User talk:NOAH/Archive1

Answer

Yes, at one time the territory of today's Albania was in the Serbian Empire. Take a look:

--Еstavisti 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Račak incident

Hi Noah30, thank you for your note on my talk page. However, I was only reverting vandalism. I did not intend to become involved in the debate on this article. Regards, Accurizer 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, you're not disturbing me. You've laid out your case on the talk page today. I would suggest waiting a week and see if a discussion develops. Regards, Accurizer 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, {{wikify}} means to format the text as for any wikipedia article, boldening the title, adding headers, copyediting, etc. What is your point adding it to Racak incident article?!? Please have some rest and leave my talk page alone. If you actually want to learn how to properly archive yours, check the help pages. Asterion^talk 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have hated me since day one but the fact is that I do not understand why; how can you hate someone you have never seen. First you called me sock puppet, and now remove everything I do. Abuse of adminstrator authority. Calm down --Noah30 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noah, I do not know exactly what your problem is but I assume you have troubles assuming good faith. Around five months ago, I thought you could be a sockpuppet of Hipi Zhdripi, given your similar edit patterns and command of English. I was wrong and apologised to you at the time. This does not however excuse you making horrible accussations against me or insulting me in the way you have done on my talk page. If I were indeed "abusing my administrator privileges" that have been trusted to me by wikipedia community, I would have actually blocked you myself. It is not my intention to block you or have you blocked. It is for this reason I have reminded you of the ArbCom ruling and so on. If you want to carry on with disruption of the like of marking a properly formated article with a wikify tag to prove a point, it is up to you. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I have asked univolved editors at the neutrality project to have a look at the articles, including the titles. Hope this helps. Asterion^talk 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Massacre vs. Incident

I will be reverting the title of the Podujevo article to Podujevo massacre. Generally massacre is used for "individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense". As Racak is still unclear, this is why this is called "incident". Regarding Podujevo, I can not find anyone disputing the civilian nature of the victims, therefore I think that it is better to keep the original title. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have copyedited and wikified the Podujevo massacre article. Hope you are happy with the result. Please note that I think you made a mistake regarding Goran Stoparic, as he was not involved in the killings. He actually testified against the two Scorpions according to the CBC article. Regards, Asterion^talk 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also edited Gornje Obrinje massacre. Please note that the text needs to read "allegedly commited by Serbian forces" as no court case has been brought. Asterion^talk 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

of Kosovo or Kosova ?

Dear Noah30, regarding your edit at "Kosovo Liberation Army" , I find that instead of edit-warring in every single article containing certain names or words, the appropiate thing to do is discussing the issue in the main article dealing with that contentious name or word, and then, having solved the problem at its root, proceeding to modify all other articles in accordance to the result.

The same is valid to Wikipedia policies: instead of trying to edit articles in ways contradicting Wikipedia policies' you dislike, the correct thing is to attempt to change the policies themselves, and only after archieving that modify all articles accordingly. This includes, of course, the current policy on following common English usage.

So, if you consider that in this specific case "of Kosova" should be used, let's talk about it at Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo. If discussion there leads to the page being moved to "of Kosova", I would help to modify all articles that mention this party in accordance to the page move :-)

But while that article remains in its current place (i.e. "of Kosovo"), in accordance to the two main ideas I mentioned at the beginning, I will continue to edit other articles to reflect current consensus on the issue (based on common English usage) and for consistency with that article. - Best regards, Evv 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) If you wish to respond to this comment, please do it in this talk page; I will see it.

You have to understand that the name of the party in English is Democratic Party of Kosova and we can not change this name. Do you understand what I am trying to say?--Noah30 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you that Thaçi choose to call it the "Democratic Party of Kosova" in English: I take your word that it is a clear verifiable fact. As such, this fact (i.e. that Albanian politicians use "of Kosova") should be included in the "Democratic Party of Kosovo" article, with a proper citation. But, in my understanding of WP:NC, for the purposes of article naming and usage throughout Wikipedia, common English usage (which appears to be "of Kosovo" - see here) trumps whatever name a foreign political party chooses for itself in English.

Of course, I could be wrong about this. If you think that "of Kosova" should be used you can always file a move request at WP:RM (to be discussed at Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo). If that request leads to the article being moved to "of Kosova", I will respect community consensus. - Best regards, Evv 08:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are totally wrong about the name on Democratic Party of Kosova. You or me can not change the name of a political subject, therefore edit the name to Democratic Party of Kosova. This is very logical.--Noah30 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We disagree :-) Anyway, if you wish to move the article from "of Kosovo" to "of Kosova", you'll find instructions on how to do it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a (possibly) controversial page move. If you have any question or need any assistance, I will be happy to help. - Best regards, Evv 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Evv what about helping me request move of the Democratic Party of Kosovo to D. P. of Kosova. I hope you will help me.--Noah30 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Sure :-) To be honest, I really believe that such a request would fail, because it would go against the current naming convention of following common English usage. The idea is that we as editors should restrict ourselves to merely reflect common English usage, and not actively "correct" what we may percieve as mistaken or unfair usages. As a clear example of this, see the result of the very recent move request at Talk:Ushak carpet.

