognition in the very Constitution of SA.

http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf

(b) promote and ensure respect for— (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.

Portuguese isn't an official language in any of the Indian territories mentioned and neither is it in Uruguay but it has recognition as a minority or cultural/historical language. If they are mentioned then why shouldn't South Africa, where the Constitution itself in black and white affords it recognition, be mentioned? --Spirit of the night (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And never was it claimed to be an official language, that is so obviously not the case. Your WP:BADFAITH, ignorance and lack of basic understanding should not be the problem of others. The section SA is being placed under is clearly Recognised minority language in. Por favor, tente ler. --Spirit of the night (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not my fault if YOU cannot even read an article or at least cannot understand it. I can do that in some ten languages or so, you? Got one? Wasn't me who mentioned South Africa' constitution in a note apart? That is what should be done. Or it is your goal to put South Africa under the Portuguese speaking countries, knowing that it is a lie? Não seja burro...mas tal vez isso seja muito pedir. The box with the flags is ABOUT OFFICIAL STATUS...and "recognized minority language" is OFFICIAL STATUS, seu iletrado, né? Então que besteiras vai falando? Portuguese in South Africa IS NOT AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED MINORITY LANGUAGE. As simple as that. The Constitution mentions it as "language to be protected" because spoken by an immigrants' community there, as many others like German, even Greek...can you imagine. That does not make those languages an officially minority tongue in the country. We can say that South Africa is so nice to mention the immigrants'language in its Constitution, something not all the countries do, but that does not make all those languages official. You cannot compare this situation with Uruguay, where Portuguese is spoken in the North, around the town Rivera, portugués riverense, even if it is more like portuñol, it is called portuñol riverense indeed. So, I am not even sure whether Uruguay should be in this list, and even less about India, but surely South Africa does not belong there, unless we are writing lies. So stop trolling yourself, faça favor --Springpfühler (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Writing lies" is what you are doing by calling Portuguese South Africans, and by virtue of that other minority groups in SA, "immigrants". What lies are, are determined by sources here, of which you can cite none. Stop being unconstructive and edit warring. Engage in dialogue, improve your English and cite your sources. --Spirit of the night (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling, why don't you be consistent and remove S Africa from Tamil language too? And again, why are Uruguay, India and Indonesia there, where are the officially recognised minority status there? Is clear that South Africa has a better claim to this than India or Indonesia. --Spirit of the night (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Spirit of the night (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Writing lies and not understanding a thing is what you keep on doing, and you are showing not knowing a thing about South Africa neither, let alone other topics. Your small page (10 lines?) about Portuguese in South Africa just confirms what I said and what is obvious: they are immigrants there, South Africa was not their country, they went there, so they are immigrants. You do not even know what the word "immigrant" means, in your narrow view it may look like an insult or who know what you think, it's just plain ignorance. Ignorance is not a guilt, ok, but nevertheless... "Immigrant" comes from Latin "immigrare", that means "to come to a foreign land in order to live there" or "to settle in a place different from the one somebody was born in". Were the very first Portuguese in South Africa born in that country? No. Did they come from another place? Yes. So, they were immigrants. You understand it? Hopefully. Not difficult, though. So, the present Portuguese community in South Africa are descendants of those immigrants. The Boers were also immigrants, yes, nevertheless their language reached the status of official language and one of the main languages in South Africa, so it is called like that. Portuguese reached that status in Brazil, in Angola, in a lot of places, but not in South Africa. Consequently, Portuguese language still remains the language of a community there, not an official language. Consequently, it does not belong in that box. It is not difficult to understand, either. The fact that South Africa's Constitution mentions Portuguese as the language of a community in the county, thus a language "to be respected" (the Constitution says just like that) is not enough to make Portuguese an "official" or "officially recognized minority language" in South Africa. Of course this mention of the South Africa' Constitution has to be cited in the article, and it is indeed. And that's it. So, I don't know your problems and why you keep on talking bullshit and other things who do not have to do with it, that's your thing. This point seems to me very clear, if you don't get it, I cannot do anything. And about the status of Portuguese in India, Uruguay, the Holy See, the Moon or whatsoever, that is another topic which I do not want to occupy myself with. I cannot think about everything, should I? I let it to someone else. --Springpfühler (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Portuguese language. Thank you. Megaman en m (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh well thanks for remembering, I said sorry but you saw he used the words "ignorant" and "racist" at first, once again, always him first. I answered using the very same words. Well I'm trying to have a dialogue, but it seems useless. I suggest that we put the sentence as it is, so there is no doubt. And I would generally reserve the flags in the box just for official usage, that would be clear at least. --Springpfühler (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Other editors behaving badly is no excuse for you to behave badly - it will just cause the administrators to say 'a pox on both your houses' and sanction you both if it continues. I want to be absolutely clear.  If you do this again, I will report you and you will be blocked from editing.  If Spirit does this again, I will report them and they will be blocked from editing. If Spirit does it and you respond in kind, I will report you both and you will both be blocked from editing.  It has to stop.
