Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 20 April 2008

Archives

Archive 1

Blocked

If the behavior resumes, next time you may be topic banned for a long duration, or other remedy as any uninvolved administrator sees fit. Jehochman 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Getoar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

FYI, blocking my IP range has put down an entire university campus and if the block was lifted it would facilitate communication for my fellow students. I also want to express my indignation with your decision to charge me with canvassing without having assessed my messages. I have only informed others of the ongoing debates and that they could participate to make a change. After all, when it comes to Kosovo, I think that Misplaced Pages is only another stronghold of the Serbian propaganda, so I will not bother much to make changes that cannot change anything. I would suggest you read this ! Once again, my only concern is the block on my fellow students.--Getoar (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block on your fellow students is not your concern. They are free to request lifting of any autoblocks. — Yamla (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Additional notice

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is issued in view of your edits to Kosovo. It is in addition to the above block for inappropriate behaviour on your part, to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Jehochman 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian wikiproject

hey , when you get unblocked consider joining the Illyrian wikiproject , thanks --Cradel 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gulam of Albania

Why does this article say he was the "ruler of the Principality of Albania, presumably between 1253 and 1255" when the Principality of Albania article says it didn't even exist until 1914? --Closedmouth (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you should probably explain that in the article. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On moving pages

Hello, Getoar. It appears that you copied and pasted Template:History of Kosovo and Metohija to Template:History of Kosovo (diff. & diff.). Please do not move articles (or templates) by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, please be patient and follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you already, Ev (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to copying and pasting History of Kosovo and Metohija to History of Kosovo (diff. & diff.). - Ev (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The move was urgent and that's why I made such a change. --Getoar (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that R-41 was pretty bold when he did these moves, for I can't find any previous discussion on doing them. If I find nothing, I will make the moves, properly, back to "of Kosovo". Please, give me a little time while I continue searching.

By the way, I agree with you that "of Kosovo" is a much better name. - Regards, Ev (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By that I meant that, if no previous discussion was held to move the articles to "of Kosovo and Metohija", then there's no need for a formal discussion to move it back to "of Kosovo": it's just a matter of objecting to an unilateral move, moving back to the status quo ante ("of Kosovo"), and from there R-41 or any editor can make a proper move request to have the article at "of Kosovo and Metohija".

I'm still looking for any previous discussion on this. - Regards, Ev (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do I need to remove the discussion section from the talkpage?--Getoar (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything, so yes, remove the requested move discussion, please :-) I will move the article and its template back to "of Kosovo" after you remove it. I will reply on the issue of place-names immediately afterwards. - Regards, Ev (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I did remove it. Thank you!--Getoar (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it :-) I will fix all the redirects, and then get back to you on the issue of place-names. - Ev (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page. - Regards, Ev (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Placenames in Kosovo

First of all, my apologies for the lenght of this post. And expressing your thoughts on this issue to another editor, far from being canvassing, is exactly how we're supposed to work :-)

I had posted some extended comments on this issue at your talk page in February 23, 2008, so, I will basically reiterate them as answers to your comments at my talk page.

The placenames we use in articles of the English Misplaced Pages are regulated by 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 (which will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always), because those are the forms our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize.

So, for the specific purposes of name usage in the English Misplaced Pages, the language and usages of the population of Kosovo, Serbia or China are simply 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 the 1999 war, 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. Misplaced Pages is not a venue to advocate the adoption of the Albanian names by the English language.

Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We cannot declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

The names we use in the English Misplaced Pages will be modified only if English usage itself changes to something else, or if our current naming conventions are amended to "reflect local usage instead of English one". And I don't see this second option happening anytime soon.

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 Misplaced Pages should reflect that change, but not before.

So, in that light, in accordance to our current naming conventions, to answer clearly to your four points:

You said: First of all, I’d prefer Kosova (with the accent on the second syllable) because that’s how the overwhelming majority of the population says it (and not only Albanians). However, I am skeptical of a possible change on this aspect.

We're asked to follow common English usage, which in this case is clearly "Kosovo". The usages of the local population (be it the Albanian majority or the Serb, Ashkali, Turk or Roma minorities) are an interesting fact to mention in the article's body, but have no bearing whatsoever for the specific purposes of naming the article.

Also keep in mind that our naming conventions for geographic names state that "he same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article".

Of course, if at some future moment English usage changes from "Kosovo" to "Kosova" (as it changed from "Peking" to "Beijing"), then the English Misplaced Pages will reflect this change by renaming our articles accordingly. But only if/when that change happens, not before: until then we should stick with the usual, accepted, standard English spelling "Kosovo".

You said: Second, the name of capital should be Prishtina as it would reflect both the primary official usage and the English pronunciation/spelling (no English speaker gets it right the first time they see Pristina, but they get Prishtina).

