User talk:Mareklug/Archive2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe it is the section "Content disputes" and the Arbitration Committee's probation imposed on Kosovo-related articles, administered as part of the Macedonia/Balkan region probation. The recent edit revision history of the article I am requesting full page protection for, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, extends the editorial conflicts addressed on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Instead of blocking the page, you could block User:Tocino for deliberately introducing false information (e.g., he put in that 32 countries have officially rejected the independence of Kosovo while sourcing this claim and list of countries ostensibly with references, which on examination, reveal the claim to be false and the list of not-recognizing countries, padded with countries which took no such position -- for example, Morocco, Portugal, India have not acted officially to deny recognition; for Morocco, we don't even have any information as to its reaction, other than a press account labeling Morocco as "concerned"). Or, your could warn User:Tocino for repeated removal of neutral, inclusive of the opposing viewpoints map display, in favor of retaining only one of the maps. That contribution expressly censors the competing POV and removes the undisputed who-recognized-officially-only green/gray map used in the main article. But blocking User:Tocino would impair the ongoing RFC about the Wikipedia name use for Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. Merely warning, would keep the user editing, and there is a chance, that warned, he might come around to consensus, or at least, give up introducing false information and removing NPOV map documentation, since he has already recently been blocked for 24-hours for edit warring on this topic and acknowledged having been placed on probation. Alternatively, you could block from edits both him and me, but that would be entirely unfair to me, as I am working to keep the article, and in fact all of Wikipedia, factual and correctly sourced, free of POV, and I have not been disruptive. My edit history shows that my edits range all over the map. Here, by augmenting Serbian reaction section and introducing the Serbia's reaction article, I represented the Serbian viewpoint. I also took my map improvements to the talk page, and justified them there. And, once again, since you wrote back to me, User:Tocino reverted my corrections to his claims, restoring the 32 opposing countries texts, and reintroduced the one POV only map situation. User:Tocino described my earlier revert as vandalizm his edit summary. --Mareklug ^talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is too much for me to follow. Please use WP:RFPP, or if people have broken the 3RR, use WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Please advise.

Hello Mareklug. Well, I believe that your request at WP:RFPP might have been declined due to the fact that the edit war was just starting and there was thus insufficient information of a full scale edit war that would have surely resulted in full protection to the article (by the way, that's how we call it: we don't "block" articles, we "protect" them). If the edit war continues, then do relist your request at WP:RFPP. It will likely to be accepted. I also have to agree that you might have failed to control yourself sometimes, when in the face of your opponent Tocino. Edit warring is never a good choice, as it only worsens a dispute and can indeed grant blocks to both of you (although I think that a topic ban would be quite an unlikely/draconian measure, you're not causing that much trouble as far as I see). My suggestion is, when Tocino (or any other user) makes an edit that you strongly disagree with, refrain from reverting right away and instead, summon the other party to the talk page. Then two things may happen: either he joins the discussion so you can both argue your points of view, or he doesn't join the discussion and provides you with a good reason for requesting an administrator's intervention against his unilateral actions. I hope this helps. Best regards, Hús ö nd 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence

Hello Mareklug, By now you know that I have been banned from the talk pages of the Kosovo related articles. I was reading the Kosovo declaration article and realized that it states that Kosovos UDI was signed by 109 PM and rejected by minorities and serbs. This, however is not true since Kosovos assembly has 120 seats out of which 20 are reserved for minorities. Out of this 20, 10 for the serbs and 10 for the others. Other minorities did sign the declaration and that is evident from the transcript of the meeting. It is in Albanian, but all the way in the end one can read who signed and who was not present. Two names come to my mind. Mahir Yagcilar from one of the Turkish parties and Zylfi Merxha from one of the Roma parties, he represents other minorities as well in the G7+ parliamentary group. Obviously there are seven other minority representatives that signed and maybe someone who knows better the political scene could help out. Here is the transcript in PDF and also the link to the list with parties in Kosovo. http://www.assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/proc/trans_s_2008_02_17_al.pdf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Kosovo. Thanks you. I really appreciate your work here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence Jawohl (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jawohl. I hope your topic ban will be shortened, which Husond mentioned as a possibility, albeit left up to the imposing admin. As for the Albanian transcript, the annotation "Mungon!" means absent, and "Nuk është prezent!" means is not present; can't say why both phrases are used interchangably, for a total of 11. Of the 11, only one has a non-obviously Serbian patronymic/last name: "Ftoj deputetin e Kuvendit të Kosovës, Mursel Halili. Mungon!". Perhaps this representative also represented the Serbian minority? For now, I will assume the correctness of the Chicago Tribune account, and I will make the necessary factual change in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption and terms of the declaration of independence, sourcing it to the above transcript and to the Chicago Tribune source I used when identifying the absent 11 as representing the Serbian minority in the lead for International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. The presently used source in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption and terms of the declaration of independence that is used with the false statement you are writing about is sourced to a Finnish-language source, which makes it rather opaque as verifiability goes. Perhaps one of the Albanian-fluent editors can cast full light on this issue, identifying all minority parliamentarians who signed, by what minority they were elected to represent. --Mareklug ^talk 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what Mursim Halili is. He could be Gorani or was simply not able to attend for whatever reason. From what I understood so far, the 100 + 20 system, was put in place in order to motivate minorities to take part in the parliamentary life. If serbs would vote directly they would get additional 10 seats which are reserved for them. This "positive discrimination" should be the case also for the other minorities and is supposed to function until everyone participates in the institutions, meaning seats would be given per vote. As for the other minorities, they have all endorsed the declaration, except for the Gorani, which seem to be split (and maybe serb speaking Roma?). I have seen footage of Goranis celebrating the UDI on youtube but that is no evidence. One thing is clear. The other minorities have been used by both sides as a ball in this whole issue. The law in force does require that certain Ministries are run by certain minorities and this has been the case until today. There are Turkish, Bosniak and Serb Ministers or vice-ministers, who pursue their tasks. Of course the serb ministers officially do not cooperate and since the UDI, reports regarding their cooperation are rather conflicting.

As for the ban, I just wrote to Husond, that I am not interested to request a lift of my ban, since here, some individuals think that fighting others POV contributes more then offering additional sources. Good luck. Jawohl (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008

(UTC)

Call to Arms

This is ridiculous, when I was voting to merge the article for Kosova I was severely tricked. They turned Rep of Kosova into a region, and mainly about Serbian history. When you go to Hashim Thaçi page you read about how he is the PM of Kosovo (which leads to the territory) that page should lead to his government in Rep. of Kosova. We need to have more than one article in which Kosova or Kosovo need to lead to Kosovo (disambigius) and the reader can pick which article he/she wishes to read. I, want to make a Rep of Kosova article, WP is acting as if Rep. of Kosova doesn't exist --- this is silly, it does, it's recognized, and it's currently in power. I am calling on a few people to help me draft this, I am willing to spend time writing this, and I wish your help.

Also, do you speak Shqip? I was surprised when I read the "mungon" you wrote above --- bravo my friend, bravo, Shumë Bukurë!

