Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 28 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Fossa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --CBD _☎ 12:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fossa, I cannot see any good reason for your removal of books by ACM protagnists in the Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines and I reverted the removals. If you disagree then please explain why at talk:Anti-Cult Movement. Please note that it is standard practice in Misplaced Pages that books about and by a certain movement or person or religious movement are listed. Thanks. Andries 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Three-revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

ROFL. A bit rich. This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44450594&oldid=44448723 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44602888&oldid=44565326 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44608299&oldid=44605598 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44618816&oldid=44609682

and then send me a warning.

Huh? The first edit is at 15:38 on the 19th and the third 16:04 on the 20th, fourth 17:44 on the 20th - How are they within 24 hours of each other? Maybe you should get your facts straight before making accusations Einstein. File:Glenstollery.gif 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the rule in its entirety: It says "close to 24 hours" and 27 Hours are "close" IMO. But let's not nitpick, the rule is stupid anyways: You or me or both of us create a sockpuppet and here we go. And you have an animated gif as signature! How cheesy is that?--Fossa 23:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you spell hypocrite?

• 16:16, 20 March 2006 Fossa
• 15:43, 20 March 2006 Fossa m (totally manual revert)
• 10:39, 20 March 2006 Fossa (Please don't mark content edits/reverts as minor; please justify your edits on the discussion page, just like I do)
• 15:10, 19 March 2006 Fossa (This is ridiculous: AF, WPX, Sol: Justify your reverts.)

66 minutes close enough to 24 hours for you? And calling me 'cheasy'?? Is that the best you can do? For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad... File:Glenstollery.gif 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I cannot see that I gave you a 3R warning, so where's the hypocrisy? And I didn't call you cheesy, but your signature. Fossa 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

**Ahem**, quote: "This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling" - I didn't claim you did violate it "Dr. Clam", I simply warned you that you were close (if you check the history on my talk page you'll see I also warned myself too)... unlike you who claimed that I actually did violate it... anyway I'm tired of this dialogue, see you next time you revert something you don't like about your cult. Queue "cheesy" sig: File:Glenstollery.gif 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You gave yourself a warning? ROTFL. Hail to the Cult of Misplaced Pages and hasta luego. Won't take long, I promise.--Fossa 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappriopriate edit summaries

Fossa, you used the following edit summary at Tilman Hausherr "Maintenance: This is is a test how long an unjustified revert will take.)" Your edit summary strikes me as if you edit Misplaced Pages in bad faith. We do not edit Misplaced Pages articles as a test. Please use the Misplaced Pages:sandbox as test ground. Thanks in advance. Andries 11:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell me, why I should not consider uncommented edits not justified at all on the Talk page as POV activism and thus bad faith? So I find it more polite to state my reasons, even in an admittedly sarcastic manner (what's wrong with sarcasm?), than just reverting without any comment. Note: I am not assuming bad faith out of the blue, but my edits are reverted on principle and my arguments on the Talk page are not taken up. Most reverters, like Stolley and Wikipediatrix have not made a single comment on my substative work, but at best made some ad hominem attacks.Fossa 11:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not recognize your edit summary as sarcasm. Please note that edit summaries are irreversible and should contain a neutral description and justification of an edit. It is not the place for sarcasm. I have less problems with sarcasm in the talk page. Andries 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Care to point out my alleged attack(s)? _{§τοʟĿ€ʀγč} 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Right here on this page: "Maybe you should get your facts straight before making accusations Einstein." "For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad." "Can you spell hypocrite?" "Dr. Clam" (emphases added). But that wasn't really my point, that's why I wrote "at best, not "at worst": Feel free to call me names, as long as you also address my substantive arguments.--Fossa 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious?! Calling someone a hypocrite after they assert you of doing something that they themselves are doing (like 4 reverts in "close to" 24 hours) is not an ad hominem attack! Look up ad hominem here on wiki will you... _{§τοĿĿ€Ŗγč} 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight, you seem to admit that three of the four examples that I gave were ad hominem attacks, but you contest "hypocrite". First of all: I don't trust Misplaced Pages on anything but hard science facts that are not too complex, so please don't refer me to a Misplaced Pages definition. At the moment of my writing, however, the definitional sentence in Misplaced Pages is reasonably accurate:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

Thus, even if I would have made a hypocritical argument, calling me rather than the argument "hypocritical" is ad hominem. But my argument, or better value-judgement, wasn't even hypocritical. Let's have a look, what hypocrisy is. Just for the heck of it and because Misplaced Pages is at the moment not egregiously wrong, here's Misplaced Pages's definition:

"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice."