 * You have now both tried to make me your ally, to get me to help you implement your version against the wishes of the other. I am not going to do that.  All I intend to do is help the two of you together to come up with a solution you both can live with, and if necessary, keep either of you from unilaterally implementing a change without consensus. Agricolae (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Define trolling
Excuse me, but, where exactly I was trolling when i put Malta in minority language in Italy, minority language don't have nothing to do with official language, I added Malta because a lot of Maltese speak Italian as a second language, Italian is not official in Somalia either, so why didn't you remove Somalia too? TheWikipedian1250 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Because we had a lot of discussions about this topic in the last months, a lot, and then it was a bit like a joke that someone came and put again flags where they are not supposed to be...So I thought it was on purpose. If it wasn´t and you were not aware of what happened, then sorry. Anyways, I removed also Somalia, because there there is even less Italian nowadays. Better said, there is no Italian at all. Can you imagine if Somalia, with all problems they have, are in the situation of promoting Italian now??!! Of course not. There is absolutely no Italian language in Somalia anymore, and not from yesterday. Even if some elderly people still speak Italian there, it does not mean under any circumstances that Italian is an official, recognized, protected or spoken language there. So Somalia's flag does not belong in any case. Malta's flag also not, because even if it is true that Italian is spoken by quite a lot of people there, but as a third language (not a second because practically all Maltese speak Maltese and English), Italian does not have any recognition in Malta. And we are putting the flags just for countries where there is an officially recognized minority status, like Slovenia or Croatia. You see, Italian is not official in all Slovenia and even less in all Croatia, just in two small parts of a region, Istria. In these parts Italian is an officially recognized minority language, because first language is still Slovenian or Croatian, also in Istria. In this case, putting the flags of Slovenia and Croatia beside the title "recognized minority language" is correct. You have to put the stress on "recognized". "Minority language" alone does not mean anything: a minority language is a language spoken by a even tiny minority, but if it is not officially recognized by a country does not belong in the box. Italy, for instance, has hundreds of minority languages, some of them spoken by a lot od people, like Romanian, spoken by a couple of millions of Romanians in the country. Nevertheless, we only take into account the minority languages recognized by the country, like German, Sardinian, French, Franco-Provençal, etc. So, a few or a lot of people speaking a given language is not enough to determine this language being a recognized minority language. Italian was like that in Malta, but it is not like that since many years now. The only recognized languages in Malta are Maltese and English. Speaking Italian like a foreign language is not a recognition of Italian in Malta, that is why Malta's flag does not belong beside Slovenian and Croatian flags. All these cases can be mentioned in the article, and there are indeed mentions of a lot of country, including Malta, Somalia, etc. But the box is exclusively determined for the official use, as a first language or as an officially recognized minority or second language. --Springpfühler (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did in your edit on Balkans. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Personal attacks in edit summaries are especially harmful, since they cannot be retracted. --T*U (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The complaint may be found at WP:AN3. There is a risk that you and the other party will both be blocked, unless you promise to wait for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well if there is a majority wanting to put the contested information I would have no problem in letting it. I removed it because there were other people who wrote that it was not appropriate whereas it was a single individual who wanted to write it at all costs. --Springpfühler (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a result of his complaint, you've been warned. Please be aware that you could be blocked with no further notice or discussion if you continue to make reverts about the status of the Italian language in various countries, without first getting a talk page consensus in your favor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Yes, it is a part of Serbia, but no, I am not mistaken, you are, and it wasn't me who put the Vojvodina flag there, it was always like that, it was you who changed it. But it's not correct. I know the law you are talking about, but as you write this law only applies to Vojvodina, not to Serbia as a whole. And not even to Vojvodina as a whole, but only to those municipalities which have more than 15% of speakers of a certain language. It means, Romanian is not even official in all Vojvodina,can you imagine in Serbia. Vojvodina has got its regional flag, so we put this flag, that's it. Serbia is written in parenthesis besides, because Vojvodina belongs to Serbia BUT Romanian is a recognized minority language JUST in some municipalities of Vojvodina, that's it. I don't care about Russia, if you put it in another way it's not my fault. We just write the truth, regardless of politics or whatsoever. Springpfühler (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Romanian language
Your edit. You are mistaken. It is part of Serbia, so Serbian flag should be listed there. Like many other languages inside Russian Federation are listed like that. "In Serbia, these minorities and their respective languages have been granted official status in both the municipalities and cities where more than 15% of citizens speak one of these languages. In the province of Vojvodina which is the northern part of Serbia, there six languages recognized as official, and they include Serbian, Slovak, Rusyn, Romanian, Hungarian, and Croatian." Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

