User talk:Roberta F.

Please mind WP:3RR on article Neo-nazism.You have broken the rule already. Thanks. Respos 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Roberta, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Neo-Nazism and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. When you return, please discuss your differences on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I note you corrected my entry for KOSIR - if you are interested in the Billhook (english) please contact me.. Thanks, Bob (UK) aka BillhooksUK

Purodha on hr:wiki

Hi, Purodha. I'm Roberta F., bureaucrat from Croatian wikipedia. If you want me to grant bot status to your bot, please make a request on this page. :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request is at hr:Wikipedija:Botovi#Purbo_T. Thank you for your hint and for your assistance. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot status on hr:wiki granted. :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for setting the bot flag so quickly :-))) --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motovun image

Hi, I've seen you've included a picture taken from flickr in the Motovun Film Festival article. Pictures in infoboxes usually have captions to explain what is shown in the picture, please include some description. Thanks :-) Timbouctou (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Slavic languages

Calling a good editor a "vandal" for cleaning up a dreadful article suggests you are not editing in good faith. Please take any points you have to the talk page, but don't revert to a barely legible version of the article. kwami (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't unsourced either - I added the reference to a standard academic textbook on the Slavic languages. Your edit also wiped out an interwiki link, and reintroduced numerous spelling and grammatical errors. It's an easy mistake to make, but please take more care in reviewing edits, and avoid wholesale block reverts where possible. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me there is no good editor per se, but only good and verifiable sources, do not call on good editors, but on arguments and sources. Your edits regarding South Slavic languages are actually original research. --Roberta F. (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"original research"? Please see directly above: "The edit wasn't unsourced either - I added the reference to a standard academic textbook on the Slavic languages". Here's the edit, sourced to Roland Sussex, The Slavic Languages, Cambridge University Press (2006). Knepflerle (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's scientific opinion against.
Miro Kačić, first director of the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics.
He opposed the grouping of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian into a diasystem, because in his opinion the application of the term "diasystem" to a language is very questionable. He gave the following argument: "The question is, how to determine the language as a "diasystem"? It would be easy to put all Slavic languages into the category of a diasystem (it is only a matter of criterium), so it could easily be said: Slavic language as diasystem etc". Source: Hrvatski jezik Miro Kačić: Zašto hrvatski ne može nikako biti hrvatskosrpski (excerpt from the book Jezikoslovna promišljanja, Pergamena, Zagreb, 2001., ISBN 953-6576-12-2.
This might help. Kubura (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prozivanje

Da si procitala znala bi: iako se u drugim stvarima sa tobom ne slazem, slazem se da se u njegovom slucaju radi o originalnom istrazivanju kao sto si ti iznad navela. Imas mozda jos pitanja? --WizardOfOz (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dobar je :) --WizardOfOz (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na hr:wiki ne znam da se dogodilo trajno blokiranje prijavljenog suradnika bez ijednog upozorenja, jesi sigurna? :) --WizardOfOz (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Možda sam pogriješila, ali navela sam konkretan slučaj i ako imaš za usporedbu ovakvu blokadu s još uvijek praznom stranicom za razgovor bez ijedne riječi upućene prijavljenome suradniku s prihvatljivim suradničkim imenom, bez prethodne povijesti neprihvatljivog suradničkog ponašanja (vandalizam, uznemiravanje, zloporaba više suradničkih računa...) i skretanja pozornosti u čemu griješi s ovakvim - 16:40, 23 April 2010 Opiaterein (Talk | contribs) blocked Sokac121 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled - logom blokiranja, slobodno iznesi primjedbu na stranici namijenjenoj za iznošenje primjedbi. Lijep pozdrav :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ne mogu je iznijeti jer sam jos uvijek trajno blokiran... bez upozorenja... a nemam se namjeru preko proxija uplicati u takve rasprave kakve se na toj stranici vode, jer me ne interesuju. :) --WizardOfOz (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian

Please do not place personal attacks, such as calling other editors psychotic, in article talk pages. Legitimate points can be made without attacking people. — kwami (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I attacking you? I'm asking you not to place attacks of other editors on talk pages.

Removing personal attacks is not vandalism. Please stop restoring them. If the author wants to make those points legitimately, he can. — kwami (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."... "Committing vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia you should revert these changes; you may also warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them." Sorry, but this is a vandalism. And please, do not attack me (No personal attacks). Have a Nice Day --Roberta F. (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Um, perhaps you didn't review what you were doing? You're accusing me of attacking you because I asked you not to place personal attacks on talk pages? — kwami (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami, what are you talking about? Where do you see that I wrote something about "psychotic"? --Roberta F. (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted edits which contained personal attacks, from an editor with a history of such edits; you restored them and accused me of vandalism. I didn't mean that you wrote it, but you did put it back on the page. — kwami (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.

I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block. This will happen even if the incivility is in response to incivility from another editor. The appropriate response to that is to complain, not to respond in kind. I intend to apply this to everybody involved. According to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions, editors can only be blocked if they have been notified of the sanctions. You can find a list of the editors who have been notified at WP:ARBMAC#Log of warnings. If I have missed anybody, please bring it to my intention. I am very serious about this. Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]