So what was my argument? My argument was that I found it "rich", that you yourself violated the 3R rule (just as I did, a fact that I never disputed) and then gave me a warning to not violate the rule. "A bit rich" is of course an ill-defined colloquialism, a value-judgement akin to "ridiculous". At any rate that was a comment on your warning, and there is no judgement about my own behavior. --Fossa 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical can also means applying double standards. Andries 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would judge in dubio pro reo for "Misplaced Pages" in this case; it mentions that later in the article ("bias", however, is not hypocrisy). But again: Where is my double standard? Indeed, where is my standard? Well, you could reasonable infer that I have a standard like: "If one sends a 3RR warning to one's discussion opponent while being oneself in violation of that rule, one commits an act that qualifies as "a bit rich"." We don't have to discuss here, what "a bit rich" actually means, because I did not send a 3RR warning to Stollery at any time nor did I call for such a warning on an in my view unenforcable policy. (I did not know at the time that he gave himself a warning, which he -- in violation of Misplaced Pages vandalism policy BTW -- had removed w/i 3 hours of its posting.)--Fossa 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny you stopped quoting yourself halfway through your statement, you conveniently forgot the latter half which continued "...This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling". The emphasis on "DID" implies you did not. When I called you on a false accusation you stated "Read the rule in its entirety: It says "close to 24 hours" and 27 Hours are "close" IMO." - pointing out I did 4 reverts in 27 hours. However you did four reverts in 6 minutes over 25 hours over the same period, thereby you, by your own definition, DID violate the rule. Therefore by pointing the finger at me when guilty yourself, you are, a hypocrite. That is not a personal attack it is a verifiable fact. _{§τοĿĿ€Ŗγč} 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I was not aware that I also had broken the 3RR rule, my mistake. Now, how exactly does that make the application my standard spelled out above "hypocritical"?--Fossa 16:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Misplaced Pages:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do never divulge the names of the employers of critics of cults

Fossa, please do not divulge the name of the employers of critics of cults, nowhere in Misplaced Pages. See here for an example why this is wrong. The antagonism and even harassment between apostates and cult members is not confined to Scientology. Andries 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of blacklisted URL from your user page

Hey Fossa, I've removed the blacklisted URL redirect that you had on your user page. Misplaced Pages has that list for a reason (various reasons, actually, depending on the URL in question), and side-stepping the blacklist is not really acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

critics and opponents at cult apologist

The term cult apologist is used among others by Tilman Hausherr who is both described as a critic and an opponent with reputable source. user:Fossa was actively engaged in this discussion about Tilman Hausherr but he reverts the article cult apologist without explanation to a version removing the word critic. I do not understand this and I will revert back unless user:Fossa give a good reason for his revert. Please try to give a reason for this because without explanation your behavior on this article gives me good reason not to assume your good faith. Thanks Andries 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Reinhart Hummel

By the way, does the EZW use the term alternative religion? If not, what term do they use? I think the Reinhart Hummel article should use the terms that the EZW uses or terms by others to describe the EZW. I do not know how the term alternative religion is defined. (I do not like concepts without a clear definition). Andries 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Hummel uses the term, but I do think it's a fairly neutral term, that's why I use it ("emergent religions" is another of my favorite terms). The problem in all of social science is that concepts are usually not unambigiously defined. Fossa 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was somewhat shocked to read the "definition" of New Religious Movement on the German Misplaced Pages: it seems that an NRM does not have to be new nor religious. I can not accept this, because it diverges too much from my commen sense. As if a round red table does not have to be round or red. I think I will start using the good old word cult again which would in correspondence with my status and activities as a recriminating career apostate. Andries 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is manifold: There is no unanimous definition aof a "NRM" in social sciences, but most concepts indeed require a certain novelty. But once the concept has left academic discourse, it has acquired a meaning that is roughly correspondent to the English "cult" and the German "Sekte" (I would imagine it also be close Dutch the Dutch "Sekte"). HTH, Fossa 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Seka

Regarding this, you are right. I had no idea what I was reverting to! I was involved in this by one side of the revert war, and aimed to sort it out via a source. That's why I did the revert, and as you see it worked (thanks to you)! :-) NikoSilver 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yap, I was maybe a little harsh as you nilly-willy reverted to a version by a Serbian nationalist. As you can see, he's not impressed by facts/sources (Seka's official website, which states that she was born in Zvornik) and keeps on Serbianizing her. Now, thanks to the brilliant 3RR rule, I am not even allowed to revert his unsourced nonsense. Fossa 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given Nex a short block for his first violation of the 3RR rule. Believe me, the rule is a good thing - it stops endless revert wars and forces users to talk about their differences. I encourage you to try and explain to him on the talk page the reasons that your sources prove your point. I know it can be hard, but its better in the long run.