As shown in Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo, common English usage appears to be "of Kosovo", and based on this I will oppose the move to "of Kosova"; but if you really want to go ahead with the move request I will do my best to help you organize it :-)

The required "paperwork" is fairly simple, consisting in adding the three templates mentioned in the WP:RM instructions, which in our case would mean:

In WP:RM, to inform about the move request:

{{subst:WP:RM|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|summary of the reason for move}}

In Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo (top of the page):

{{move|Democratic Party of Kosova}}

In Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo (bottom of the page):

{{subst:WP:RMtalk|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|reason for move}}

As you will notice during the previews, before saving the page, those templates generate all the standard WP:RM text and format.

Of course, what the above examples still lack is the important part, the reason for move: the explanation of why the move makes sense, and the demostration that it would comply with current Wikipedia policies (as stated before, it's with this last part where I see the biggest problem).

The reason for move could be given along these lines:

{{subst:WP:RMtalk|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|The party has adopted "Democratic Party of Kosova" as its official name in English (as proven in these links link, link, link and these books/articles/papers example, example, example). This official name is used in many English-language books and publications: book, book, book. Therefore, this is the name Wikipedia should use, and the one the readers would be better served by.}}

Did I correctly convey your view of the issue ? Of course, I don't agree with that opinion :-) and I believe that most editors will oppose it also. Does this look like what you had in mind ? Did I succeed in dissuading you of going ahead with the move request :-) ? - Best regards, Evv 10:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am still not shore if I am going to request move. --Noah30 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) In any case, you get the idea of how it works, facilitating any other controvertial move request you may want to carry on in the future.

As I said before, I believe that this specific move won't stand a chance while the underlying policy remains that of using common English usage instead of official names. What would be required is to modify the Wikipedia naming conventions first, and only then request the move according to the new policy. - Best regards, Evv 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic

You say that the Serbs in Kosovo used Latinic. That is neither correct nor relevant. The Serbs could have used Albanian and wrote it in cuniform if they so chose, what one does himself is private, what is official comes from the top, not half way down. The Latinic used on roadsigns in Kosovo is present all over Serbia. The old signs are based on Serbo-Croat which for its own reasons, favoured Latinic. The point is that even in Yugoslavia, Serbia regionally used Cyrillic for its own language, even when Serbo-Croat was the face of things outside. By this, I mean that the Serbian constitution was written in Cyrillic, and an article in it explicitly stated that Cyrillic was the official alphabet, with Latinic secondary, in reflection to Croatia where Latinic was primary, and Cyrillic secondary. I don't think that you have fully grasped the status of Kosovo even at its most powerful: the powers given to Kosovo as opposed to other parts of Serbia gave rights to the Albanians, namely an Albanian language administration. It did not affect the Serbian status regarding language and its people, it just gave privileges to the Albanians over certain issues. It was not full independence like what the Republic of Albania has, there came a point when pupils had to attend their school lessons in the national language (be it Serbo-Croat), and the privileges excerised by the Kosovar Albanian authorities were limited in that they adhered to the republic's constitution. Officialdom with regards language and alphabet is determined by state, and some states impose no official language or alphabet. Yugoslavia and Serbia were not examples of these; there is no clause which states that Cyrillic is the alphabet of all regions exlcuding Kosovo and Branicevo, whereby the language remains Serbian but official literature is only published in Latinic. Firstly, there has to be a reason why Latinic is being used: ie.Croats preferred it by the 19th century because they had used it for centuries before due to historical reasons; if a group of Serbs living in another territory had similar issues, then it would be an internal matter between local Serbs and Serbian administration. Kosovar Serbs were not an example of this. Albanians would not come into it, they control their language - Serbs control theirs. So, 1-The girl was born inside Serbia; 2-Any official publication in Serbia coming from the top (government, or town municipality) will have first published the literature in its own way, 3-Any additional languages or variations come next, here is where Albanian may or may not have come in. Equally, with Kosovo not controlled by Serbia now, there is a legally settled population who declare themselves Serb, and as such, by following Serbian principles, they use a language whose academy primarily uses Cyrillic. they don't have to use it if they don't want to. Then they don't have to declare themselves Serbs either, but they do, and Serbian is what it is and there is no place for Albanian argument between what constitutes Serbian and what other Serbs choose to do. It is between them. If it is easier for you, try to forget that you havn't seen Cyrillic in Kosovo, Serbs don't use it much any way; to be official, it doesn't have to be present, but then again, Serbian citizens from all over the country were issued with medical cards and all kinds of documents from the head of the relevant department, and anything governing Kosovars from Serbia, outside of Kosovo's autonomy but within Serbia's self-rule outside of the federation, would have only used the Serbian language and alphabet, and this was and still is Cyrillic. I won't go into it now but there are even more reasons that ones name should be written in Cyrillic if they are born in Serbia. Evlekis 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done Noah young man! I am quite happy to keep Jakupi's page as it is, simply with the word Cyrillic. If it keeps the peace, then that is fine; as for the Albanian name for Srbica, as I said before, I am more than happy to see two, even three names where they are relevant. Keep it up. Evlekis 09:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the message you wrote me was in the user page and not the talk page. I'll sort it out, don't worry. What you're saying about Milosevic and Cyrillic, I know, I am not arguing with that. He asserted Cyrillic and introduced a level of beaurocracy which wasn't recently seen. He did not however introduce Cyrillic as something new. Cyrillic has represented the Serbian language for centuries, and Serbian has been official for any Serbian administration whilst it has existed, as Kosovo has been a part of Serbia for all of the time in question. After Milosevic's changes, Cyrillic may have been present where Latinic Serbo-Croat had been previously, but even before that, Cyrillic was Serbia's official alphabet - even if you didn't see it anywhere. I said before, officialdom doesn't really mean a great deal. But what Milosevic did is totally irrelevant, as is the fact that you may not have noticed anything in Cyrillic in Kosovo. If it makes it easier for you, try to think of Cyrillic as only being ceremonial, which it is largely, confined to churches and government building entrances. But it is there, and it is constitutional, was and still is. The language of the Albanians however is Albanian, therefore they have no concern over what Serbs do with their language. There is no point you listing examples of what people have said, to prove your argument, you need a link to a site which expressly states something along the lines of "Serbian uses Cyrillic in Pcinja, Srem, Sumadija and Branicevo; but Latinic in Kosovo, Metohija, Zlatibor and Backa." You won't. The Serbian language is for the Serbian people. Jakupi is not Serbian, but she was born there, so somewhere on some official records, all be it on a Belgrade computer database, her name is written in Cyrillic and that is that. Evlekis 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC). No offence to you personally.