German language
Thank you for your feedback on my edit. You are right, "Germans" should be put down as one of the ethnicities/people speaking Danish (also Sorbian and Frisian). Likewise Belgians are one of the people speaking German. Who decides where the cutoff is? 10%? 1% 0.1%? Only 2% of the Luxemburgers call themselves native "German-speakers", while most say it is a secondary language for them. More Belgians claim to be native German-speakers than there are people in Liechtenstein and native Luxemburgish German-speakers together. German is one of the federal official languages in Belgium, not just a local secondary language. If there is a minority of native speakers, and the language is (at least regionally) "official", then one can rightfully claim that people/citizens of that country are active speakers of that language. --37ophiuchi (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course in the page of Belgium German is cited. And in the page of German language, Belgium is cited as well. Nobody denies it, of course. But wait...here it was about putting "Belgians" under the "Ethnicity" of "German speaking people", and I don't think under this point we cite ALL small portions of every country where a certain language is spoken. No. We only cite the "main ethnicity", which sometimes corresponds to the people of the most significant country where such language is spoken, sometimes not. Have a look at English language page. Under "Ethnicity" you'll only find "Anglo-Saxons". Following the reasonment for German language, that is, putting every single portion of land where English is spoken, well, we'd need an extra page. Have a look at Spanish language page. Under "Ethnicity" you'll find "Spaniards" and "Hispanic Americans"..."Hispanic Americans" are Spanish speaking people. We did not put "Argentinians, Mexicans, Colombians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Uruguayans,...." and 15 or something more. So, in my opinion, "German speaking people" is enough, I would take away also Luxembourgers, as you said, surely I wouldn't add even Belgians. Belgians, as an ethnicity, do not speak German. Only a small part of them do it. Also the name "Deutschsprachiges Belgien" is almost never used. "Deutschsprachige Schweiz" is definitely much more common, because the majority of Switzerland speaks German, that's why the Swiss are cited under "Ethnicity" and Liechtensteiners are cited as well because German is the only official language there, even if they are really really few people. But, to be honest, I would take them off too, and I'd only let a generic "German speaking people", as I wrote. Moreover, if I really had to put something, I'd surely put South Tyroleans much more than Belgians. The importance, the officiality and the number of German speakers in South Tyrol are definitely higher than those in Belgium. Und Südtiroler sind auch keine Österreicher mehr...That is, they are not included under "Austrians". In order to avoid all these discussions regarding which people are to be included and which not, we normally put only a main ethnicity. That is why Belgians do not belong there - and Luxembourgers should not belong as well, right. But of course Belgium is cited in the article, right at the beginning. The list under "Ethnicity" is just a small summary and has no importance in the development of the page. --Springpfühler (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All I want is -reasonable- consistency. I guess I do not particularly fancy that segment in any language info bar in the first place. Whom is a language spoken by? Well, by its speakers, duh... IMO this is just opening up a whole different can of worms regarding citizens, ethnicities, people, nationalities. I don't even wanna start thinking about China. Saying that Tibetan is spoken by... well "Tibetans" would be borderline secessionist in China (both mainland and Taiwan). Tibetans are Chinese after all. In any case... As long as we keep this somewhat consistent. --37ophiuchi (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2020
Your recent editing history at Vienna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you say is not right, definitely not. Perhaps you haven't followed this thing at all. I am not "involved" in any "war", I am just keeping the names that have always been on this page. I am monitoring the page, nothing else. There is some guy with evident problems who reverts all names random, all the time. I am not saying that you should say "thanks" to me for this work, but at least not writing accusations who are not justified would be appreciated. I already said you should protect the page - or at least block who is vandalizing. --Springpfühler (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The subject at debate is of no relevance, the fact is that you're repeatedly reverting changes instead of engaging in a discussion to reach consensus, and such conduct is referred to as "edit warring" here. It also doesn't matter if you're reverting to status quo, as long as an edit does not contain undisputed vandalism, it counts as a valid point of view in a content dispute. So if you or any other involved party continues this edit war or violate the 3RR, you will very likely be blocked from editing, thus I would sincerely recommend you to make use of the respective article's talk page.