Given that the changes were made breaking the 3RR, I've reverted them. --Robdurbar 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of state mottos

Hi Fossa! Thanks for helping out with the List of state mottos. Like you said, quite a few of the mottos listed are made up, though it isn't as bad as it used to be. Nonetheless, could you be more specific as to why you removed the mottos for Germany and Schleswig-Holstein? The articles in English and German give the same motto as the one that was listed (see Germany, de:Deutschland, Schleswig-Holstein, de:Schleswig-Holstein), and there was a reference for the German motto, showing that the German 2 Euro coins have the phrase Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit on the edge . This is also stated in the article German euro coins: "The edge lettering features the words "EINIGKEIT UND RECHT UND FREIHEIT" (Unity and Justice and Freedom), Germany's national motto and the beginning of Germany's national anthem." Is it the case that this phrase was added even though it is not official? If so, you might want to edit the main articles Germany and de:Deutschland to reflect that, as well as German euro coins. Cheers, Pruneau 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Landmark Education work

I believe that your very fair editing has been smeared on Landmark Education. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Landmark_Education#Removing_drive_by_vandalism_in_intro. It pains me to see balanced, intelligent editing treated with contempt. Wbroun 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but, frankly, I am used to such contempt, particularly in this field of inquiry( I mainly edit on the German Misplaced Pages, which lags about two years, so it's still somewhat more reasonable over there). These topics are dominated by activists from both sides of the ideological divide (there are more "critics" of such groups around than their members), and it is basically hopeless to advance a neutral, or social scientific, POV. Fossa_?! 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your statement proven to be untrue

You wrote at talk:cult apologist in response to me the following

"The way you use the term "critical information" here, only refers to negative criticism. Most self-declared cult critics actually do air only negative criticism. Try to find some positive criticism on any of the usual suspects sites: There is none."

What you wrote is untrue. Rick Ross' website contains statement that can be interpreted as positive. E. g. the following

"But reporter Tanya Datta did her job properly, and went far beneath the surface of magic tricks and gaudy tat. She found that Sai Baba bought the eternal gratitude of rural Indian villagers by paying for clean water supplies, and that he caused a massive hospital to be built, funded by one of his followers, Isaac Tigrett, who co-founded the Hard Rock Cafe chain."

Andries 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed you have "refuted" a statement that is clearly too strong to be sustained on the purely logical plain. In fact, you might even find the odd black Swan. The point is that, even in the sentence you quoted Sai Baba is criticized (negatively) for "having bought the gratitude". Fossa_?! 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vindication

Wow, I found your page through Sfacets user page. Great stuff. I just posted on your blog relatively anonymously (Wikicabalistan - hilarious).... I feel vindicated by the fact that other people see the truth behind the machine, so to speak...sorry to be so vague, but its so damn easy to incriminate yourself on here for eternity and generate enemies...like shadows in the dark waiting to pounce on you. But, one fascinating thing I've found on here is that the deeper you get in terms of brain-rupturing POV disputes and such, the more the deeper order of Truth you find, as long as you take things as projections of your Self- i.e. self-knowledge. Cheers.. Hamsacharya dan 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please don't vandalize. It makes you look like a fool and a petty child Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

This whole topic is a lot more complex than most people realise. A lot needs to be said; when I state that Serbs from Croatia speak Serbian I know precisely what I mean. Are you prepared to discuss this if I open a discussion on the talk page? Evlekis 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you're not here given that your last edit came about two hours ago. No fault of your own. I shall revert to my version and explain my reasons on the talk page. Evlekis 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

THIRD THOUGHT. I have decided to leave it. Your actual version is fine. Yours says rightly that Croatian is spoken by most of its inhabitants which indeed it is: Croats make up about 90% of the structure, and Serbs plus other minorities, less than 5%; that accounts for the percentage who declare a national language other than Croatian. I agree with you totally that the remaining Serbs naturally speak every bit the same as their Croatian neighbours. The question is one of morality, calling their language Croatian, and calling the Croats' language in Serbia, Serbian. As I said, your heading doesn't need changing, you've done well; the rest of it, you and I can discuss on my talk page if you wish. Evlekis 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