Peaceful Solution to naming in Cyrillic

I have found a better way to end this dispute over the names which should and should not be included in Cyrillic, particularly regarding non-Serbs born in Serbia before the break-up of Yugoslavia, which for the time being is just about everyone. Given that the izvods issued by the state were all in the name of Serbo-Croat, and that in turn blocked development from both Serbian and Croatian from prospering independently, it seems that this is where Serbian as a Cyrillic based alphabet lost out completely. Now it is a fact that when one is born inside a certain country, then the national language/s need/s to be reflected. If we say that the national language was Serbo-Croat and not Serbian, we can avoid using Cyrillic. However, we do need to put the Serbo-Croatian Latinic down. In the case of Jakupi and Adelina, they may just about escape this because their name spellings will not change, as the letters used will be the same in Serbo-Croat Latinic and Albanian. For those born before World War II, leave them for a moment until we can investigate it for accuracy. Happy with that? Evlekis 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quicky: the only example so far which I have amended after only yesterday adding Cyrillic is of the former speaker of the Assembly for Kosovo, Nexhat Daci. See now how it is, probably better. The problem is that I will have to do the same thing now for all non-Serbs born in Serbia, in keeping with a universal approach. You may know that I live in the UK, well in just a few hours time (22nd in the morning), I fly out for Belgrade, and go to the home region for a few days! So I hope it will be a good week. You have a good one too, don't vandalise too many pages! All the best. Evlekis 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tung

Flm që më njoftove Noah. Unë jam shumë i zënë me shkollë, por duke prapë do të përpiqem të luftoj kundër atyre terroristave. Ata edhe Skënderbeun vazhdimisht e quajnë grek, e pastaj edhe me të zezat e shkijeve, shqiptarëve iu ka dalë faqja e zezë në Wikipedia. Ndoshta duhet të drejtojmë një peticion diku më lart.--Albanian since Stone Age 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian

I refer to Talk:Illyrians. Sentence about Swedes was actually written by you, I only replaced the word Albanians with Swedes. You did not get offended, or did you? Hope not, but in case of yes then you must have been offended by your own sentence. Besides I have huge respect for Swedes and consider them to be a very innovative/ creative nation. Regards --Noah30 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings whatsoever! As I said before, the Swedes are not world's most polite people, which means that conversation Swede-to-Swede sometimes can be rude in a very sharp manner. I also saw that your claims about Albanian-Illyrian have some important sources, so even though I'm still inclined towards some Dacian descent, pinpointing the domination of the Illyrian theori is the correct solution according to Wikipedia policy. We're not proving anything else than that we can collaborate to make the worlds best encyclopedia for all times. Rursus 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs

It would be foolish to claim the number of Serbs in Kosovo never exceeded 200,000. Throughout the Communist period it was 200,000; 220,000; 270,000; 280,000; 290,000. Just before the war and during it it was 250,000-300,000. Before the Ottomans conducted mass removals (19th century and before), it was 300,000-400,000. --PaxEquilibrium 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit early, but thanks! :)

Well, if You count solely the people who nationally declare as Serbs, then yeah. But let me then correct you - the last one was 195,000 and not 190,000.

