User talk:Davu.leon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:40, 13 September 2006 editChrisO~enwiki (talk \| contribs)43,032 edits == Kosovo again... ==← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:09, 14 September 2006 edit undoEv (talk \| contribs)13,000 editsm getting things ''right''Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Hi Davu... I'm afraid you're way off the mark in your comment on my talk page that "The idea that independence for Kosovo will set some sort of a precedent for other disputed territories is a regurgitation of Serbian Government propaganda, pure and simple." Not at all; it's a Russian issue, not a Serbian one. The Russians have been hinting for months that they don't see any difference in principle between Kosovo and disputed territories in the former Soviet Union. Putin's gone on the record just today to say exactly this, and has said that Russia may veto an agreement on Kosovo if it doesn't like what it sees. (See ). Don't read this as a definite statement of intent, by the way. It's likely that Putin is seeking to use Kosovo as leverage to persuade the West to commit to holding some kind of final status talks for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. -- ] 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)		Hi Davu... I'm afraid you're way off the mark in your comment on my talk page that "The idea that independence for Kosovo will set some sort of a precedent for other disputed territories is a regurgitation of Serbian Government propaganda, pure and simple." Not at all; it's a Russian issue, not a Serbian one. The Russians have been hinting for months that they don't see any difference in principle between Kosovo and disputed territories in the former Soviet Union. Putin's gone on the record just today to say exactly this, and has said that Russia may veto an agreement on Kosovo if it doesn't like what it sees. (See ). Don't read this as a definite statement of intent, by the way. It's likely that Putin is seeking to use Kosovo as leverage to persuade the West to commit to holding some kind of final status talks for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. -- ] 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

			== getting things ''right'' ==

			Hello Davu. Your creative quoting worked just fine: my laugh was genuine. :-) Sometimes I will say "unnecessary" things that seem obvious to anyone, such as the meaning of Wales' phrase; I do it to help other potential readers who haven't followed the whole course of the exchange.

			In my talk page you pointed out the main problem of a wiki encyclopaedia: who determines what's ''right'', what is ''the truth''? The solution was to simply avoid the problem altogether, with the idea of "]". So, instead of actively describing a subject, we just passively reflect how most ] describe it, even if all those sources got its ] wrong. The rationale for this is explained in "]".

			Sometimes the experts who write our reliable sources are divided on a subject, and the proper way to reflect those conflicting views in a Misplaced Pages article could be difficult to find. But this is not the case of Kosovo's current status, on which our reliable sources are unanimous (see ]).

			The so-called "pro-Serb" editors in this article (including ChrisO) are very willing to discuss compromise, and have repeatedly done so, but only within the limits established by Misplaced Pages policies: using ] and ] sources, excluding ]. These principles should not be sacrificed to avoid hurting the sensibilities of Albanians, Serbs or any other group.

			If you read ] and ], or ], you'll find that it's been mostly the "pro-Albanians" who have consistently tried to present their personal views without providing any reliable source to back it. ChrisO is not being "pro-Serb", or "pro-anything" for that matter: he's simply upholding Misplaced Pages policies (the ones that every editor agrees to when creating an account).

			I'm Argentinian :-) but I'm not demanding to describe the ] as "a contested territory under British occupation", because that's not how the vast majority of reliable sources present the facts (and because of common sense).

			In fact, a good article, an article that accuratedly presents the current consensus of scholars or experts working on that particular topic '''should be offensive''' to those who profoundly dislike the current consensus. An article on the Falklands that makes Argentinian nationalists happy is most likely VERY wrong :-) Best regards. ] 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:09, 14 September 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Davu.leon, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 Misplaced Pages: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! Mieciu K 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

welcome

Dear Davu,

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! As a new editor you are more than welcome to make edits to all pages, although some articles might be locked for a few days after registration (like Kosovo maybe, I am not sure). Don't be afraid to edit articles, but in case of controversial subjects it is always wise to check the talk page first and discuss any major or prominent edits. Given your interest in Kosovo subject, you will probably encounter a lot of heated debates. Happy editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Davu

If you wish to make a statement with your views on the matter (for the arbitration purposes) please do so on the here ]. Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

You can also make a personal statement along with any evidence you want to put forward. Don't worry too much about the formatting as I will sort that out. I have been quite busy recently but I will present my case very soon. Hopefully other Editors who think the same as us will join us soon, as we don't want this admin-backed propaganda to misrepresent the reality.

Thanks again Tonycdp 09:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on Kosovo

Dear Davu,

I just wanted to point your attention to the recent Arbitration case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo) that opened on the Kosovo and related articles. You are not part of the arbitration, but since you have been editing the article's talk page recently and have been editing related articles (e.g. Kosovo War), you might want to read up on the Arbitration case (and, if you feel like that, give us your opinion). That way you also get an idea of what the problems have been in the past and you can consider those issues in your future edits and comments. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo again...

Hi Davu... I'm afraid you're way off the mark in your comment on my talk page that "The idea that independence for Kosovo will set some sort of a precedent for other disputed territories is a regurgitation of Serbian Government propaganda, pure and simple." Not at all; it's a Russian issue, not a Serbian one. The Russians have been hinting for months that they don't see any difference in principle between Kosovo and disputed territories in the former Soviet Union. Putin's gone on the record just today to say exactly this, and has said that Russia may veto an agreement on Kosovo if it doesn't like what it sees. (See ). Don't read this as a definite statement of intent, by the way. It's likely that Putin is seeking to use Kosovo as leverage to persuade the West to commit to holding some kind of final status talks for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. -- ChrisO 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

getting things right

Hello Davu. Your creative quoting worked just fine: my laugh was genuine. :-) Sometimes I will say "unnecessary" things that seem obvious to anyone, such as the meaning of Wales' phrase; I do it to help other potential readers who haven't followed the whole course of the exchange.

In my talk page you pointed out the main problem of a wiki encyclopaedia: who determines what's right, what is the truth? The solution was to simply avoid the problem altogether, with the idea of "Verifiability, not truth". So, instead of actively describing a subject, we just passively reflect how most reliable sources describe it, even if all those sources got its facts wrong. The rationale for this is explained in "Why original research is excluded".

Sometimes the experts who write our reliable sources are divided on a subject, and the proper way to reflect those conflicting views in a Misplaced Pages article could be difficult to find. But this is not the case of Kosovo's current status, on which our reliable sources are unanimous (see Talk:Kosovo/Sources).

The so-called "pro-Serb" editors in this article (including ChrisO) are very willing to discuss compromise, and have repeatedly done so, but only within the limits established by Misplaced Pages policies: using reliable and verifiable sources, excluding original research. These principles should not be sacrificed to avoid hurting the sensibilities of Albanians, Serbs or any other group.

If you read Talk:Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10, or Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, you'll find that it's been mostly the "pro-Albanians" who have consistently tried to present their personal views without providing any reliable source to back it. ChrisO is not being "pro-Serb", or "pro-anything" for that matter: he's simply upholding Misplaced Pages policies (the ones that every editor agrees to when creating an account).

I'm Argentinian :-) but I'm not demanding to describe the Falkland Islands as "a contested territory under British occupation", because that's not how the vast majority of reliable sources present the facts (and because of common sense).

In fact, a good article, an article that accuratedly presents the current consensus of scholars or experts working on that particular topic should be offensive to those who profoundly dislike the current consensus. An article on the Falklands that makes Argentinian nationalists happy is most likely VERY wrong :-) Best regards. Evv 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)