JFTR: I call your language vas jezik or, in English, Serbo-Croat or B/C/M/S, because I do not conform with nationalist political correctness. Having said that, there are minor differences between Croatian and Serbian standards. A "Serb" who grew up in Croatia usually speaks more similar to "Croats" than to "Serbs" from Kragujevac. If s/he feels offended by calling the language/dialect "Croatian" that's his or her problem, not mine. Fossa_?! 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, "Vaš jezik" is perfectly all right in all cases. The factors which you fail to realise are more complicated than that. You said "a Serb from Croatia speaks more closely to Croats than Serbs", what is that supposed to mean? Serbs speak differently from one municipality to the next; Croatians also speak differently from one municipality to the next. Are all Croatians confined to Croatia? Like hell they are, they make up a quarter of of Bosnia & Herzegovina, and then you have another 80,000 in Serbia followed by some significant pockets of nationals in Romania and Hungary. Then there are the removed Croatians of Burgenland, Slovenia, and Macedonia; then above that, you have other nations accross the field whom centralised Croats claim are Croatian, though the population itself is either uncertain, or is identifying by another national name. I won't name the last groups because we are not discussing ethnicity, so to be safe, let us look at the people who positively identify as Croats. In Zagreb, they speak their own way, and in Split, they speak their way. There are many differences, but if you walk from one city to the other, in any silly direction, stopping in every village where there are Croats, you'll see that the speech gradually changes gently (as does the traditional costume, music etc). Now when you walk accross the Croat-Bosnian border, this continuum doesn't stop, the differences continue, and continue, and even as you get into Serbia, they continuously change gradually. For a moment, just forget the existence of the Serbs. For Vojvodina Croats to speak this Ekavian language which you consider Serbian, there is no requirement for Serbian people to be present, or even born; it would still be the same, because it is linked to the other dialects with no abrupt frontier. What they are speaking in all these places is a perpetually evolving Slavic language which has been passed down to every generation by his ancestor. Why the Orthodox majority of Novi Sad call themselves Serbian is their own business. Now language by nature, evolves to suit the speakers, and the Croats in every territory they occupy, speak their own language, a Slavic language as we said. To this end, the same is of the Serbs; from Belgrade to Niš, the differences are without number, and then creating a triangle into Knin from both previously mentioned towns, you have the same prolonged proximity, thus the speech of the Knin Serbs is connected to all other Serbian dialects via a dense line of closely related dialects gradually changing as they move farther away. So, just as Croats inhabit a large geographical area where each speaks the language which he has developed and not adopted, that zone is also inhabited by other nations who, though not Croat, are still Slavic, and are in turn speaking a perpetually evolving Slavic language. Thus, the local speech of a Serb in Knin, Kotor or Prijedor is also the local speech of the Croat or Bosniak sharing the same town. Now if a Hungarian were to speak the Slavic language local to, let's say Osijek, his situation is different; whilst identifying as Hungarian and speaking the local Slavic tongue, he will have had to abandon or forget an active language spoken all around him which is not similar to Croatian. But for Croatian Serbs and Serbian Croats, it is not the same; the Serbs have abandoned no language in Knin, and they do not speak one form to other Serbs and another to Croats, they have only one language which is theirs because - even if the original 16th settlers then spoke something different to their neighbours, how different could it have been if it were linked by a continuum and the evolution of both local registers would have resulted in a single dialect within one generation; you pick up my habits, I develop yours, something impossible for Hungarian or Italian. So, Serbs from Croatia sounding more like Croats is nonsense! They speak more like the Croats around them, yes! But what about the Croats of Serbia? If what they speak is Serbian just because they are outnumbered then what the Hell constitutes Serbian and Croatian anyway? How can you say that one man is more Croatian than another? Is it because he lives in Croatia when the other is in Serbia? But if the Croats originate from Serbia, and yet continue to identify as Croats with every passing generation, might this not be a sign that they would prefer to see their region in Croatia instead? Equally, if another crisis occurred and Croatia ended up losing Dubrovnik to a Greater Montenegro, would its Croatians 100 years down the line still be more Croat than those in Srem, now entirely joined to Srijem? Naturally not. So this is not the case with Serbs either. Official standard language. Now it may happen that a Serb wishing to prosper as a journalist in Croatia, would have to excel in the standard language of Croatia first, and he may also choose to speak this language in every day life. I believe that Croatia's standard language is based in Dubrovnik, and that is something very different from Eastern Slavonian, based in a region from where a Serb could realisticly originate. Just remember, standard languages are only stylised arrangements, largely