 * "I already said you should protect the page - or at least block who is vandalizing" – if you feel that a page protection or user sanctions are necessary than visit Requests for page protection, Administrator intervention against vandalism, or Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. However, you should know that I've already unsuccessfully requested page protection for the article Vienna, my request was declines since the reviewing admin favored individual sanctions. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone SYSTEMATICALLY changes names, inventing new ones, like Bosnia instead of Bosnia and Herzegovina just because "many people say just Bosnia", as he wrote, if he does it again and again in different pages in spite of being adverted (and reverted) by many people (not only by me of course), well than that IS "undisputed vandalism". If it is not, then I don't know what should it be.--Springpfühler (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of edit warring and repeatedly changing content, you should put a message on the user's user talk page informing them. If the problem keeps happening, you may contact an administrator. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Springpfühler, you are 100% correct that this person was vandalizing Wikipedia (at least in some edits, not necessarily all). I followed it up, and got them blocked. But they may well come back. In the future, if you see them again, rather than repeatedly reverting or arguing with them, it's best to quickly and quietly report them to WP:AIV, WP:ANI, or an admin you trust, or make a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI. You're also welcome to leave a message about it on my talk page, I would be happy to help if I can. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Springpfühler, you are 100% correct that this person was vandalizing Wikipedia (at least in some edits, not necessarily all). I followed it up, and got them blocked. But they may well come back. In the future, if you see them again, rather than repeatedly reverting or arguing with them, it's best to quickly and quietly report them to WP:AIV, WP:ANI, or an admin you trust, or make a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI. You're also welcome to leave a message about it on my talk page, I would be happy to help if I can. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Spanish language article fix
Hello- Thanks for fixing the IP edit to the article on the Spanish language. There is no need to leave such a long, loud edit summary, however. If you look at that article's history, you will see that we have had a problem with an IP editor making similar edits to that and other articles recently -- in this case, six days prior to your edit. The place for making a point such as you did there is the article's talkpage. It is better practice to leave a concise summary that includes a note or link pointing to any longer explanation on the article's talkpage. Eric talk 02:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Here is some edit summary guidance related to my above suggestion: Help:Edit_summary. Eric talk 12:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling peoples' contributions "trolling"
Hi Springpfühler, in these edit summaries, you called another editor's contributions "trolling":, , even though they provided a reliable source that verifies the content they added. I do understand that you'd like to help keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible, and in this case it may have looked like the source was not relevant, but I checked and it is. However, even if the editor had been mistaken, calling them a troll, i.e. a vandal who is deliberately damaging or defacing Wikipedia, is something that should usually be avoided unless it is extremely obvious and blatant - and then in that case, it should be quietly reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, in accordance with WP:DENY. In other words, there's not really any situation where it's helpful to use the word "trolling", outside of a vandalism report.

