| Revision as of 02:34, 20 February 2012 editCzarkoff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,494 editsm Cluebot appears to be clueless...← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:43, 20 February 2012 edit undoVanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf (talk | contribs)45,314 edits →3rd opinion: even for Misplaced PagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :Could you comment more on your 3rd opinion. You seem to have commpletely ignored my imput without giving any reason. <sup>'''] ]</sup> 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC) | :Could you comment more on your 3rd opinion. You seem to have commpletely ignored my imput without giving any reason. <sup>'''] ]</sup> 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Frankly, I ignored your input because it didn't hint me any rationale for deletion of content. The proper way to address the issue would be to note that sources you cite invalidate substantial part of Bible as basis of christian ethics. This is my opinion on this question; if you are not convinced (and it seems to be the case), you might want to bring the case to ], which may be a more appropriate mean of dispute resolution in this case. — ] (]) 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) | ::Frankly, I ignored your input because it didn't hint me any rationale for deletion of content. The proper way to address the issue would be to note that sources you cite invalidate substantial part of Bible as basis of christian ethics. This is my opinion on this question; if you are not convinced (and it seems to be the case), you might want to bring the case to ], which may be a more appropriate mean of dispute resolution in this case. — ] (]) 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :What do you call, Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas (2003). ''How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth''? The proper way to address the issue would for ''you'' to first understand]. Frankly, your opinion is completely arbitrary and worst I have seen in a long time even for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :I think I will try just stop editing Misplaced Pages. <sup>'''] ]</sup> 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | ==Please comment on ]== | ||
Revision as of 03:43, 20 February 2012
| This is Czarkoff's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
University of Pristina
 | If you came here to talk about University of Pristina article split, please comment in this thread. If your matter is related to another issue with the University of Pristina article, ex-Yugoslavia-related articles or whatever else, please start another thread. |
Hello. I just wanted to tell you that i will not agree on any non neutral situation regarding this split. Only bright new, 5+ uninvloved comments will count for me. Anything else would be poor, and unsatisfying. --WhiteWriter 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your concerns: both current propositions are neutral. Regarding my understanding of your motivation, I am pretty much surprised that you didn't feel comfortable with DS's proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, current propositions are ok, i just stated this regarding votes already in the talk page. Yours/ours proposition for RfC is great, and we are waiting new editors. Well, my only problem with that DS propositions is this: When we splited the Kosovo article, main question (and problem) was only one sentence. Who gets the "Kosovo" article? And best proposition was: "No one". It was agreed that "Subject of Kosovo article cannot and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" but it was also agreed that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Up to some aspects, its the same here. Who gets the "University of Pristina" article? Per this logic, only same names in domestic languages is really neutral, up to the end for me... But we will see what will happened. :)) --WhiteWriter 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I am sorry for complicating thing, but i completely lost good faith in several included editors, so i really cannot trust them to be neutral in this. We should not include ethnic profiling in this, but sometimes that is real problem. I am dealing with that problem for long years... Misplaced Pages can be strong political weapon, and only uninvolved editors will not create new weapons, but only good neutral encyclopedic article. --WhiteWriter 12:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- From my observations, you are pretty much wrong. Eg. ZjarriRrethues indeed tries hard to maintain the neutral point of view regarding the issue (though I won't say he's successful in his attempts, he at least deserves some respect for that), as can be seen from many articles with no hot discussions (see talk:Siege of Krujë (1466)/GA1 for example). Thus I would suggest you to stop commenting the discussion in a way revealing lack of good faith assumption on your side. Specifically given that such comments make the consensus less possible.
- And I would specifically discourage referring to the "Kosovo" article split this way, as a it implies the existence pro-Serbia and pro-Kosovo camps and your participation in one of them. This, in turn, would be a good reason to disqualify your vote for possible violation WP:NPOV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, and i am actually quite tired with this. I want to tell you that i withdrew from this split process, and i trust you to guide it as good as until now. Despite the Kosovo situation, i ma very sure that situation is the same here. None can assure me that, after both universities claim the same name, is the neutral for only one to have University of Pristina, while other is University of Pristina (Kosovska Mitrovica). My neutral pov is University of Pristina (Pristina), and University of Pristina (Kosovska Mitrovica). Equal to anyone. But that is me. Anyway, all best, and thanks for your fine views. --WhiteWriter 16:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I am sorry for complicating thing, but i completely lost good faith in several included editors, so i really cannot trust them to be neutral in this. We should not include ethnic profiling in this, but sometimes that is real problem. I am dealing with that problem for long years... Misplaced Pages can be strong political weapon, and only uninvolved editors will not create new weapons, but only good neutral encyclopedic article. --WhiteWriter 12:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, current propositions are ok, i just stated this regarding votes already in the talk page. Yours/ours proposition for RfC is great, and we are waiting new editors. Well, my only problem with that DS propositions is this: When we splited the Kosovo article, main question (and problem) was only one sentence. Who gets the "Kosovo" article? And best proposition was: "No one". It was agreed that "Subject of Kosovo article cannot and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" but it was also agreed that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Up to some aspects, its the same here. Who gets the "University of Pristina" article? Per this logic, only same names in domestic languages is really neutral, up to the end for me... But we will see what will happened. :)) --WhiteWriter 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:European Union
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Union. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
3rd opinion
- Could you comment more on your 3rd opinion. You seem to have commpletely ignored my imput without giving any reason. 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, I ignored your input because it didn't hint me any rationale for deletion of content. The proper way to address the issue would be to note that sources you cite invalidate substantial part of Bible as basis of christian ethics. This is my opinion on this question; if you are not convinced (and it seems to be the case), you might want to bring the case to Mediation Cabal, which may be a more appropriate mean of dispute resolution in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you call, Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas (2003). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth? The proper way to address the issue would for you to first understandbasic Misplaced Pages policies. Frankly, your opinion is completely arbitrary and worst I have seen in a long time even for Misplaced Pages.
- I think I will try just stop editing Misplaced Pages. 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of Columbo episodes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Columbo episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)