The difference is that I also count the 20,000-40,000 people that declared as Montenegrins across the Communist era. it is not just because they all considered themselves Serbs before 1945 (then I could simply, falsly and blatantly claim there is no Montenegrin nation at all), but because after the 1990s they all consider themselves Serbs (all those who stayed, including the refugees). If you count across the censuses together, you'll get my figures (which represents reality). And yes, you should count the refugees from Bosnia and Croatia (before the war there were around 361,000 non-Albanians in Kosovo, and after the refugee transfers the number reached 462,000).

In the end, even the data You presented show that the number of, eh "proper" Serbs exceeded two hundred thousand. :)))

BTW I think the data alone shows the huge population losses ("exoduses") of Serbs from Kosovo during Communist era (the "hundreds of thousands"). Don't they? --PaxEquilibrium 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

---

But then again we must also keep on mind the the territory of Kos-Met changed and so did the demographic structure together with it. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Keep on mind that freedom of national expression was not present in Communist Yugoslavia. Also keep on mind that during Communist era 90% of the population of Montenegro self-styled as Montenegrins (e.g. 350,000), but immediately after the fall of age-old Socialism, the percentage fell to 40%-43%, as 200,000 Montenegrins declared as Serbs. It appears (now) that the Communist Party from Podgorica endorsed a brutal policy of assimilation, in which a person (regardless of faith, nationality or anything), had do declare by the name of their respective republic. This is otherwise seen through the arrest of the Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Littoral and through the destruction of Montenegro's symbol (which was also a "symbol of Serbdom") by the Communists. In the end, the current self-determination of people is what should finally matter. For example if Montenegrins strangely vanish re-melting into Serbs, of course we would count all people across the globe that throughout history identified as Montenegrins - Serbs.

We should keep to reality, not relying on censuses; especially in places like Communist states where that freedom is absent. For example, did You know that the Roms are the second largest national minority in Serbia after the Albanians? Prepare to hear how many people declared as Roms at the last (2002) population census (that didn't include Kosovo): barely a hundred thousand people. And the real figure for the Roms in Serbia is 800,000 (a figure unimaginably far away, even if Kosovar Romanies are counted).

Well of course. All the reasons You mentioned are some of the many reasons why hundreds of thousands of Serbs left Kosovo throughout the Communist era. Why mention it if I don't disagree? :)

Depends how back you go before the war. Before the Balkan wars and ottoman expulsions, yeah; Serbs numbered that much (or slightly over 300,000 as I said). That's not 25%, but two-thirds. I think You have misread what I wrote. I wrote that there were 361,000 non-Albanians before the war, and 462,000 non-Albanians after Milosevic's transfers of refugees. Did I clear it up? Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium 16:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

...and considering that by then a lot of Albanians have already become war refugees, the 462,000 non-Albanians made not much below a third of Kosovo's population. --PaxEquilibrium 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add an example: over at the Montenegrins article we list all the Montenegrins that self-style as Serbs (and a lot more Montenegrins see themselves [at least now, again] as Serbs, rather than Montenegrins). On Bosniaks you will see all people who self-identify as "Muslims" included. And when Serbs are noted in general, all Montenegrins are almost in all cases included (and in cases Gorans [Muslims in Kosovo] too) - such is the example about Kosovo I noted to You. --PaxEquilibrium 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah, when I say "before the Balkan Wars", I could be referring to 3,000 BCE.

No one says hundreds of thousands were eve killed in Kosovo (except if you don't count 1,000 years together) and hundreds of thousands did flee (regardless the cause); even you yourself stated so in your last post. It cannot be propaganda.

Do not generalize "Serbs...justify...crimes committed by them" (but denying that they happened is not nice). But yes, the Serbian Radical Party uses it to justify that. --PaxEquilibrium 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't know Albania was a part of medieval Serbia? But that's one of the moments cherished by both Serbs and Albanians because of huge common agreements and mutual collaboration... --PaxEquilibrium 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have anything against them but have never heard about any Serb in Albania, yes some montegrins but not Serbs

Read what I wrote above. Before 1945 they were all Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, NOAH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --PaxEquilibrium 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Hi Noah, regarding your message to FPS, removing edits in the way you described is not an act of vandalism, it's simple content dispute. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning. Miskin 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am new here but thank you for info--Noah30 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I have to find something special to award you too.--Albanian since Stone Age 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovar(i)

Tung Noah30,

Se pari, ju faleminderit shume per yllin me te cilin me kishe shperblyer ne faqen time. Eshte ylli im i pare dhe u jam shume mirenjohes.