I see that a few other people have commented above about assuming good faith, and not making negative personal comments. I think people here would appreciate it if you could try to be a little less harsh, and not assume too quickly that your fellow editors have bad intentions. Would you be willing to try to improve on that? Thanks. PS, I left a comment above about another case where you were definitely correct that someone was trolling and vandalizing. It does happen sometimes, of course! --IamNotU (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you are right that he was apparently not trolling or vandalizing, but his contribution was still partial: why should someone highlight in such a way Muslims between all other religions, and even more taking into account the fact that this is not a Muslim city?...It is obviously partial, not trolling but not really honest either. Anyways, that source was just a study, not official data. I put the official statistical data of 2018, the most recent you can get, which disclaim that study. The "pie" of 2016 was just an estimation and it is outdated by the most recent data too.--Springpfühler (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia
I think in the future, if you want to undid a revision, its better to not start being rude as Go get a life like there -> Portuguese language or being a perfectionist. I might have an anonym profile, but I prefer not to use my name or whatever, since I am not very active on Wikipedia, ok?

On Sardinia, you are saying that I am trolling because I changed China to PRC, while PRC is the short term of People's Republic of China. I don't think it is called trolling like you wrote.

Also, your rude behaviour is more noticeable by your previous edits and from now. The next time stop being rude, or I report someone, because you can hurt people's feelings and the Go get a life was the final nail in the coffin to me. (2A02:1811:8415:CA00:F404:BC92:93C1:B263) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a02:1811:8415:ca00:f5ef:97ae:8b46:68fb (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated disruptions
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

First of all, when someone reverts your edit, you are not allowed to redo to without having established consensus. Second, your way of addressing other users need to improve significantly. You have already been warned several times in the past both for your edit warring and incivility. You have until tomorrow to revert your edit of Gibraltar. Failure to do will lead to motion that you be banned from Wikipedia. Your endless edit warring across articles really needs to end. Jeppiz (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is YOUR way to addressing other which needs to be improved. There is no "edit warring", that is something only you are seeing, I just correct information that ist obviously FALSE. Moreover, what should I honestly care about if you block me from Wikipedia?! I use it, like, once every two months or even less, I am not living here like other people...And even if you block me, if I just want I will always come back to edit from another account. You are talking like if it was "espionage" or something, be serious, please. No te hagás el canchero - if you really know Spanish, you know what I mean, otherwise auf Deutsch, gib nicht an, bitte schön. If you prefere another language, just say it. The information as it was written was false, I corrected it as it is supposed to be. In Gibraltar, Spanish may be a "significant language", but NOT a "significant minority" (moreover, a language cannot ever be a "significant minority", elementary...). Springpfühler (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Miroslav Stevanović
Hi there @Springpfühler! How are you? '''I AM NOT HERE TO FIGHT! I AM HERE TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOG!''' Hahah. Look, just like my edit in the article itself, firstly Republika Srpska did not exist when Miroslav was born. And plus, every footballer from Bosnia, no matter if he is from RS or not, has an identification of either Bosnian or Bosnian Serb if he see's himself like that. Not one player who is from RS, that I know of at least, has in his wiki article written "from Republika Srpska...". Not one politician from RS has it, not one person from RS has it, it really is not needed, even many Serb editors said it's not needed. Ognjen Vranješ doesn't have it, Stojan Vranješ doesn't, Rade Krunić doesn't, Jadranko Bogičević doesn't, Gojko Cimirot doesn't, politicians like Milorad Dodik even don't, Željka Cvijanović doesn't, Draško Stanivuković doesn't etc. They have Bosnian Serb as they see themselves like that. Bogić Bogićević is BOSNIAN, though he is Serb and though the town he was born in, Ugljevik is now in RS, he see's himself as a sole Bosnian. Hell, Jovan Divjak is from Belgrade (btw. beautiful city where I have, personally, many SERB/IAN friends), and he is Bosnian. It really all depends. It's just that not ONE article of a person whose birth place is in present-day RS, that I know of, says that they are a Bosnian/Serbian person from RS, belive me please when I say, it really is not needed, and frankly, my opinion only, too political.

you are from a no country, a fake one, gypsy land, you are gypsy king, ti si CIGAN i tvoja majka takođe, she's being jebela in your gypsy camp, poorest country shame of Europe, you are just fake Serbs and fake Croats, shameful, u have NO dignity, TI SI GOVNO. – this is just bad manners and stereotyping which I am not a fan of. I doo understant that the anonymous person is at fault, but you shouldn't go down to their level. You can actually get reported and banned for hate and bad speech if you're not careful. The anonymous person too.