Thank You Ari

Kosova2008 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Hello. I have moved some of the countries who were listed under will not recognize and have trimmed the list down to 27 because Turkmenistan hasn't made a response that we know of... Iraq, Mali, Morocco, and Portugal have all expressed concern or have wished for further negotiations so I moved them to the expressed concern category. I have also removed Burkina Faso, Malta, and Thailand from countries which have expressed concern or wish for further negotiations. All of these moves are in accordance with the stated positions of the respective countries which are documented on the international reaction article.

Those two maps which were recently added had caused a huge break in the article... there is only room for one map without disrupting the flow of the article. Also having two maps of the same kind is confusing to the reader. --Tocino 23:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, Gimme danger hereby award you this the Special Barnstar for your exceptionally witty mathematical joke on Talk:Polyandry. You made this user's morning. Gimme danger (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Please argue your view in the talk page and do not use edits on the Kosovo article to argue your ideas. Please discuss changes in the article PRIOR to making those changes. It's very appreciated. Thank you. Beam 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't justify your OR edit summaries by asking me to discuss what has been continually discussed and is being discussed on the talk page. In case you have not noticed, the talk page contains a section directing attention to the outstanding RfC on the spellings of Pristina in the Wikipedia. It is full of evidence. And I am not about to replicate it verbatim in yet another section. I have instituted a NPOV method of representing all three English spellings jointly, at the same time linking directly to articles. The same in the case of Kosovska Mitrovica, the Serbian name which Albanians know as Mitrovica and on Wikipedia it lives at Mitrovica, Kosovo. There are other proximate towns in Serbia known as Mitrovica, which in those cases necessitates full diambiguation which just happens to be synonymous with the Serbian name.

I am not pushing any point of view, but fixing a faulty "compromise". Institutions, as I noted in the comment in code, use all three spellings, and per Wikipedia policy cited by admin User:ChrisO, who authored the naming conventions for Kosovo and Macedonia and others, we must call institutions by the names they theymselves use. See his comments on the talk page of University of Priština, which is another even more intractable case of needing to use all three spellings of the city in the English language. So please don't justify your edits and reverts with a) OR, b) bylaws recently elected by one or two editors on a talk page. I am being bold yet inclusive and NPOV in my edits in this matter, and the case is actively being discussed and has been on several talk pages. --Mareklug ^talk 18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. Sorry man, the consensus is Pristina is correct, I have no clue what you're talking about. GO start a new section on the Kosovo talk page. But don't make edits without doing so. It's appreciated! Beam 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that this is an English Wiki, right? That's why it's Pristina. It's the English spelling. Ok? Beam 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't condescend. Read the article on the city itself. Right of the bat, we define 3 equivalent English spellings, without passing judgment on which one to use. The Englishness of "Prishtina" is shown in the Request for Comments to be dating to at least 1905 in Encyclopedia Britannica. University pages of major American universities such as Princeton, Harvard, University of Iowa, Dartmouth College etc. all refer to Prishtina and University of Prishtina. The Municipality of Prishtina represents itself as such on its English language official web page. The official web pages of the airport, the Albanian university and of the President's Office, Prime Minister's Office and the Government Portal of Kosovo all in unison use the spelling "Prishtina'. So please don't invent that "Pristina" is the only English language spelling. And instead of appreciating or having no clue (your words), please read what is being discussed and the erudite evidence cited on the very talk page to which lengthening you keep calling me to pointlessly do. As I already told you, I have discussed these edits on various talk pages. --Mareklug ^talk 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What section on the Kosovo Talk Page are you talking about? Please keep your responses here as well, instead of going back and forth to my talk page.

If you show me what you're talking about, on the Kosovo Talk Page, I won't revert your edits. I'll give you a few minutes to do so. Good luck! Beam 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and revert your changes. If you come up with proof of a consensus on the Kosovo Talk Page, than you can reinstate them. Until then, please stop editing the Kosovo article. Thanks!! Beam 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable. You did not even give me the few minutes you yourself offered one sentence above. The difference between your signature times is all of FOUR MINUTES. What is your hurry? You're making this into a "let's give 'em a fair trial and then hang 'em" skit. And why aren't you not reacting to my considered, informative, meritorious presentation of evidence contrary to your assertion? And there is no consensus on this matter!

The Talk:Kosovo page has 19 archives already as of today, and there is no easy way to search through them all, in order to document to you "hurryupquickly", where on that talk page the (now archived) section is lodged, where the RfC announcement about how to spell Pristina was lodged, transferring the locus of discussion away from the Kosovo talk page by Wikipedia rule. But you can go to this relevant page, and see the section at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#RfC_on_the_Prishtina.2FPristina.2FPri.C5.A1tina_naming_dispute This announcement was also posted to Talk:Kosovo at the time. And this discussion is ongoing. So please aquaint yourself with it as well as the talk page for the city itself. I will restore my edits, and please don't you tell me what I may edit or not on Wikipedia, because that borders on ridiculous and completely unreasonable, not to mention, unfriendly. Your massive revert undid a lot of small improvements. So please spare us your heavy hand, esp. since you are losing NPOV improvements. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very confrontational! We have had a consensus on the Kosovo article to use Pristina. I'm sorry but if you don't want your "small improvements" reverted, than don't change anything regarding Pristina. I'll go along with WP:ASG and say you're trying to do good, but it's just not working. Start a new section on the Kosovo talk page or something. Until you do, Pristina is the accepted way to note Pristina in the Kosovo article. Good luck buddy! Beam 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And honestly, I don't have that much of a view on it. I think Pristina is the obvious way English speakers spell the name. But it won't hurt the article to have it all three ways in parentheses. So please, do start a new section in the Talk Page. I'd like to open the discussion again anyway, as we've had several edits to the "Pristina" parts of the article recently. Good luck! Beam 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo#Pristina.2FPrishtina.2FPri.C5.A1tina - I have started a talk page section on this very subject, so go make your opinion heard! Beam 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Kosovo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. please advise

Hello Mareklug. I couldn't reply earlier but I see that the edit request regarding Ukraine is being discussed at the talk page under a modified form, so far with no opposition. It's probably better to wait until tomorrow to see if there's consensus to implement it. If no significant opposition arises, I'll proceed. Regards, Hús ö nd 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On Ukraine, you said to add some dates to it ect. Could you please do that as im struggling? thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Hi! I need to complain about the threats and inexplicable arch-hostile behaviour of user LUCPOL towards me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.106.128.119

He wrote it in Polish, but I do not know why I should be bullied without any reason here... How can I officially reprot this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me about this. User:Piotrus is an experienced, Polish-speaking English Wikipedia administrator, and has worked extensively in the past with User:LUCPOL, and hails from Katowice, so he should be well acquainted with Silesia-related disputes and can assess the merits of disputes involving the region. I have no reason to think him biased in any way. Please try to enlist his assistance. Good luck, and whatever comments are made and whatever happens, just try to just edit the Wikipedia to your best ability, striving to maintain, improve and introduce neutral, scholarly content. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ja też mu życzę wielu "neutralnych" edycji. Jednak na razie jest to IP bez żadnego merytorycznego wkładu w Wikipedię, jedynie co wprowadza to POV, trolling, ataki osobiste, spam i... zamieszanie. Odpisałem mu (tym razem grzeczniej) w dyskusji a co tak naprawdę chodzi. LUCPOL (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction

Hi Mareklug. I have just noticed your edit to my user page. Thank you for correcting the text :-)
Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on your proposal -with a simple "go ahead"- was one of the first edits I did today. I also took the liberty of adding your signature to your comments: it seems that you had signed with five tildes ~~~~~ instead of the standard four ones ~~~~, a mistake we all do from time to time (cf. How to sign your posts :-). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Question -- ArbComm probation violated?

