User talk:Buffer v2

Eastern Europe

Please, do not remove sourced material and do not call well grounded information a POV. I spent a good while digging for this. Pundit|utter 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you removed the following from the Eastern Europe article: Kazakhstan is considered part of Central Asia, with a small portion west of the Urals in Eastern Europe. The sentence as written makes note of your objection that Kazakhstan is more commonly considered a Central Asian country, but it also mentions the fact that PART of K is in the eastern portion of Europe. That is one definition of Eastern Europe, and any relevant data should remain in the article. Khajidha (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the material in question again, as on further examination the article is GEOPOLITICAL in nature. Geopolitically, Kazakhstan and the Caucasus nations are not considered Eastern Europe. If the article is to be redone in a more general nature the data should be reinstated.Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Europe

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780195148251 Opinion please? Ive been involved in enough disputes on the Central Europe article so will not add/delete any countries myself without getting some feedback. That's just one source that I ran into while looking for the encyclopedic links for the article, don't have time to do more digging at the moment though. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine as a source to me. Pundit|utter 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Ok, I will collect my evidence for the points I want to make and show them on discussion. Then we will see how that goes. Once again, thank you. Alokin|utter 24 May 2008 (UTC)

consensus

Hi, the rules are not mechanistic. In essence, the process is important. You can read more on that here, but in my view three of the votes may be considered out of the total number, as they bear resemblance to puppets (2 saying nay, 1 saying yes). 9 out of 13 is 69%, which is what is close to something commonly considered a consensus, but not sufficient e.g. in RFAs. Consider an RFC on geographical/political portals, perhaps? Pundit|utter 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You've been named as an involved party in a Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe. Your input is appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flora

If you think that the Central European phytogeographic region sholdn't be mentioned in the article Central Europe, than you must discuss it first. --Olahus (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More edit-warring at Central Europe

A heads up, as it were. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer, don't play with socks again. You'll get banned. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer, I know it was your sock, I waited any minute and guess you appeared very quickly. You give yourself away very easy. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regarding a decision in 3RR

Regardless of what the previous consensus was, edit-warring to restore it is not the correct way to go about things - it'll only raise the temperature and engender hostility. Instead, try to seek out uninvolved experienced editors for content disputes, or request assistance from administrators if there's an element of disruption. east.718 at 00:13, May 16, 2008

Number of Albanians

Albania 4.3 million

Kosovo (Kosovo, Preshevo, Bujanovc, Medvegja): 3.0 million

Macedonia .780 million

Montenegro .038 million

The figures above are for the immediate Albanian population in the Balkan region, I would respectfully request that you make this necessary change.

Furthermore, kosovo should not be indented under Serbia as Belgrade has not had any legal administrative jurisdiction over the territory in over 8 years; However, stating that it is not a UN member is fine, and as far sovereignty disputes... there are many countries out there that do not recognize one or the other.. stating that is just unnecessary.

Thanks,

User APNYC5

PRESHEVO & BUJANOVC ARE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN MOST TIP OF SERBIA, AND TO THE RIGHT OF KOSOVO. MEDVEGJA IS LOCATED NORTH EAST OF KOSOVO.

PRESHEVO, BUJANOVC, AND MEDVEGJA ARE THREE AREAS WHERE ALBANIANS ARE THE MAJORITY OVER THE 90 PECENTILE MARK... THESE THREE TERRITORIES WERE ORIGINALLY PART OF KOSOVO, AND HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF IT'S BORDERS AND INCLUDED IN SERBIA... KNOWN FACT.