P.S.

''You know you are a liar if you write that he's Bosnian. If you are from Sarajevo, you must know it - unless if you are all dominated by your fanatism and ideology, but the truth is the truth, you can't change it even if you lie. He's Serb from Zvornik, Republika Srpska, at the border with Serbia. That is NOT Bosnia and he is NOT Bosnian. You should know what is Bosnia and what is Srpska. I am not even from Balkan and I know it! Your hate for Serbia makes you blind, but you won't ever change it.''

Is this directed at me, or? If so, then:

1. That IS Bosnia as RS is in Bosnia and Zvornik is in Bosnia. RS is an entity which is one part of the RECOGNISED country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like the Federation is a part and just like Brčko District is a part, at the end of the day, they all are Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is just a fact. The That is NOT Bosnia quote you said is just plain nationalistic and I urge you to not be like that.

2. My true and honest likeness for Serbia makes me a rich, non-nationalistic person as I love every person of all colour and religion who is a GOOD guy. Of course I don't, for example, like Radovan Karadžić because we know who he is and his past, but then of course I like Bogić Bogićević who is a good, fair and humble guy. For example, just like I don't like Bakir Izetbegović, I do respect and personally admire the late Zoran Đinđić. I sincerely hope, for your well being, that you understand, recognize, acknowledge and respect that. Cheers! Bakir123 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, well, I don't think I have ever written to you, but now I am not sure. What I am sure is that I wrote to an ANONIMOUS guy and I just answered to his offences (and stereotypes, too), so yeah, I know someone can be banned, but then he first, and all of his IP addressess.

Well, I am not so expert of Serbo/Bosnian history to know all names you mentioned. I know maybe one or two. When I said that Srpska is not Bosnia, I meant that is not Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is the other entity of the country. That's what I meant. Yes, BiH is recognized, but Republika Srpska is recognized too. Then, me too I know that, as a geographical or maybe historical connotation, Republika Srpska is also Bosnia. The issue is a bit complicated. The same, when I said that he is not "plain Bosnian", I meant he is not just Bosnian, like, Bosnian from the Federation, or Bosnian Muslim, but on the contrary he is Bosnian Serb. There is, of course, NO reason to hide it, and the anonimous person who wanted to hide it is just a silly fanatic, as he proved he is. Then, me too I know that he is Bosnian in the meaning "from the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina", clear, but wait,...that is already written at the very beginning of the article, look, SECOND line:..."who plays for...the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team". So, no doubts: if we write that he plays for Bosnia, we ARE writing that he is Bosnian in the meaning "from Bosnia and Herzegovina". Nobody is hiding it. The only thing that was being hidden is that he is a Serb. And that is not right.

I don't live in the Balkans, but I live in Vienna, one city that is "famous" among your people because there are really many of them here, so that is why me too I went to know them and to learn a bit of their language and culture. Plus, I was in the Balkans a few times, but always short stays. Your people still call themselves "Yugos" here, regardless of where they come from, and the language just "naš jezik". The say "pričamo na našem", or something similar. Austrian people officially call the language BKS (Bosnisch-Kroatisch-Serbisch in alphabetical order), then some people prefere Serbo-Kroatisch if they mean the entire language. I can say that Serbs born in RS feel just Serbs like anyone else, then I don't know how it happened that Miroslav Stevanović came to play for Bosnia, but I remember that Savo Milošević was also born in Bijeljina, present-day Republika Srpska, and was a symbolic player of Serbia. The same now Luka Jović, one of the most famous Serbian players now, born in Loznica, Serbia, but his family is from Batar, just across tre Drina, see here: https://sport.blic.rs/fudbal/evropski-hit-luka-jovic-za-blicsport-roditelji-su-dali-i-poslednji-dinar-da-bih-uspeo/l983nsx Stevanović was born just a couple of km to the South, and Zvornik has also a Mali Zvornik in Serbia, beyond the river. So, honestly I don't see any difference, they are all Serbs, one, Milošević, born in Republika Srpska, then played in Serbia (Partizan) and for the Yugoslavian and Serbian national football teams (102 caps totally, Serbian record I guess); the other one, Jović, born in Serbia, family from Republika Srpska, played in Serbia (Red Star) and for all levels of Serbian national team starting from the under 16; and the last one, Stevanović, born in Republika Srpska, played in Serbia (Vojvodina and Palić) and for the Bosnian national team. You see, the only difference between them is that the last one (much less famous than the others indeed) plays for the Bosnian national team and not for the Serbian one.