Une i bera ato redaktimet per te cilat me ke shkruar ne faqen time, por te kisha keshilluar te mos merzitesh shume. Une jam semi-aktiv ne Wikipedia qe disa vite dhe e kam kuptuar qe ka shume "badihavgji" (a e kupton kete fjale?) ne bote dhe nuk ia vlen te lodhesh shume per redaktime sepse heret apo vone ato do te adresohen. Kryesorja eshte qe ne po fitojme ne realitet, e ky sukses heret a vone do te reflektohet edhe ne Wikipedia, domosdoshmerisht.

Me erdh mire qe me the qe te "duhet me lexu" e te kisha keshillu qe te perqendrohesh ne lexim, shkollim e edukim sepse ajo eshte paresore. Une per vete jam duke e kryer doktoraten e ketu redaktoj vetem kur dua te c'lodhem edhe t'i nguxi serbet apo adhuruesit e tyre. Nese nuk te pengon, desha te pyes se prej nga je, ku po jeton edhe cka po studion/punon?

Nje shprehje e vjeter angleze i perputhet shume mire Wikipedias, sidomos armiqve tane:

• You can lie all the people some of the time.
• You can lie some of the people all the time.
• But you cannot lie all the people all the time.

E verteta gjithmone fiton. Me te mira, Kosovar 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC

Hey!

Thanks…;-) --MaGioZal 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to then when you were denying the genocide committed in Kosovo, Albania in 1941-1945 against local Serbs, Roms, Jews and other "non-aryan" races. But in the end, I know that you had no bad faith there. ;)

Yes of course; you can always count on my help.

"My" revisionist Serbs? I assure you, I don't possess any Serbs in my pocket. ;D

BTW, sorry for replying here instead of on my talk page as you specifically requested. I like to be direct.

Cheers and all the best in the weekend for you!!! --PaxEquilibrium 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Albanian

Could you please translate posts written in Albanian on User_talk:Kosovar's talk page? Thank you. --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I remember you saying that you need my help translating something.

Well, I'm here. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW this is not a minor edit (m). Major content changes/expansions/deletions do not fold under minor edits.

Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah, what is wrong??? --PaxEquilibrium 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Noah, please drop me an e-mail so that I can send you a URL - thanks! -- ChrisO 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I could swear you told me you really, really needed my translation help on something. Oh well.

Also, could you please translate those messages I asked you before? Wikipedia prohibits that. You're allowed to write only and solely in English and have to provide translations to English if you write in any other language. So could you please...? --PaxEquilibrium 12:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's OK. ;)

BTW you should present exact translation right below your corresponding post (word-by-word). Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Albanophobia. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An AfD tag links to a discussion page where reasoning (or in this case a reference to similar reasoning being applied to multiple articles) is provided. Removing the AfD tag will NOT stop the discussion anyway. If you keep removing it, you will end up getting blocked for disruptive edits. You can freely remove {{prod}} or {{db}} tags with reasoning, but NOT AfD tags (except {{db}} tags on articles you have created yourself). This is covered on WP:AFD. Instead of trying to remove the tag, please participate in the discussion here since you obviously feel strongly about this topic. -17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Asgjë Sikur Dielli

A tag has been placed on Asgjë Sikur Dielli, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. tomasz. 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gazeta express.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gazeta express.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Serb/Alb Phobia

Why did you vote strong keep on the Albanophobia request and then neutral (but claiming that you'll vote delete if the others get deleted)??? And most of all, why did you hold against other Users for doing the same???

Don't get me wrong, but I've got a terrible picture 'bout this... --PaxEquilibrium 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation?

Noah, why don't you supply the required translations from Albanian to English when I nicely ask you?

Wikipedia's rules bound you to do so. Is there anything you should hide in those texts??? --PaxEquilibrium 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea you're not so good in English. Please accept my apologies.

I will find another Albanian Wikipedian to supplement the translation. Cheers.

P.S. Those aren't just ridiculous messages. Those are Wikipedia's rules. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Albanophobia

Accusing other editors of being part of an anti-ethnic conspiracy is incivil and may constitute a personal attack against those editors. If you have a problem with the way the deletion debate was closed, go to deletion review. However, (anything)phobia and anti-(anything) articles are generally frowned upon to begin with. --Coredesat 22:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

AFDs are handled on a case-by-case basis, so one admin might close an AFD differently than another one would. The Serbophobia AFD had been closed by the time I got to the Albanophobia one, so there wasn't anything I could do about it. --Coredesat 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I responded in my talk page. - Regards, Ev 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow

- - Listen, you can call me whatever you want. You won't sully the article. Go check out Kosova2008's talk page as well, and BalkanFever's talk page before you revert me again. Thanks. And please look at those talk pages BEFORE you revert me again. Thanks, again. Beam 13:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

edits on the Kosovo article

Dear Noah30, as I am sure you are aware of, the Kosovo article is (and, even more so in the past) very contentious. So, in the interest of avoiding edit wars, please consult other editors on the Talk page before making any larger or potentially controversial edits to the article. SincerelyOsli73 00:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, I'm sure that you realize that the edit you are proposing is controversial, regardless of what source you are using. Given that the source is from the website of a Canadian freelance writer and Albanian language linguist (rather than historian) not affiliated with any university who's published works mainly related to Albanian literature I would say that he is not a good source on Albanian/Kosovar history. As for the edit as such, using terms like "final solution" are not NPOV. I suggest that you find additional sources and rewrite the text and post for discussion/comments on the Talk page. Osli73 12:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, take a look at my rewrite of the text. In my opinion, the rest of the history section needs some work as well, especially with regards to style and composition as well as sources. If you are interested it would be good if we could cooperate on this. CheersOsli73 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, comments on your entry on my Talk page:

1. I don't believe that my edits are "biased towards Serbs". I'm trying to stick to the presentation made in the sources which I mentioned (BBC, etc.).
2. I didn't add the Kruja quote. Someone else added it before I became involved in the article. I simply adjusted it's position in the article. However, regardless of whether it's a fabrication or not, I don't think it warrents specific mention in the article and should be removed. See my point on below.
3. I'm sure Cubrilovic suggested some very nasty things, just as Kruja and lots of other people did. Instead of including quotes (included mainly, I suspect, to show 'the other side' in as bad a light as possible) I think the text should describe the policies and events as they are described by reliable and reasonably unbiased sources, such as the BBC.
4. I don't see how could find the fact-tags to be 'biased' in any way. I added them to all kinds of statements which I believed needed to be verified/referenced. Both those concerning abuses of Albanians and Serbs. Please read it again (link to my edits).
5. It would be very good if you could help me in finding good on-line sources on the history of Kosovo which we could all agree on to base the article on. I think adding quotes from prime sources risks turning into endless discussions about WP:POV.

Happy MidsummerOsli73 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Leonora.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leonora.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kosovo_stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kosovo_stamp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Placenames in Kosovo

Hello Noah30. My apologies for not replying sooner, but I had not edited Wikipedia for the past week, except for giving a minor reply at the Reference Desk.

You mentioned: I see that you are interested in name issues and would like to know what is the WP policy for city names.

The placenames we use in articles of the English Wikipedia are based on our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names, using English & settlements.

In short, these policies and guidelines ask us to follow common English usage; that is, to use the same names the majority of English-language publications, books, magazines, news organizations, and even normal speakers use when referring to the subject in question.

There are two main reasons for choosing this common English usage approach over other possibilities (be it "local names" or "official names"):

• First, because these are the names the greatest part of our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize, thus making our articles easier to understand and more predictable.
  Remember also that the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
• Second, because of all the problems that would derive from having to decide what the "local" or "official" name is. Who decides it ? What would an objective criterion be ? How fair or biased can such decisions be ?
  Take some time to think about it, and you will understand that what may seem fair to you, would probably be extremely biased for others, and vice versa. It's basically the same problem that led to the idea of verifiability, not truth (in this case, common English usage, not "official or local one").

We restrict ourselves to reflect what our reliable sources state, and do not declare what the truth is. — In very much the same manner, Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

So, for the specific purposes of name usage in the English Wikipedia, the language and usages of the population of Kosovo, Serbia or Brazil are mostly irrelevant. Local usage only becomes important as a tie-breaker of sorts when there's no common English usage at all. This is not often the case of Kosovo-related articles, for there was a significant amount of English-language literature and printed material on it even before 1999, and there is much, much more since 1999.

For a number of historical reasons, the English language has adopted the Serbo-Croatian forms. We merely restrict ourselves to reflect this usage. Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of the Albanian names by the English language.

Of course, I can imagine that Kosovo's declaration of independence may well induce a change in English usages, with the Serbo-Croatian names being phased out and the Albanian ones adopted. If/when that happens, the English Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before.

The use of diacritics is a different matter: On this issue there is no agreement yet among Wikipedia editors, and thus no clearly established guidelines, with the issue being decided on a case by case basis.

• Some editors think that diacritics should never be used, because they don't exist in what we may call the "English alphabet" and because they cause some technical difficulties when doing web searches.
• Others see diacritics as just another case where the core criterion of common English usage applies: diacritics should be used only if they constitute the usual, standard spelling in English-language publications.
• And yet others (like me) think that, given the technical limitations of an "English alphabet" that doesn't have them, the use of diacritics by a minority of highly reliable sources is enough to justify it's use in Wikipedia as "a more perfectionist and educative way to display the name" (just as Britannica and the National Geographic Magazine do in the case of Priština).

But, as you can see, the issue is not clear-cut.

In any case, remember that the reason many of us have for using or not diacritics is not related to taking sides on a ethno-political conflict, but is based on our perception of how Wikipedia's readers are best served: as I mentioned before, I think that diacritics are "a more perfectionist and educative way to display a name".

For the purposes of an encyclopedic article, I prefer to use "Priština" over "Pristina" for the same reasons I prefer to use "Hashim Thaçi" over "Hashim Thaci", and "çiftelia" over "ciftelia".