Hello Mareklug. I don't think Tocino is breaking the probation in that diff, he's just going a bit off topic. You could remind him that Wikipedia is not a forum, but as far as I can see it, that particular diff doesn't represent any big concern requiring sanctions. Thank you for contacting me. Regards, Hús ö nd 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. The diff you provided does display a completely unacceptable behavior. I've decided not to ban Tocino right away, but instead give a firm/last warning. Hopefully this will not happen again. Please report any further instances of incivility from this (or any other) user. Regards, Hús ö nd 03:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regina Spektor

Hi, your rationale doesn't address the reasoning for removal. There is still no demonstration of significance or context for the inclusion of her heritage in the lead. In effect, something that denotes relevance. For example, Colin Powell's bio' provides explicit context for inclusion of African-American in the lead. Please see WP:NAMES which provides a sparse indication of my position (someone should really expand that). References to her heritage weren't removed and remained prominent in the main body but that doesn't constitute an assertion of significance for the lead. There is no explanation for its prominence (e.g. significance to her music, to her notability). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 10:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The NAMES redirect is just a conveniant (lazy) redirect for me ;-). Also, apologies for the repetition in directing you to that page; I originally intended to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page but decided against that. I do respect your position and agree, to an extent, but what is stated in the main body of text is of no consequence if the initial mention of her heritage in the lead doesn't demonstrate significance to the subject. Asserting that the main body demonstrates relevance doesn't validate the current lead; it's presently devoid of any assertion of significance. Without context, some readers will likely question the prominence before scrolling down the page to learn more: "So what? What's the importance?". Leads should be representative of an article and contain only information that is demonstratively relevant to the subject and properly contextualised, especially when it involves religion and ethnicity.

I agree an RFC would be disproportionate. I believe this can be easily resolved. There are essentially two options: demonstrate significance, á la Colin Powell, with sourced exposition on the relevance of the religion and ethnicity to the subject (e.g. influence on music, notability) or remove it from the lead and retain references to her heritage in the early life section and elsewhere in the article. I'm not that familiar with this musician but I have a further example: Issy Smith. The article's lead contextualises his religion/ethnicity quite explicitly, making relevance to the lead and subject indisputable.

These guidelines have been formulated by consensus and therefore are representative of the Wikipedia community, its conventions, standards, and "preferences" (even if a majority of the community did not participate in discussion or agrees with them). Common sense from a Wikipedia perspective would dictate the question: how does the current lead enhance the article? Why should it remain without context using a rationale seemingly irrelevant to the current state of the lead? It has become a convention to omit a subject's ethnicity and religion from the lead/intro' when significance is not apparent in the lead or/and when it is unsourced, especially for articles within the scope of BLP. If the importance of her religion/ethnicity is unequivocal, its relevance to the lead should be stated and sourced. The introduction's current formulation is totally unacceptable by the aforementioned reasoning. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Russian Jewish is an ethnicity, one that is universally acknowledged and self-identified by many individuals, including Regina Spektor. Please take a look at any source or interview about this singer. Have you? Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to be leaving a message on my talk page implying that her Jewishness should be left out of the lead, but in fact "Russian Jewish" is an ethnicity that I think should clearly be included. Right now, however, the wording is a bit cumbersome ("Soviet Union-born Jewish Russian American"). Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No cursing. I won't discuss with you further. Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time i checked, been Russian Jewish meant that you were a Russian National and you followed the religion of Judaism, not an ethnicity. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The disucussion of this issue on my talk page is out of place, as User:Badagnani raised it for no rational reason.

It was another user (see section immediately above) who wants Regina Spektor's ethnicity as described in her article lead -- contextualized and sourced, in the lead, that's all. But, Badagnani was apparently unable to grasp that, and wrote instead on my talk page, as if it was I who raised any objections in the first place, whereas I merely attempted to communicate to him on his talk page the need to make repairs in that lead, and to seek his help in this contextualizing and sourcing. Debating what is Russian Jewishness here is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. --Mareklug ^talk 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

please

Please comment on the content and not on the contributor. There are less confrontational and insulting and much more civil ways to find to say these things, and I encourage you to find them.

Thanks - Revolving Bugbear 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Revolving Bugbear, thank you for the note concenring my 3 most recent talk page entries in the matter of Sierra Leone recognizing Kosovo being missourced and the demands being made that Wikipedia act on these inferior sources. I admit the tone was harsh, and I will refrain to the best of my ability from doing it again.

However, I think I was commenting on the edits and not the editor, albeit disparragingly. Both editors were demanding that we act on uncertain news (one even wrote "I want Sierra Leone in the article"). I have been accused of being a pro-Kosovo editor, and in this instance I was expressly finding fault in pro-Kosovo demands, in Ian's case, an editor who is editing this article intensively and if should know better. His claim that he could not identify by looking whether the sources were all in Albanian was disingeneous, and, too, influenced my say. But I will refrain in the future. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate this. I know the editing gets hot sometimes, but I think everyone would agree that things go much smoother when everyone tries to treat each other with respect.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

i thank you for Your help by article Muzeum Ziemi Szprotawskiej and Castle Chrobry in Szprotawa etc.--Marcosilesiani (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thanks for being there in the int reaction to the 2008 Kosova DOI. Tocino has been changing the sources

and falsifying the information. Again, thanks. BTW do you know how to start lobbying for recognition? I been wanting to join a pre-existing one and send fliers, email people, or whatever it takes to get the KV on board. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying for Rep. of Kosova of course. I know that you have written to officials of embassies and such offices and I was wondering exactly how you worded your requests and/or letters. I just want to do something, spread the word, spread the information, get it going. I never told anyone, but, I am a loyal person of KosovaThanksYou.com. If a new country recognizes I inform them first, so far I informed them 5 countries, the rest, I was beaten by someone else; it's a good letter receiving a letter from KosovaThan..com thank you. Any help is appreciatedKosova2008 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

edit undone

No need to get worked up about it. Everybody makes mistakes. It looked okay to me, but I didn't look closely enough. A simple "I do not agree to this edit, can you please undo it?" would have sufficed instead of a writ of "no standing" and "highly irregular". Chillax a little, my friend. Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for undoing the edit promptly. I do not regret writing it up, because the situation is murky and needs elucidating. And we are agitated, what with unceremonious hurried editprotects recently carried out by another admin -- see talk page for those voices. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't expound upon your reasons for objecting. You should, in fact; that's why we have these sorts of discussions. I'm just saying I don't feel that you needed to be quite so condemning towards me. I looked at it briefly and didn't think there would be any objections. Clearly I was wrong, and I have no problem admitting that at such a simple indication as "hey I disagree". I don't have a horse in this race, so I assure you it was a sin of carelessness, not malice. Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility and failure to assume good faith