First, we don't follow official spellings, but common English usage. Ukraine's government has made Kyiv the "official English spelling" of their capital, but our article is named "Kiev", because this form remains the common English usage. Likewise, our article is called "Burma", and not "Myanmar".

Second, we don't follow phonetic pronunciations, but common English usage; and English is not always phonetic anyway.

You said: In any case it should not be Priština with the diacritic.

About the use of diacritics there is no agreement yet among Misplaced Pages 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 the "English alphabet" and because they cause some technical difficulties when doing web searches.
• Others see diacritics as just another case where the core common English usage criterion 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

You said: Third, when it comes to towns like Skenderaj (Serbian: Srbica) and Drenas (Sr. Glogovac), one should note that the names have officially been changed just like in the case of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City). There are virtually no Serbs living in these towns and it’s unnecessary to use the Serbian names, given that they do not constitute any historical significance in the English language (like the case Germany vs. Deutschland). English speakers even adopted the change from Constantinople to Istanbul, despite the heavy use of the earlier name.

Again, we follow common English usage, which, in the case of Kosovo, for a number of historical reasons, is based on the Serbo-Croatian forms. In the cases of St. Petersburg, Ho Chi Minh City, Istanbul and Volgograd, English usage itself changed. In the case of Burma, it didn't (our article starts with "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar,..." and goes on to use "Burma" consistently throughout the article). In the coming months and years we'll see what happens with the placenames of Kosovo. (Personally, I believe that it will take a few years, but that eventually the Albanian forms will be adopted by the English language, except for "Kosova".)

You said: Fourth, many Misplaced Pages editors have told me that it is our aim to use the most frequent English names on all articles, but so far this rule has not been respected. E.g. Priština is less frequent than Prishtina and it is used on Misplaced Pages articles.

The form "Priština or Pristina" (not considering the diacritics) is the usual, accepted, standard English spelling. "Prishtina" is clearly not, at least for now.

As I mentioned above, the issue of diacritics is considered by some editors (like me) as a special one. I believe that our English-speaking readership is better served by having the diacritics. Others disagree, of course.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 said: The use of Serbian names over general English usages or the Albanian names as primary official ones is purely POV.

Using the official Albanian name is biased towards Albanians and against Serbians. Using the official Serbian name is biased towards Serbs and against Albanians.

At the same time, my personal opinion is that using official Albanian, Serbian or Turkish names instead of the ones commonly used in the English language would be biased towards the Albanians, Serbs or Turks and against English-speakers. It would mean prescribing what names should English-speakers use, declaring what an English usage should be.

However, merely reflecting a common English usage (with or without diacritics) that just happens to be based on the Serbo-Croatian names is not biased. Again, Misplaced Pages is descriptive of English usage. If English usage itself is percieved as biased by some minorities (be them Albanians, Serbs or Swedish), there's really not much we can do, if at all. You can never satisfy everyone.

Some Iranians consider the usual, accepted, standard English name "Shatt al-Arab" to be biased towards Arabs and against Iranians; they want to rename that article to "Arvandrud", the Persian name, which somehow at times they appear to consider the epitome of neutrality. All I can say to them is that we aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles, but that we aim to write them in English, for English-speakers and in accordance with English usages.

Hope this helps, at least a little :-) Again, I'm sorry for the lenght of this post. Best regards, Ev (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spellings of Kosovan born persons

Please leave any translations given for Kosovans born at any time between 1912 and 2008. The Serbo-Croat reflects the way their name was written in the official language of their country of birth. It is on this principle that we have the following: 1, 2, 3, 4. These are ethnic Hungarians from Serbia; but this stretches to Albanians too giving you 5 and 6. You may feel that official national language is irrelevant, but you need to bare some things in mind: repressive regimes have in the past gone further, and have all together forbidden their population from declaring an opponent nationality. Greece did this with its Macedononian Slav people; Bulgaria did this to its Turks, and Yugoslavia itself passed all Germans to the Hungarian population. The fact that Albanians were allowed to identify as such was a privilige, and any autonomy - symbolic or real - was a gift. Albanian did indeed become equal to the national language inside Kosovo, but never rose above it. Albanians were not exempt from the military, and centrally produced documentation (from Belgrade) did not use the Albanian spelling in the national language. Because of the nature of the Kosovan pre-1990 administration, we decided some time ago that we would make a concession specificly for Kosovan Albanians: as Cyrillic itself was hardly seen in Kosovo between 1974 and 1990, it was decided to use the official name of Serbo-Croat which can suffice in Latinic only, that explains Pagarusha as opposed to the Hungarians and Zana Nimani. This whole feature extends outside of Serbia, check other Albanians such as Arben Xhaferi (Macedonia). The information exists for the information of outsiders, and it is misleading to give Albanian-only versions for people born somewhere which was Yugoslavia, as can be checked by their date of birth. For now, the Serbo-Croat will stay in place. Evlekis (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

re: posting in "Kosovo" article discussion

Kosovo is not a country. It is neither part of Serbia nor independent nor part of "Ethnic Albania". It is an occupied international province. I had a far greater rant written out her, but it was too offensive even for my tastes so I deleted it. No reason for hard feelings.