I don't know how many more ethnic Serbs there are that play for Bosnia, I really have no idea. Just now I had a look at the statistics of Bosnia football team and I saw that the third all-time scorer, Zvjezdan Misimović, was born in Munich in a "Yugo" family and his parents were Serbs, he's also Orthodox and his favourite team was Red Star, see: https://www.rts.rs/page/sport/sr/story/36/Fudbal/1175158/Misimovi%C4%87%3A+Zvezda+za+kraj!.html

Maybe there are way more Serbs than Croats who played for the Bosnian national team, I am not sure, but I have never heard of any Croat. What I can say is that people I met here in Vienna, if they are Serb, let's say, from Banja Luka, they normally said to me that they were Bosnian, but Bosnian Serbs. All of them can also receive the Serbian citizenship automatically. On the contrary, the Croats I met from Herzegovina, they never said to me they were Bosnian Croats, never, and not even Herzegovinians. They always introduced themselves as "Croats" and that was it. Cheers Springpfühler (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Of course there were Croats as well. Former ones like Blaž Slišković, Tomislav Piplica, Romeo Mitrović, legendary captain Sergej Barbarez. There are also current ones like Toni Šunjić, Branimir Cipetić, Stjepan Lončar, Luka Menalo and so on. The Bosnian national team really was and still is a mix of players of all nationalities. And the only reason why I maybe even wouldn't put Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat as a lead in someone's article is the fact that they chose to play and represent Bosnia and Herzegovina which pretty much just makes them Bosnian. I gave you great examples of both ethnicly Serbs and Croats playing for Bosnia and their lead saying they are only Bosnian. Even you gave a great example of Zvjezdan Misimović, a legend of the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team. And yes many players born in Bosnia chose to play for other national teams. Again, a great example of your's, Savo Milošević,then Dejan Lovren and so on. Jović was born in Loznica, Serbia, but was raised in Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina as far as I know. I do get your points of course, but I belive that mine also makes sense. :D Bakir123 (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sve u redu, sve jasno xD I didn't know about all that Croatian players because I do not follow football sooo deeply, but of course I heard of some of them, like Sergej Barbarez, just I had no idea that he was Croat or from Herzegovina. So, I don't know, maybe it is just a matter of opportunities, maybe if they see a big chance in playing for Croatia or Serbia they would, but if not, they would also with Bosnia. Maybe it is just the same as, say, some children of immigrant parents all around Europe sometimes choose to play for the country where they grew up, sometimes for the country of their parents. It would be for me interesting to know what those players from Herzegovina who play for Bosnia really feel, if Croats, Herzegovinians, Bosnians, or what else. I don't know deeply either Republika Srpska nor Herzegovina, I just drove through Srpska and I noticed Serbian flags and cyrillic writings, and that's it. In Herzegovina, I visited some villages beyond Mostar, like Čitluk and Međugorje, and I noticed there were just Croatian flags all around, it was impossible to find a Bosnian flag. Then I asked some (young) people where they were from, and they said "Croatia". Then I asked, "but from Croatia?", and they answered "no, from here"...So... Cheers Springpfühler (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You childish reverting the edits will not change the truth ; ) 1) you can't ever block me, because I can edit from multiple IP addresses, if I only want 2) you are obsessed with me, whereas I don't give a damn about you 3) you can turn your accusations of "racism" to yourself or to your hypocrite Swedish country 4) there was no "racism" at all in what I wrote, I got offended and insulted first, then I just ansewered. That's it. Now you can revert this one too ; ) Springpfühler (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Your personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruption has led to this block. If you are here to work on this project, you need to figure out how to collaborate with others and refrain from edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not stop using this page to post lengthy rants, I will remove your access. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have been using your talk page to continue the dispute that led to your block, I have revoked your ability to edit it. You still have access to the WP:UTRS system if you wish to appeal this block. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)