Your behavior has been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Per earlier recommendation, your behavior has been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

wikicommons

Can ask, do you have an account on wikicommons by any chance? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do. Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png - list of authors/uploaders. :) What'chu need? --Mareklug ^talk 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i have commons too. I've uploaded a few photos of Auschwitz and Kraków. I was wondering if you would right a little description on each, in Polish to help people on Polish wikipedia when they are looking on commons. I have a gallery on my profile of all the pictures i have uploaded of Auschwitz and Kraków, you can find it here, they are all uploaded on commons. If was wondering if you would do that for me please. You know what to do, click on the photo itself then click edit and add the Polish description please. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get to it between the halves of the Croatia/Austria game, I hope. --Mareklug ^talk 15:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha im watching that too. I want Croatia to win ;) It'l make it easier to find the pictures i have uploaded on commons if you see my contributions on commons Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually my gallery on commons will make it even easier see my gallery [1] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		I award you the Commons Ambassador Barnstar for adding the Polish descriptions to my pictures on Wikicommons. Thank you very much ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I know me and you disagree sometimes, but thats only human. Anyway you helped me when i required assistance, so I thought you dissevered it. Yes they are rare, I think thats the second Ive given lol. I'm not going to revert what you said. When I went to Krakow, that Jewish graveyard was about 30 - 40 minutes drive away from central Krakow. I have forgotten the towns name.

Also unlucky about Poland losing earlier. In all fairness, Germany are a brilliant team and will most likely win the whole thing. It was a tough match for Poland. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Stud

where you been? Life going well?

I hope you like the new name.

Ari d'Kosova (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Thanks and WP:CHIFTD notice

Thanks for your past contributions you may want to come help the current WP:CHIFTD drive.

This user helped promote Harris Theater (Chicago) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

tocino

I think its time we took the steps to just remove the pain from the kosovo articles. We have alot working for us if we do, considering almost all discussions on the archives and talk for the interactions IS debate on unrelated things. Agree it's time?--Jakezing (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose we do? Admins obviously read the Kosovo-related talk pages (Husond surfaced recently in the Malta/Portugal thread), and not one has acted on this chronic problem issue of late. --Mareklug ^talk 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ya well, hes broken enough pov rules, hwe turns every discussion he gets to int oa long, drawn out and unnecesary argument, we have a majority saying the parties to be remopved but he wount listen, and he's just uncivil amongst other things, also, can you get onto runescape.com and see if you can? i can't.--Jakezing (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't access it from Opera just now: You tried to access the address http://www.runescape.com/, which is currently unavailable. --Mareklug ^talk 13:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

time to get ready ot see if we can get him banned from the kosovo articles, now hes even going against concensous--Jakezing (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

erm, there's no consensus by definition, if even one person is against. And you can't ever tell just from that, that they are in the wrong -- they may be in the right, and the rest, in the wrong. Having said that, if you were to remove his re-additiions, and he were to revert your edit, that would be edit warring, since he already did that. --Mareklug ^talk 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

no, i remeoved first, he reverted and another reverted, and itsh ard to beleive that the person asking for em to be removed would even think tocino was right--Jakezing (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying Tocino is right; just arguing from general principles, you know, the general case. A lone dissenter may be in the right, on merits. I see Tocino morphed the political parties into something else and crammed that crap right back into the article, but in a different place, which he conveniently redefined for that. You should remove that. We'll see how he reacts. --Mareklug ^talk 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if i revert now, he can't possibly revert, since thatd be 4 reverts.--Jakezing (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be the Wikipedia way: one editor cannot force his way against a concerted effort of others, because of the WP:3RR rule. Provided editors do act, not just talk about it. --Mareklug ^talk 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

you gotta do the next 2, i can't.--Jakezing (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I publicly said I wouldn't edit-war about it, so I can't, either. I already did all the work of showing Tocino to be wrong on the talk page, examining his "evidence" and showing that it is no evidence. Surely other editors who agree with these findings can be counted on to do the physical reverts of Tocino?... --Mareklug ^talk 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

when can i revert again?--Jakezing (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the 3RR policy I linked above. I wouldn't want to mislead you. --Mareklug ^talk 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|do not attack]] other editors{{#if:|, which you did here: [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The above officious note, known on Wikipedia as templating or TP-ing someone (orignally from TP-ing, toilet-papering, an Amercian college custom), was issued by the person whose edits (not person) I question extensively on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Not only is this editor acting out here, pretending to be a third person, or maybe even an administrator (he is not either), he is an administrator on the Serbian wikipedia and has over 10k edits on the English one to his name. One would think he would know better. But no, we are dealing here with laying down a smoke screen, a parliamentary subterfuge, appearances manipulation, and, of course, defacing my page -- all done in the interest of perception skewing, instead of calmly and substantively addressing the many points raised on the talk page linked above. Or better yet, actually correcting the harmful edits pointed out by me. Shame. --Mareklug ^talk 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's a neutral party doing it:

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|do not attack]] other editors{{#if:|, which you did here: [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}----[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave...

...the article and talk known as Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, by staying you're not helping anything anymore; it's constant "Avala blah blah blah" now, so, just, leave. I already explained to Avala and a generalized on the talk page. Just leave, there's enough Kosovo supporters and NPOV people there already.--Jakezing (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just do it, ok, just do some cool down and avoid Kosovo articles and avoid Avala; there's no reason we should have a giant discussion on the talk page unrelated to improving the article.--Jakezing (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See my answer on user talk:ChrisO. Just one note: a giant discussion entirely germane to improving the article, I'm afraid. But anyway, your wish is my command. :) --Mareklug ^talk 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Mareklug, I received your E-mail message but I have other issues to deal with in my job. I edit mostly on Ancient Egypt nowadays and on other political or historical matters but almost nothing on present day Kosovo. I apologise for any inconvenience my message may cause you. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. We will of course miss your incisive edits and comments, as you were one of the early editors of substance, and the article needs this sort of attention badly. Good luck on the Ancient Egypt -- that's quite a row to hoe. Best wishes. --Mareklug ^talk 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. As long as there is racism and bigotry in this world, there will always be ethnic conflicts. However, since the Serbians recently re-elected Boris Tadic, perhaps Serbia and Kosovo can move to eventually resolve their conflict...I don't know. By the Way, here is an actual copy of a letter by pharaoh Amenhotep II (c.1427-1401 BC) of Egypt in which he openly displays his shocking bigotry and hatred towards the Syrians and Nubians (the Sudanese). This was written 3400 years ago but his hatred of all non-Egyptian foreigners is clear: [2] One would call this king an 'Egyptian nationalist' today. The world has become more tolerant in some places in 2008 but racism and ethnic conflict is still alive sadly. Just look at the terrible situation in Darfur, Afghanistan and Pakistan today. I have to go now. Enjoy your life and freedom in Chicago. The USA is not perfect but its still far more welcoming towards all immigrants--Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc--compared to most other countries. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lights and Timmins