Seriously though. I would like to know how you feel about the proposal to move the Serbian Orthodox monasteries out of Kosovo and into Serbia Gkmx (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing the legal authority of Russia and China as irrelevant due to them being "authoritarian" is not a valid argument. How can Russia and China possibly be more authoritarian than the largest (currently operating) empire in our world that pursues illegal military action wherever it damn well pleases. Don't even start to get into suggesting what constitutes a democratic nation and what does not. Democracy for the U.S. exists only at the local level (i.e. within its borders). There is no principle of equality among humans in U.S. foreign relations. I meant to ask you earlier the following: What kind of reaction do you believe would come from the Albanians in Kosovo to the aforementioned proposal (the transplantation of the monasteries)? I know it is not a serious proposal at this point, but I hope that will change.Gkmx (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Seems as though there's no point in my trying to alter your views regarding which nationality has the right to the property of the Serbian Orthodox Church (though I will respond). Spreading of democracy to individual nations is wonderful as you described. The problem lies within the relations of individual (democratic) states that do not treat one another in a democratic fashion (i.e. Violating rights of the nation). The Albanians in Kosovo enjoying demolishing monastic lands whereas the Serbians enjoy preserving them and worshiping in them. Naturally, the appropriate conclusion is that the monasteries remain in Kosovo where their presence is so desired. -That would be sarcasm. Since you indicated your nationality and suggested mine, I'll clarify it a bit - I too am an American. Also, I don't mean disrespect. I'd like to conclude with saying that I believe the self-determination of the Albanians in Kosovo is justified, however the means under which that self-determination is being brought about is the unjustifiable part. No hard feelings I hope.Gkmx (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to sincerely congratulate you on coming to the US for your education - certainly not an easy task as only the most promising students are chosen. What you say is not unreasonable regarding interpretation of international law. You wrote, "the free and democratic states we come to realize the correct interpretation of international laws". Where we differ is in our comprehension of what constitutes democracy and democratic behavior. I've stated what I believe to be democracy. This has been an enjoyable dialogue. Best of luck with your studies. Peace. Gkmx (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello. I am going through a list of redlinked categories and your userpage keeps popping up as a capitalization mistake. I was wondering if you would consider replacing {{user iso15924|IPA|5}} with {{user ipa-5}} or {{user iso15924|ipa|5}}. This will keep your user page from continually popping up on my list. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitution

Getoar, could you please go to Talk:Constitution of Kosovo and civilly tell me what POSSIBLY does that data have to do with the Constitution of Kosovo? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are doing a great job

Tung Getoar. Po beni një punë të mrekulueshme në artikullin për Univerzitetin e Prishtinës. Për fat të keq unë nuk do të kem mundësi të ndihmoj pasi që jam shumë i zënë por gjatë muajit qershor do të kthehem dhe atëheë do të mundem të ndihmoi. Prej muajsh kam pasur bindjen se artikulli për UP duhet të ndrysohej por përmbante aq shumë pasaktësi sa që nuk dija se ku të filloja. Shpresoj se do të gjeni një zgjidhje që e bënë këtë artikull objektiv dhe reflektues të realitetit. Në fund të dëshiroj punë të mbar këtu tek Misplaced Pages dhe të lutem mos e prano që të ketë artikull "Univeristy in Pristina" pasi që ndërkombëtarisht ai univerzitet është i njohur si "Univeristy in Mitrovica". E kam vendosur një lidhje që besoj do të ndihmon në argumentim dhe diskutim, por është pothuajse e kotë të diskutosh me disa nga editorët që kanë përqëllim dredhimin e të vërtetës dhe realiteti në artikujt që kanë të bëjnë me Kosovën. Shkrova në shqip dhe nëse ata do ta lexojnë do të bërtasin se kam thyer rregullat... Tung --Noah30 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-Newcomer

hi.I am new in Misplaced Pages and i ask if you can tell me how i can access the articles that need editing or even creation. thanksBbadree (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: University of Prishtina

Well done, and yes I think it can be part of the taskforce (wikiproject) -- Cradel 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

{{subst:Contentious topics/alert|topic=b}}

Your repeated deletions of the WikiProject Serbia template from Talk:University of Priština are unnecessary, disruptive and plainly motivated by nationalist sentiment, judging by your latest edit summary (). Please note that the scope of the WikiProject is "articles related to Serbia and Serbians" - the University of Pristina is quite clearly within its scope. Please cease disrupting the talk page by removing the template, or you may be blocked under the above-mentioned arbitration remedy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)