You mentioned: I feel we are using wrong names on Kosovar cities and I am very suspect this is happening due to the large number of Serb wikipedians and low number of Albanian wikipedians.

This is not the case. We use the names our current naming conventions call for, and we use them to better serve our English-speaking readership by providing information in a manner they will find easier to understand.

I hope this long post helps to clarify the situation. If you have any other doubts, don't hesitate to ask me. Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I as a newbie

I am new and hesitate to get involved in a dispute without asking a more experienced person. I was looking for Kosovo and saw the discussion there. I would appreciate your opinion about the recent splitting vs. merging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Split_completed

I think merging was better but before I get involved there I would like to hear what you say as you are from there and know things better. --Gooddriver (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Please, do not add the POV tag without discussing the reason of its presence on the talk page--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo (revisited for you and me)

Hey buddy, I know we've had this conversation before (in response your comment on Hashim Thaci) and we did reach a concensus. I have stuck by my guns dear friend, I am not the one who has been reintroducing Cyrillic. I have done what you and I both agreed which is give Serbo-Croat instead of Serbian, so that only Latinic will suffice. You keep talking about Kosovo after 1990 as though the clouds parted and Kosovo entered a new phase, as though pre-1990 Kosovo and its traits stretched back eight and a half millennia. But it was newer than you think, the special status Kosovo's authorities enjoyed up to 1989/90 only went back to 1974. Before that, Metohija formed a part of its title and the central language (Serbian or Serbo-Croat) had a bigger more important presence. It's not my fault that Kosovo's authorities used their powers to create a void between Albanian and Slavic society within Kosovo by raising the importance of Albanian and lowering the significance of the central language. The problem has been that people have been wiping out the Serbo-Croat name of the articles, thinking that Kosovo (or Kosova as they will say) was above Belgrade. Kosovo 1974-90 was no different to Vojvodina 1974-90, and yet ethnic Hungarians have their names in Serbian. That is Serbian NOT Serbo-Croat, meaning Cyrillic, such as Magdolna Rúzsa. More to the point, this girl was born within the 1974-1990 period, and has more to do with Hungary than Serbia, not much different from Peter Leko. If you click the link, you'll see he is the same. It causes no problems that their Serbian name is given even though Hungarians had exactly the same status in Vojvodina as Albanians in Kosovo at exactly the same times as well. Beautiful Zavod documents will have been no different in Vojvodina, and so if Cyrillic is redundant in Kosovo, then in Vojvodina for non-Serbs too. To keep peace, we have played on a technicality so as to omit Cyrillic in Kosovo, by only stating Serbo-Croat which was indeed the central language name. But this is you and I. Others don't grasp it; Kosovar Albanians don't distiguish one from the other, and just see the presence of any Slavic language as an infringement by people from the former Yugoslavia; Serbs use a counter-argument to Serbo-Croat Latinic by stating that the pronominal language had two scripts and its very mentioning warrants the requirement for Cyrillic. Across Wikipedia there are thousands of names given in multiple languages and scripts based on the article's relevance to the language group, and birthplace ranks among the top reasons for giving one's name in the central tongue. There has to be something. Now I will try to repel the addition of Cyrillic based on its non-presence in Kosovo against the Serbian delegates if you also agree to convince Albanian editors and sympathisers about the importance of having one form of central language name form (that being Serbo-Croat in Latinic only), I can't be any fairer than that. If we don't help keep the status quo, then both of us will get dragged in to later uglier and more damaging related disputes on WP, on opposing sides. I certainly wouldn't want this, we had enough problems on the battlegrounds and we won't export them to WP!!! Fair? Evlekis (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Prishtina