We don't do that kind of "purely tangential connections to other people" thing for any other musical artist on Wikipedia — if the only connection between two musicians is that they happen to come from the same city, or that one of them happens to be from a city that was named after an ancestor of another one, then the connection simply isn't meaningful or relevant to the articles on the artists. They should all be mentioned in the article on the city, certainly, but they're not directly relevant to each other. Just because the heading on the subsection wasn't "Trivia" doesn't mean it isn't trivia. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895

Hi & sorry for the edit conflict there. Oops :D I'm done with the article at the moment. Cheers! E_dog95'^{Hi '} 06:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks fo rthe help! --Mareklug ^talk 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 25 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦^C 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

I fixed Slovakia. And i will stand by its current edit if you will help me keep it that way. How do you propose the Ukraine entry should be re-written. Ijanderson (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ive fixed Ukraine too after digging up your old draft, now what to fix? I created this to help us make the article more NPOV User:Ian-Marek/International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Please feel free to edit it Ijanderson (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

However i havnt added anything to Ukraine which is post Georgia-Russia war yet Ijanderson (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Uruguay too, due to media speculation. Ijanderson (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are good. What do you think is wrong/ POV with BiH's position on the article? Ijanderson (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I pasted in UKR into the article, so we could put a {{done}} on it, but we haven't yet looked for newer material. Re: Bosnia's stance on Kosovo independence: Ian, read carefully what every Bosnian government official we quote has said on the subject (contrast it with what the Serb among them had said, and he spoke first, and not since then) -- and note the activity of the country's legislative body and its MFA, or rather, their complete radio silence on the subject of Kosovo. For us to represent BiH as having formally acted, one way or another, in this matter, let alone, that it rejected, is so POV that I cannot remain unimpressed. :) Bosnia's condition of political deadlock (if it exists, and I have my doubts -- to me it is just Montenegro, slowed down) is not the same as the state having acted positively or negatively. Or acted at all. They want to be, in their own words, as low profile on this score as possible. Not exactly a steeming dish of rejection. :) The article at the very least needs a lead statement along the lines of UKR. --Mareklug ^talk 09:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying over BiH. We represent BiH as been anti-Kosovo, when it is actually Neutral on Kosovo. I have added it to the Ian-Marek sub page for now. We can removed parts and add new statements. Ijanderson (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ive added more to that Ian-Marek sub page. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia on Kosovo

Hey. Please see user:BalkanFever/Boxhead. The MFA quote might be better than my summary, but apart from that I think it's neutrally worded. Basically, Macedonia may recognise Kosovo after demarcation, but that's DPA or DUI or Demarcation Commission speculation at best, while Gruevski, Crvenkovski and Milošoski are dodging the issue. Balkan Fever^{not a fan? say so!} 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. :) Balkan Fever^{not a fan? say so!} 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Just a head;s up - international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo

Hello Mareklug. I have received reports on disruptive behavior by user Avala in the past, but the examples you brought to my attention I cannot immediately associate with disruption. Yes, Avala calls vandalism to something that is not vandalism in the first edit summary, and he could've assumed good faith in the second edit summary; but these minor misdemeanors do not warrant any particular administrative intervention in my opinion. If Avala is in fact editing against talk page consensus then you must provide proof for that. Otherwise I may only treat this situation as content dispute, and may not take sides. I can protect the article though if edit warring persists. Regards, Hús ö nd 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

For adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material:

{{uw-nor2|International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo}}--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is a pathetic abuse of the Wikipedia process. The user, an admin on Serbian wikipedia and a maker of 11,000+ edits on this Wikipedia, is chronically engaged in making partisan edits, relfecting pro-Serbia biasing of the account of the international recognition of Kosovo by other states.

I am one of the editors striving to make this article NPOV. This user, Avala, is templating me to death (see further up this page for an earlier instance), for standing up to his partisan edits, and questioning these edits of his, and for my own impartially as evidence by my edits. He calls my enyclopedic, impartial descriptions of reality, all sourced, of course, "OR". Furthermore, he pretends in his templating, that he is some independent user or admin, while being a party to the dispute. On User talk:Husond, he reveals that he uses these templates to induce blocks/bans of users. I find the conduct of this user deeply disturbing, as unethical, distorting the process of Wikipedia, and ultimately harmful to the community and to the encyclopedia texts. --Mareklug ^talk 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For removing my comments off the talk page:

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. --Avala (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For calling me obtuse:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, Avala is right in his complaints here. Please do not remove his comments from the talk page, and always observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Regards, Hús ö nd 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. unprotection request int. recognition of Kosovo

Hello Mareklug. Okay, I will give it a try and unprotect the article as everybody seems to be discussing the disputed edits constructively on the talk page. Please do not start another war with Avala. News from Portugal? I wish. Kosovo is almost a taboo within the government. I know that the president is against recognition, but few care much about what he thinks anyway. My guess is that Portugal will eventually recognize Kosovo, but I really cannot estimate when. Regards, Hús ö nd 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece and unprotected page

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I did do some clean-up to it where you recommended me but I'd need more help regarding that last quote that "Greece did not recognize Kosovo" Avala has provided and how the MFA information you provided here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo#What_the_Greek_MFA_.2Areally.2A_has_said supersedes that. Maybe you can re-arrange some things in that Ian page you gave me and experiment with it a bit. I'll check on it too... Exo (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Tocino 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Tocino. Just because I put the warning template in good faith on your page, so you don't get banned again for 3RR, is no reason to template me tit-for-tat. Calling on me with a template to discuss it is misleading, as I am discussing it on the talk page.

Your concealed reverts are not only reintroducing bogus content, which the newly available English version of Castro's words bear out, but you are reintroducing by doing so false sourcing, which I fixed. And plesae don't conceal your reverts with innocuous sounding comments such as "re-added more concise wording", when you are in fact doing a revert.

Unlike you, I even installed the new content on the talk page as a verbatim table, which so far caused Avala to propose a slight variation of what I put in the article, omitting some description (which accurately describes what Castro did and didn't say in the subject of Kosovo recognition, unlike the old content you are returning with its bogus attribution) --Mareklug ^talk 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My contribution to Kosovo recognition article

I don't see why I cant contribute to the article. Furthermore, your comment was disappointing. have you seen that all my information is cited? how dare you forbid me!Mike Babic (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mike. Just because something is cited, does not make it good for the article, or accurate information, or neutral information, as the case may be. User WP:Common sense, as I advised you. That is the most useful thing I can advise you to do. And please read WP:VER and WP:NPOV.

Please, please, please read the new section on Poland that I just wrote. It happens to document lucidly the latest case of "cited"-but-false.