• NOW TOGETHER WITH THE KOSOVO POPULATION MAKE UP ROUGHLY 3 MILLION IN TOTAL

THE ALBANIAN POPULATION CONSENSUS HAS BEEN RELEASED AND IS APPROXIMATELY 4.3MILLION MACEDONIA HAS 780,000 ALBANIANS MONTENEGRO HAS 38,000 ALBANIANS

4.3 + 3.0 + 0.780 + 0.038 = 8.118 MILLION

--APNYC5 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BY THE WAY, YOU DONT HAVE CITATIONS FOR THE OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT YOUR EXCLUSIVELY ASKING FOR A CITATION REGARDING ALBANIANS...AND THAT ISN'T BIASED? YOUR BASING YOUR SOURCES ON OTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGES WHICH CAN EASILY BE EDITED... SO IN ALL FAIRNESS CITE LEGITIMATE SOURCES FRO ALL THE ETHNICITIES IN TERMS OF POPULATION, AND MAKE THE CORRECTION TO REPRESENT 8.113 ALBANIANS, OR YOU DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION REGARDING POPULATIONS OF ALL THE ETHNICITIES. --APNYC5 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most consensus numbers for Bujanovac, Preshevo, and Medvegja/Medvedja are falsified purposely to conceal the true population of albanians there because in releasing and stating the true figures would contradict, undermine Serbia's territorial integrity, and legitimate rights to those territories in question.

I am not albanian, I have read an impressive amount about the whole Balkan region, and have taken trips there where I conducted several archeological, sociological, and psychological studies on the varying ethnicities, and their origins. My doctoral dissertation was on the region, so I think that I am more than justified in my statements, and requests for correction.

Furthermore, relative to Serbia's adoration, and patriotism over the orthadox churches in kosovo, those churches were Albanian Roman Catholic churches that were converted by force, this has been proven time and time again by many scholarls from ENGLAND, AUSTRIA, and GERMANY.

I am so far from biased buddy, I just want things to be placed in proper perspective on this page.

Thanks for your correspondence, and I really hope you do the right thing.

--APNYC5 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your basing statistics from other wikipedia articles that were edited by average people? or are you basing statistics released from biased factions/states, which have methods controlling numbers by labeling albanians as turks (who happen to have albanian last names), serbo-greek orthodox albanians as slavic/serbs? As far as small territory bizarre population???? are you kidding me... YOUR MR. ADMIN.... you control this article which is pretty sad considering that fact that your preventing people who are more knowledgeable, and credible... the whole purpose is for people to add incite into a perplexing region in Europe.

Your disputing something that is commonly manipulated to better suite a particular groups image... Your not being reasonable nor are you being ethical... AS FAR AS WIKIPEDIA POLICIES... THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS A SHAM WITH ALOT OF STATEMENTS THAT HAVE NO CITATIONS... SERIOUSLY WHAT A JOKE THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS... GET REAL, BE FAIR, AND CHANGE THE INFO... --APNYC5 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Balkans-political-map-small2.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Balkans-political-map-small2.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Balkans-political-map-small2.PNG

A tag has been placed on Image:Balkans-political-map-small2.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Balkans-political-map-small2.PNG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

puppies

hi, you know I have my doubts, too. But again - if the puppeter is clever enough to shuffle IPs, blocking these two will not do much, will it? The puppeter will just set up 5 different accounts... I'd rather focus on pinpointing each of the accounts behavior, while noting down evidence of puppetry (self-supporting, editing immediately after each other, same focus, etc.) - the more user uses puppets, the more it is evident. The less a user uses puppets, the less we need to do anything. Pundit|utter 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pozdrav

Mozes li mi poslati tvoj e-mail? Hteo bih nesto da te pitam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PERA SEGEDINAC (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian nationalists.

So you finally met my nationalistic compatriots (Olahus). You will have to be tough, cause they will bring you to exasperation. Good luck. AKoan (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable are the statements like "hope you don't, because in this case it might be a proove of antiziganism" coming from users like Olahus:) Anyway, I'm not an easy pushover, either. AKoan (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Ottawa (POV)

Hi i noticed that you placed a POV label in the reputation section of the university of ottawa. Im inclined to agree with you on this, but i think it would be helpful if you contributed to the talk page about why you think it doesnt fit and doesnt remain neutral. The reason ive said this is that on more than one occasion i (and others) have tried to get ceratin parts of the repuation which are trivial or just manipulated to make the school sound better removed, exactly POV, but reversions happen, and it is difficult on this page to make certain things stick or change, the more people who voice their opinions on this the better this articel is going to be. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi! Can you please participate in this discussion, regarding the terminology for the Romanies [1]? AKoan (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Canadian Ivy League

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Labattblueboy (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]