Take a look at the new article for the University of Prishtina. I am trying to clean out the mess from University of Pristina. The Serbian-language institution should have a separate page if at all.--Getoar (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's completely fine. But so the others know that I am not canvassing, I've let people of other views know about the discussion and I've laid my proposals carefully so everyone could be included and contribute. I appreciated your intervention. People don’t seem to understand the situation. I think I know better since I was essentially raised in this university with students attending classes at my house during the 1990s. Have a good wikibreak!--Getoar (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah, shpresoj nuk më je hidhëruar, por për momentin jam duke e humbur luftën rreth UP-së. Fundja jam në gjendje të bëj kompromis rreth emrit (e di që nuk kanë të drejtë ta përdorin emrin UP, por kur jemi veç unë e ti që kemi haber në këtë punë kaq mund të arrijmë), vetëm për ta rikthyer versionin neutral për University of Prishtina and University of Pristina. Thjesht, unë jam me ty aty, por veç teje nuk po më mbështet askush tjetër. Po përpiqem të tregohem njeri i kompromiseve për të fituar në paraqitjen neutrale të UP-së si universiteti i 1970-ës, por deri tash krejt çka kam arritur është vendosja e kutisë ‘disputed’ në kokë të artikullit. Po them, kam frikë se mos po e marrin primatin përfundimisht e pastaj mbetemi me asgjë hiç. Hidhi një sy versionit që e kanë fshirë për kurrfarë arsye, veç pse është neutral dhe se Wikipedia duhet përfundimisht t'i shërbejë propagandës. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Prishtina&oldid=207226861--Getoar (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Flm shumë për sqarimin. I çmoj vërtet kontributet tuaja në faqen për Kosovën dhe përpjekjet e vazhdueshme për ta vënë në brazdë të paanshmërisë përmbajtjen e artikujve këtu. Mua ma mori mendja pse ke votuar kundër. Edhe mua do të më interesonte të kundërshtohej ajo dhe të kuptohej nga autorët e tjerë se unë po ofroj kompromis. Por, të them të drejtën po më duket se të gjithë po më injorojnë mua, por atë shkaun nuk e injorojnë, çka më bën edhe më shumë nervoz. Unë i kam ofruar arsyet pse UP-ja është e ligjshme dhe legjitime, ata madje as që thonë se i lexuam. Ai ka qenë kompromisi i fundit. Tash më 5 maj do të jem në Prishtinë dhe shkoj flas me universitetin e bëj zhurmë këtë punë e do të kërkoj materiale nga ata. Po të jetë nevoja nuk do të dorëzohem por do të bëj çmos sa të jem në Kosovë. UP madje ka edhe të drejtë ta padisë Wikipedian nëse nuk zgjidhet problemi, megjithëse për momentin ka gjasa që të kërkohet ndërmjetësim zyrtar brenda Wikipedias rreth artikullit.

Nejse, këtu vërtet jemi vënë edhe në një pozitë të vështirë nga vetë qeveria jonë që nuk bën zhurmë rreth keqpërdorimit të emrit të universitetit tonë publik, e natyrisht edhe nga UNMIK-u që siç duket veriun do ta shndërrojë në Shkini me zgjedhjet e majit. Po thonë vetëm zgjedhjet vendore nuk do të mbahen sepse Shkinia sipas atij dokumentit të pasmesnatës nuk ka të drejtë ta qeverisë Kosovën, por ato parlamentare do t'i zhvillojnë se sipas pafytyrësisë së tyre Kosova është pjesë e Shkinisë. E kështu thonë edhe shkijet këtu në Wikipedia e në fund të gjithë i besojnë se ka autorë e administratorë aq naivë sa që mendja nuk ta merr. Mua para disa kohëve më pati bllokuar një doktor i shkencave i shkolluar në Yale, paramendo. Çfarë injorance! Veç në pastë gënjyer se nuk po mendoj se aq poshtë po i qet njerëzit propaganda e shkijeve.

Suksese e me të mira! Do të doja t'ju njoh personalisht e do të gjejmë një mënyrë të kontaktojmë pra.--Getoar (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Hello

Hello Noah30. Don't worry, I've had stones thrown at me every week since Kosovo declared independence and so far they bothered me very little. I've checked the section you linked and indeed your concerns could've been given better regard there. Unfortunately I'm quite busy today, but I might well be dropping by later and provide my feedback. Regards, Húsönd 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

T'u rrittë ndera!

Faleminderit shumë për dekoratën. Jam tejet i nderuar!--Getoar (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Faleminderint shume per komentin. Une jeton ne Amerik per momentin. Edhe ti gjithashtu, kalofsh shume mire ne Republiken e Kosoves. Rroft Kosova Republik, Ari Kosova2008 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation

Uaurpations take a week. Andre (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-liberal

Who were you referring to? And why did you write in Albanian? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ask in hours, then make it 0.15. I am far from become fluent in Albanian, I can barely understand it. For details, refer to User_talk:Kosova2008#Re: Koment.

Tung. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it normally started as just curiosity. Multilinguistics opens up quite some doors, you know. And no, I am not anything like you think. ;) All my "connections" are limited solely to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and several international reporters (such as Maximiliano Herrera). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Well I have terrible difficulties understanding spoken French, but I absolutely master it in written. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam

You can remove whatever you want from your talk page. You don't have to call it spam you can call it "I hate beam and won't listen to reason", that way you can tell the apparent truth. :) Beam 13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

map

map

It's awaiting your comments. As am I. Beam 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Koment per Shokin

Faleminderit shume, shume suksese edhe fat te mire. Ariani Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK

OK, I'm sorry, it seemed a little inappropriate to me. Good luck.--Vitriden (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Flamuri

Noah,

Flamuri me të verdhë duhet të jetë në wikipedia se është ai që valon në ndërtesa të institucioneve, ndërsa ky me të artë është version alternativ (nuk e di nëse është zyrtar) për botime si në internet edhe ato të shtypurat. Përgjigje e shkurtër, por nuk kam shumë kohë. Me të mira!--Getoar (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republic of Macedonia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JdeJ (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, warning

Blocked 48 h for edit-warring on Republic of Macedonia.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)