You may of course contribute to the article usefully. But if you continue to lack the ability to determine, what is useful, and through your edits continue to distort reality while edit warring, what I wrote on your talk page will surely come to pass. I urge you to find something else to edit, if editing Kosovo matter is going ot pu tyou in trouble, or edit it wisely, which has proved problematic for you. This is a minefield. Caution is needed, extreme caution. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Avala (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Cześć Marek. Could you translate Stefan Knapik into English, or at least tell the guys at pages needing translation if he is notable enough to translate? Thanks, Balkan Fever 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever, I asked on #wikipedia-pl on FreeNode IRC if it was worth doing, and a Silesian admin discouraged me (Knapik is Silesian). So I punted it over to the Poland-related Noticeboard: [3]. Let's see what they say. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Never got around to thanking you for this, so dzięki :) Balkan Fever 09:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome, BalkanFever. I installed it following the discussion on the noticeboard as pl:Stefan Knapik, where it received a little bit of improving, but not much. --Mareklug ^talk 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo

Do you think I'm irrelevant?Max Mux (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but certain of your talk page sections have been. Those need to be removed, in accordance with the policy notice placed at the top of the article talk page. As for your relevant discussions and links, I did give you credit for Armenia and Bosnia or something along those lines, and defended your contributions. However, you have added a fair amount of no information to that page... --23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, do you still stand by your words that Vuk Jeremic should return his diploma to Harvard Univ?--Avala (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's instructive that you twist my words even when making an attempted superior remark. I recommended that he return to Harvard to take a remedial course in human rights and international law. His absolute remark as quoted by the Times of India (and by me on the talk page), that no one has the right to declare unilaterally independence belies international law and the basic human rights enshrined in the UN Charter and elsewhere. And why are you so happy that Serbia managed to retard its own admission to the UE? Instead of constructively letting go of Kosovo? It's not like the 2.1 million Kosovans are going to be repatriated to Albania, to make room for Serbs from elsewhere. For one thing, no one wants to move there. --Mareklug ^talk 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you a benign question and you respond so angrily. It was not my intention to upset you.--Avala (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I accept that in good faith. To answer your question, I don't think Vuk Jeremic does credit Harvard or himself, when he says things not in keeping with international law. Work on behalf of Serbia need not entail making inaccurate statements, I think you and I will agree on that. Serbia in my opinion, longterm, did not gain on this vote. It only adds to FUD on the subject of Kosovo. Unfortunately. --Mareklug ^talk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How does the "return article to last known correct state from b4 injecting un vote weirdness" correspond to removing information on who voted for and returning who voted against? You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with Serbia, a very strong one. I don't know why, nor do I care but what do I know is that you are not capable to edit any articles regarding Serbia in a productive manner. No one is denying you the right to add information which might be considered "anti Serbia" but shooting out "propaganda accusations" proves that you have a strong, very strong, issue with Serbia or Serbs and therefore it is affecting your edits which is what we care about.--Avala (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion on the article talk page, where my rationale for my edit was justified and explained by no less than three separate editors in two sections, with my participation also, at the time of the edit. Please don't look for anti-Serbianism within the community, when at issue are your consistently pro-government of Serbia distortions injected into this article. The rollback I performed was necessitated by intervening edits by you and Tocino (he actually removed some of the content you added to the article, that my rollback restored). Your POV enumeration of only some countries involved (significantly, omitting to list the 35 that ignored the vote for political reasons) speaks for itself, as well as your placement of this incomplete information, alteration of heading to make room for it, and the undue weight given it by you. The correct weight and placement were already suggested at the time of the roll-back.

Dear Avala, it is not I who has a Serbia problem, but your edits and those of user:Tocino, which do. You editors both consistently inject content that distorts reality, precisely on grounds of promoting the world view according to the Serbian government and Serbian nationalism. The community's effort to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on the topic of the Republic of Kosovo international acceptance or lack of it is being consistently retarded and subterfuged by your combined harmful edits (allowing for some non-harmful ones here and there). I think it is high time to look the truth squarely in the eye, and finally refrain from editing Wikipedia, in whatever language version and on Commons maps, from a nationalistic, POV-pushing perspective, whatever the perspective, and I am speaking to you directly, someone who is an administrator on another project and has over 12k edits on this one. Please edit responsibly and shelf your accusations of mistreatment. --Mareklug ^talk 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Marek

No posting on macedonia, please. It'll be better to jsut wait til they do, no sooner.--Jakezing (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, for God's sake -- read the source. The parliamentary motion to recognize is being introduced today by both parliaments with full support of majorities. This is a signed, authored and credible dispatch in Reuters, worked on by several correspondents and published in world press. It's not a rumor, but developement. Please, no knee-jerk reactions, b/c it's the Macedonia or Montenegro that is being heads-upped. :) --Mareklug ^talk 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not inclined to read sources unless i need to, and after all the crap mx gave us...--Jakezing (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As you now see, I was entirely justified and on the money. Now, could you clean up after yourself and remove this section from my talk page? Much obliged. --Mareklug ^talk 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. I had to revert you on the intro tweak of the Kosovo recognition article, sorry. Details in the edit summary. Incidentally, I noticed that your map/animated gif of historic extent of Macedonia through the ages with contemporary borders superimposed on the physical relief map lacks today's Kosovo borders. These borders are no less real (in transit and air space demarcation by civil and military authorities, for example) than the others marked. I made a note about that on the Commons talk page. Best wishes and looking forward to your edits, --Mareklug ^talk 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary. Regarding your point (a), WP:LEAD says "link as less as possible" - which is far from "duplicate terms so that you link them in the same first sentence"; more applicable would be: "if the article title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". Regarding (b) I didn't remove "unanimous" (and it's kinda misleading given the boycott of 11). In any case, the first sentence sucks as it is now. It says those things twice, and that's really sad for a start of an article. Re your map comment, the maps were created before seccession, and that's why; I wouldn't mind if anyone went in the trouble of correcting them (if that is what must be done, which I'm not really sure, because according to many other evil(?) authorities those borders don't exist). Niko Silver 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll think on how to coalesce and improve on the intro, now that you have sensitized me to its sorry state. Borders need adding, because they are real. It was a ~~uniform~~ unanimous quorum, and that's just a fact. A Serb military jet will risk downing if it crosses them; a drug smuggler will be arrested by different uniforms; normal joes like you and me have to present our passports there and get them stamped by distinct people. Is this enough of a reason? Isn't my observation, that readers will distrust the information on the basis of perceived bias reason enough? --Mareklug ^talk 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NikoSilver, I reponded on my talk page for clarity, and accordingly, made the changes/improvements in the lead you were after. Is the intro now to your liking? --Mareklug ^talk 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rest, but just see the second paragraph in unanimous for what it may have been... (and I didn't remove the word as you said, but I'll request citation for it now). Anyway, your last edit is definitely improving. You need to replace one "uniform" above with "unanimous". :-) Niko Silver 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I did cross out the errant "uniform" and wrote "unanimous" after it. Thanks for your help and links. I will read up on our treatment of unanimous. Glad we are improving the article. :) --Mareklug ^talk 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, me too! BTW I also liked the split of the intro. I think we just need to say the basics there. See you in the article's talkpage for the rest, in case others need to participate too. Niko Silver 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, that I added the overdue sourcing for the unanimity of the quorum, which we had unearthed long ago (it was linked from my talk page, above, placed there by usesr:Jawohl). Only now, thanks to you, I added it finally to the Kosovo recognition article (it was removed when I added it to the UDI article). That should cover this item nicely. --Mareklug ^talk 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a great addition in general, but it doesn't solve the issue. See my edit and my comment in the article's talkpage. I suggest we continue there for the others to opine also. Niko Silver 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

screen size

Cheers mate, looks better now, not as chunky, anyway i need to archive some of my talk page lol. Once again thanks mate. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of ICJ Advisory Opinion article