artificial; usually based in one area which disenfranchises the rest of the linguistic community (why should their dialect be chosen when ours has been developing for centuiries as well?); or compilations of various speech forms and blocks of vocabulary drawn from a wider region, in which case, nobody truely speaks it. Croatian and Serbian are both based in simple areas, but include vocabulary from their wider regions, a half-way measure (baring in mind that eventually, less than 10% of any linguistic community fully speak their standard language 100% of the time); cruel, but necessary since where there are cultural-ethnic-linguistic continua, standard language can often be the only marker of identity. But remember! Croatian is only the name of this Dubrovnik based stylised guide devised to unite the Croatian nation; in the end of the day, standard languages as we know them only date back three or four centuries, and none have been stable. Before one be agreed upon, it is necessary than eveyone everywhere is in place, all doing their own thing, so that the architects can begin to build on their project (ie. standard Hungarian could not have been devised by a Canadian living in the Alsace among French and German speakers), and even if Croatia was once upon a time, populated entirely by pure-blooded Croats with no interference from outside (something the Ustashe tried to promote), their place would still be affected by the neighbouring Serbs because where Croats would end, Serbs would begin, and all speaking Slavic languages, the border regions would be closer to each other than their own people's dialects farther away (examples include: Spanish/French; French/Italian; Swedish/Norwegian; Latvian/Lithuanian; Czech/Slovak/Polish; Polish/Ukrainain/Belarussian; German/Dutch; Serbian/Macedonian/Bulgarian; and Croatian/Slovenian). My point is that the Serbs of Croatia, just like the Croats of Serbia for Serbian, all form a part of the operational matrix which is "the standard language", take out their presence, and the whole ship goes off the rails, the Croatia which you grew to know would discontinue. Go back in time and stop the Serbs arriving, and your language today would be something unlike what it is now. And just as a Knin-based Serb has to make changes from his everyday speech to talk the national standard language, so does his neighbour who speaks the same language as him, the Knin-Croat: he too will have to make changes to adopt the standard language. So how do you tell who speaks which language? The same as when dictating ethnicity; via the census. Serbs, no matter where and how, claim to speak Serbian. Some actually do opt for the national language, but others, and I know some in Macedonia - speak the standard language of the country: I cannot call his language Macedonian because he is Serb, and what he speaks is as much his as mine, and radical Serbs view my homeland as being traditionally Serbian anyhow, so if they're Serb in Bujanovac, they're Serb in Bitola too (not my words, theirs). As I said earlier, the language of the Serbs in Macedonia (who never moved south from Serbia) is the same as my cousin's, but my cousin is Macedonian because he wants to be Macedonian. Macedonian culture is born, a language is needed, it is created from a local base, but the radical Serbs claim that their presence predates those idelogies; I cannot dictate who is right and who is wrong. So your language is the one you choose; Hungarian is isolated, therefore, nobody matter how far afield who speaks a Magyar descended dialect speaks anything else other than "a dialect of Hungarian", and from what I've learned, that could be more different from standard Hungarian than all South Slavic languages put together; my point being, his nationality stays the same but his language becomes very different, and still, it is universally called Hungarian; by himself, by Hungraians, and by the rest of the world. So he who says he is Serb speaks Serbian: Glazba has a Slavic root and suffix, Serbian is derived from Slavic. If it were adopted for Croatian, then it wasn't previously being used by them either. It would be ridiculous for a Serb to state that his word "glazba" is slang, borrowed from a fellow Slavic language, ultimately derived from Slavic itself whilst his actual word "muzika" has its roots in Greek! End. Evlekis 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cult apologist. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smee 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware that you are fluent in Wikispeak, as are you that I deliberately deleted that (unencyclopedic) "content". Fossa_?! 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't give no silly barnstars, but...

thanks for periodic interjections of sanity! I don;t usually point to my posts, but in this case, I admit I do crack myself up sometimes...the whole thing is too funny. Cheers. BabyDweezil 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons.2FNoticeboard

Yippeee! --Justanother 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on User:Antaeus Feldspar

Hi. Since you are somewhat involved in this by having been accused of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard by User:Antaeus Feldspar, it is appropriate that I let you know about it and invite your comments. While I have requested that the "usual suspects" refrain from commenting, you are directly involved and implicated by the charges of WP:PA by User:Antaeus Feldspar that figure into the incident. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks_and_disruption_of_noticeboards_by_User:Antaeus_Feldspar Thanks. --Justanother 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)