Mareklug, I proposed deletion of International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence yesterday, but Avala has (unsurprisingly) removed the proposal template. I've added a comment to the talk page - perhaps you would like to add your thoughts. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with editing SVG image

Dear Mareklug,

Could you help me edit SVG images? Specifically the one in Kosovan passport as often times I'd like to color a country green after its recognized the passport, but I can't because I simply don't know how. Your help would be very much appreciated by me. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Alchaemia. I looked for an SVG version of the map (it's PNG in the article), but found none. Is there a map ready somewhere? Editing is fairly straightorward. It helps to have an editor that can accept and write out UTF-8 encoding and has a find/replace-all capability. TextEdit on Mac does it. Emacs of course does it or XEmacs. Vi, Vim, nano, pico, gedit, kate on linux/unix/Windows (ported). On Windows, notepad and I think wordpad are built in to XP. I use Emacs23 (which is natively supporting Unicode) to do my editing or TextEdit. Sometimes it is useful to edit SVG graphically, then I use Inkscape (free), if it is available. Basically, what you need to do is switch the color for an object from Gray to DarkGreen. The color may be specified with hex code #AABBCC or #ABC ... That's it. Ask specific question. Countries are coded as id=.pl or id=pl. or id=pl or id=+pl ... the code is always the country domain code, and you can get that from the infobox on Wikipedia. Often a country consists of multiple objects, but they will be listed one under the other. So highlighting a region of the SVG file, and then performing a global substitution on colors with this region works best. --Mareklug ^talk 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Marek, thanks for your help. You are certainly correct that the map is PGN. It was my mistake to assume that it would be the same map as the one we use in the article about International recognition - with updated information, of course. I will take a look at TextEdit and report back on my endeavor. Thanks again! --alchaemia (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

For calling me a kangaroo (previously you compared me to a horse etc. but obviously you didn't learn how to behave):

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For chitchatting about things on talk page which are not the subject of the article:

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. --Avala (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You very well know that these warnings were made to be given away by users as well. Actually you might remember that not so long ago an admin endorsed my warnings on your talk page. This is seriously the last warning for you to stop attacking me, insulting me and also chitchatting on that talk page. If you can not work on improving the article, for whatever reason (whether it is your position on Serbia as such or something else that we don't know about - it is irrelevant) then just don't edit that talk page. That talk page should be used for information on new recognitions and reactions, not for talking about commons images, calling users obtuse, horses, kangaroos and dubbing their edits as "bullshit". If you can't follow those simple rules then you should simply either take a wikibreak or edit articles on non controversial subjects with less editors around. Get your act together and decide whether you are going to continue to cause friction and bad atmosphere and downgrade your already shaken image or you will realize it is not the way to go and change something. It's up to you. --Avala (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To whoever reads my talk page:

Again, I am being subjected to persecution and mischaracterization by user:Avala, all for my opposing his partisan editing in the matters of Kosovo recognition. User:Avala is an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia and a user with 12k+ edits on this one, but obviously, neither has given him the grace to impartially edit, without falling into conflict of interest. Toiletpapering my talk page with warning templates from a position of conflict of interest speaks for itself. As does his stated intent to create an impression suitable to eventually cause my loss of editing privileges -- he said so on user talk:Husond.

Editors, please note the ridiculous nature of these administrator impersonifications, and please compare them against the actual content of the relevant talk page, which triggered them: talk:international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For removing my talk page comments again:

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. --Avala (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged "battle" on Black Sea

Maybe an interesting source [4] for further research about this very strange incident on Black Sea. Blog informations are very limited in their encyclopedic quality but in this case Georgian side says still nothing, Russian officials kept very quiet after first announcements - only bloggers did their controversial job. If you didn't formulate the leader in the way you have done this article would be a pure phantom article about something which perhaps never happened - and sure not as "battle" took place. ; Elysander (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the head's up. I already know about this item, having read it a few days after it appeared in the net. Unfortunately, the author did not clearly formulate the question (and sought to answer it): where is the hulk of P-21 Grigori Torelli? If it is not among the sabotaged ships in the port of Poti, is it in Batumi? Or is it missing? And what abou the 30 or so sailors who served on it? Has anyone seen them? Stuff like that. Still waiting... Meanwhile, users both logged in and anonymous are chipping aways at the "alleged", removing that word from the article. Without any basis. :( --Mareklug ^talk 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder too. It's time to reinsert the needed word. ;) [Add: I saw you did it already/ Article is on my watchlist now ;] The interview with the Georgian naval officer has a certain quality regarding his remarkable sense for reality. But the blogger is no naval expert. All the best. Elysander (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Russian military officials ever used terms like "battle" or "skirmish" in their reports in August? Elysander (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure did. the reference number 3 in Battle off the coast of Abkhazia (RTR) is titled in Russian "Naval battle between Russia and Georgia" (Morskoi boi.... in my home transliteration where "morskoi" = sea, naval (as adjective, masculine) and "boi" = fight, battle, skirmish, context depending). And they gave out medals for bravery in military engagements, which they wouldn't, had there officially been no action. So, I'd say, officially, per the Russians, there was a naval battle. Of course, whether this is a historical fact or fiction remains as yet unsettled, per net-available public sources of high integrity. --Mareklug ^talk 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok .. I'm a nit picker! ;) An offical document doesn't exist? Except this media excerpts( state-controlled or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Please check the Georgian casualty list![5] First five are members of the Georgian naval forces. - Elysander (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-official news of Georgian side about the "battle" >> [6] Details from the former 1st Defense Min / + .... In the view of the Georgian Ministry of Defense, the naval encounter reported by the Russian navy last August was either a propaganda ploy, or simply a delusion. - Elysander (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About Lenka...

Hey, sorry I beat you to the article! I love Lenka so much, and was disappointed that, after a month after her site was launched and her single got popularity, there was still no article about her! So, I moved "Lenka" to "Lenka, Slovakia", and started the page "Lenka". It took me quite a while before I found her last name. So sorry! Please tell me more about her, and I hope we can work on bettering Lenka together. Peace and love, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mate. What would you like to know about Lenka? We need to zero in on the name of the bush place she was born in, unless it happens to be a hospital in Sydney. :) In that case, we need to make a note of it. --Mareklug ^talk 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Poland location map.svg

Hello! I reverted your upload of a new map. These location maps are a series of maps with a standardised style for a consistent usage in all projects so it's not useful to change a single map, especially without a discussion. As I'm still active in WP I prefer to be asked before it. Regards, --NNW (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not see this reply, before writing to you on your Commons talk page. Let's continue there, pls. --Mareklug ^talk 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

OK as you wish. The talk page clearly says

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mareklug/Archive2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mareklug/Archive2 at the Reference desk.

Notice the part Any such messages will be deleted. And because you were discussing Serbian Foreign Minister, covering the ass of Serbia, vote in the UN etc. in the section which is dealing with the Micronesian recognition of Kosovo I am issuing you a warning for violating the terms of that talk page which are clearly set in a Template:notaforum. Not only that it was off topic, it also did not limit discussion to improvement of this article.

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo‎ for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. --Avala (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. {{help}} Will someone take this nationalistic wikiwarrior off my talk page? User:Avala is harassing me, and only me, adding every now and then another "you will be blocked" homily-as-homemade-template. In contrast, user:Bazonka on the same article talk page limited himself to posting a message to somebody else, when he thought the thread off topic. Not, struck their comment, or toiletpapered a user talk page! Not that my article talk page comment was a "forum" one, in my view, as it helped assess article content and believability of a new development, as well as took issue with undue weight placed in it by ...user:Avala. So, yet again, I suffer singling out and harassment on my talk page by this Serbian wiki administrator operating nationalistically in matters of Kosovo, and here, from a position of conflict of interest. Of course, he singles me and my edits/talk page, in his forcible attempts to suppress/silence other voices, especially mine. Thank goodness I am only at his mercy electronically. But there you go: attempted wikicleansing. --Mareklug ^talk 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if we had any doubts over your problem with my nationality before now we don't. I warn you (with official warning template, not home made as you ridiculously suggest) for forum-like discussion in an article talk page yet you turn it into a "nationalistic wikiwarrior" accusations then you go on to say I am in a conflict of interest operating nationalistically supposedly because I am "Servian" and you call all that disgusting. No relation with my warning and your reply whatsoever. Instead of addressing the issue in question, you raise the question of my nationality and also wrap it in some odd insinuations how I am also a nationalist (all that because I told you to stay on topic). Bravo. Now anyone can see that you DO have a problem with Serbs. Wikipedia as a multinational website is not a place for people like you. I wouldn't expect something like that from a Pole, because Poles know from history what is it like to be harassed and hated just because of the nationality. Serbs and Jews know this feeling too. Now listen - I have no intention of being a bag taking your hate speak punches. Take it elsewhere. And as for your cry for help - administrator annulled it calling it an abuse of a help template. If I were him I would also issue you with an appropriate warning.--Avala (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. Your idiotic self-personalization with Serbia or taking my NPOV efforts in the matter of among others, your Kosovo edits, to be somehow in your eyes my "having issues with Serbia" is over the top. Now you're telling someone to get off the Wikipedia, slandering them as a racist, invoking boulderdash arguments while at it, and misrepresenting their (my) character, and edits. Go away. Leave me alone. Your perception is impaired; even the help admin is no Wiki admin, just a regular user, like you on this project. Goes to show what your word is good for. --Mareklug ^talk 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"idiotic self-personalization with Serbia"? What a joke.--Avala (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 (2)

For calling other editors "nuts" and "hard-baked vengeful" or "hell-bent".[7]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Anything to make your day, toiletpaperer. Speaking of blocked, may your blockage pass, and may St. Commons Sense have mercy on your edits. ---Mareklug ^talk 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of apologizing for your wrongdoing and insults you just slap another one, now I am a "toiletpaperer". Great.--Avala (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're also ignorant of customs. Read about toiletpapering trees by frat boys. --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How is some silly frat boy custom related to the svg map opposition? Nohow. You are just trying to find an excuse for your dirty language now that you have realized what kind of insults you posted before. Of course another option is to apologize but in your case apology is a no-option.--Avala (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. You're the one relating the two, no one else. This exchange is a microcosm in a nutshell :) of how you spin discourse and stitch harvested by you evidence into vivid magical realism on a) talk page discussions and b) crafting reality according to Avala out of, when taken individually, syntactically cogent elements, such as individual sentence fragments, sentences, individual sources, and sundry factual information. And you even answered yourself correctly: nohow. The rest of your say here is scurrilous imputing to me and my person, ocassionally, to my edits, certain, invented by you, nasty qualities, all the while toiletpapering this user talk page in your self-admitted crusade to impair my opposing your harmful edits in the matter of KOSOVO. Nothing to do with Serbia, except in your mind. Apologize to Bazonka and Ian for my "you guys are nuts"? Maybe. But they, as Englishmen, get the intended meaning, I would hope, which I will here spell out for you: "you are making irrational arguments, and are not addressing the merits of my argument". I also wrote that in the quick of the moment. One of my addressed audience has more than on one ocassion put on that very same page, also in the heat of discussion, words that TV bleeps out in America, but you, Dear Avala, have not deemed he should suffer for this faux pas your kind attention, and your vivid efforts at intimidation, blackening his character, or in any way endure the exceedingly logical, tasteful and apt graphical and template design. (A particularly silly specimen of said design and activities hangs due north of these words: "This is not a forum for the general discussion of Mareklug. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit yourself to the general improvement of this article.") Heh. Your words, I believe. So take a good look at yourself, as the song goes. Best regards, signed, the article himself. --Mareklug ^talk 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A gift

A bit late on my part but here you go. And Merry Christmas :)

I, BalkanFever, award you the **Barnstar of Good Humor**, for your ability to make me laugh with your subtle, witty comments. Keep it up! **Balkan Fever** 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well! Thank you. And merriest to you (more on your talk page). --Mareklug ^talk 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe Macedonian and Polish are probably the furthest apart in terms of intelligibility but I got most of it :) Lucky it's written though because if you were speaking to me I would just be replying "Aha" without a clue. Balkan Fever 08:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

bmibaby or BMIBaby?

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Bmibaby. If you care, please weigh in again at Talk:Bmibaby#Closure again. — AjaxSmack 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! But creating content by yourself is only part of the collaborative Wikipedia user experience, there is an active community of editors discussing how to better improve the Poland-related content; please consider joining our discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. There are many editors who would like to work more closely with you, benefit from your insight, and help you with their experience! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish: odpowiedź Piotrze, a gdzie moja barnstarka? :):) Poza tym, od dawien dawna jestem wpisany/zapisany/aktywny. Patrz Tadeusz Gronowski.

English: answer Piotrus, where is my barnstar? :):) Besides, I have been listed/acting as an active member since forever. And see Tadeusz Gronowski.

Trzym sie / Take care, --Mareklug ^talk 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Na dawnie oborogwiazdek nie mialem juz czasu, samo sprawdzenie kto co robi zajelo mi z dwie godziny :) Jestes zapisany, ale nigdy nie bierzesz udzialu w naszych dyskusjach :( Przy okazji mozesz tez chciec dodac tam gdzie jestes zapisany (czyli tutaj) czym sie interesujesz/specjalizujesz... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, no niezle sie rozpisales :) Chodzilo o kilka slow... :) Moze wolalbys przeniesc wiekszosc tego na swojego userpage? Przy okazji, User:Tymek tez jest z Chicago, znacie sie? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Halo

Witam

Mieszkam niedaleko lotniska, napisz do mnie maila, masz moj adres na mojej stronie, to moze bysmy sie zobaczyli. pozdrawiam. Tymek (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)