User talk:Evlekis/Archive3

Croatia - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Kosovo as country of birth

Hello Sulmues. I appreciate your good faith contributions in adding Kosovo as a present-day territory while not removing references to Yugoslavia. I do not have a problem with it at all. The only thing you need to be aware of regarding footballers is that their infoboxes have been designed to insert two pieces of information only: city of birth (or settlement if place is not a real city), and country (this tends to mean at time of birth). So my removal of Kosovo is not an attack on the region or a gesture in opposition to its ongoing struggles; by the same token, there is no Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia or Vojvodina; or atleast there should not be, if there is then you are justified to remove them. What we can do however, and I demonstrated this with Bardhyl Kaqiu, is bring mention of Kosovo into main text. I believe that there is an actual policy guideline dictating the point in question though, some time back FkpCascais made me aware of that when he went on a clean-up campaign across hundreds of articles. I hope that is all right with you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I brought the template to AfD. You might be interested in seeing that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you link me to this new section? Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo-note --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) In general there is nothing wrong with adding in the infobox what we are saying in the article. The infobox is viewed more than the article itself. In all the biographies of famous people I enter Korce, Ottoman Empire, present day Albania, or Boletin, Ottoman Empire, present day Kosovo. Finding technicalities of having Kosovo in the body of the article but not in the infobox is just a waste of time. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is nevertheless a policy to which we must adhere that dictates that we act otherwise. Now we can flout it if we so choose but if another editor reverts us citing the specific clause then we will be setting ourselves up to be disruptive should we resist his efforts. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this in my watchlist, and I hope nobody gets me wrong by intervening. Regarding footballers (and only them) the issue was debated something like a year ago, or more, on the Football project talk page. The reason was because there was an edit war and most of the footy editors intevened in the discussion. The discussion was if we should use the "old" country name or the "new". Most (if not all) the footy editors (mostly anglophiles) insisted to use the formula city+country in the time of birth. I, as a diplomatic solution between the parties, proposed to use for the former Yugoslavia the formula of city+republic (or province)+Yugoslavia. But it was rejected. I came out to see some editors trying to escape this by adding the, exemple (today: Croatia). But anyway, if any of you feel adequate to reopen the question, please feel free, I wan´t be against it, but I will follow whatever is decided. In the meantime, I´ll follow the previously agreed. I also already had this conversation with Kedadi and other users as well. Best regards to both. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cascais, the best thing you can do if possible is produce a thread here as to where this debate took place and what the outcome was; I see no problem with a new proposal from Sulmues that today's land be included. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Copying what I said in my talk page) Thank you both for coming earlier to my talk page and discuss this. I strongly beleive that instead of WP:ARBMAC, which is the place where Balkanian editors firstly meet, because of sanctions provided them by Swiss and German admins, we should have a Balkanian Cooperation board in Wikipedia, similar to what I opened for the WP:Albanian and Greek wikipedians cooperation board and which was deserted by the Greek editors, probably for a mistake I made. Still feel free to point to this thread for a consensus. It's not that we are so many of us here in the English wikipedia.

Footballers should follow practices of other people's biographies and I have done some in my years in Wikipedia. City and country of birth at time of birth should be mentioned, comma, present-day country/region/territory disputed. We don't need to specify the region of the country of birth, it would create many consistency problems, especially in the infoboxes, and particularly for people from big countries, who have many admin divisions, but it can be specified in the body of the article, rathern than the infobox. The Balkanic countries are smaller and we wouldn't have that problem, but we need to be consistent. So as an example we'll have Valon Behrami, Mitrovica, Yugoslavia, present day Kosovo. The lead needs to be consistent with the body of the article and the same info should be given in both per WP:MOS, unless we want to precise something more in the body of the article for Kosovo at the time of Yugoslavia. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hassocks

Hi Evlekis,

I noticed you recently reverted an edit I made to the article Hassocks regarding its status as village/town and flagged it as vandalism. Hassocks is a village, as the source at the end of that sentence shows (http://www.hassockspc.net/), so I was wondering what your reasons were for reverting my edit?

Cheers,

80.229.16.243 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. If your intentions are good then feel free to cancel my revert, but the nature of your editing gave me and other similar editors the impression that you were making random unconstructive edits. The repeated characters "xxxx" did look somewhat out of the ordinary, coupled with your empty summary boxes. If you do wish to make any edits on these settlements, please atleast use the summary so that users known what your intention is. Many thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nokshiq

Could you help me find the Slavic name of the site of Nokshiq in Montenegro?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello to you. I think, not 100%, but I think Nokshiq is the Albanian for the Novšici settlement. Evlekis (Евлекис) 03:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a place called Nokšić where Ali-paša Gusinjski fought serbian rebels led by Marko Miljanov in Battle of Nokšić.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovan names

sorry to bother you, I just wanted to ask, since you strike me as a neutral editor, why exactly you defend the serbian nomenclature of cities in Kosovo? firstly, you say there is an english equivalent for those names, but the english sources are limited (not to mention that there are also sources with the albanian names (such as BBC)) and not enough to make a settled english version of the name. Also "the earliest mention" of Djakovica or Gnilanje in the english speaking world is probably from 1999 when nobody knew anything about them, they were just picked up from some yugoslav maps and the albanian versions start appearing alsmost instantly afrewards. If these had been famous landmarks like Bled or Ohrid or Munich, their names would have been established but nobody had even heard of them before the war. There are very few serbs remaining in these settelments and an albanian-speaking governmant has undisputable authority there, so it would logically and according to wikipedia policy follow that the local names are used, simply because there was no time to create an english equivalent (considering that albanian names already existed at the time the serbian ones were used, and the serbian ones had "advantage" only because the government then used them).Even though there may be a few more sources in one than the other that is beacuse of the forementioned reasons and has no actual importance. Even if the albanian and serbian names would have started to be used at the same time and yugoslav government would have tolerated both, it is a probability consequence that one would have dominated. Again, sorry to bother you but I would appreciate it--Cradel (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cradel. Firstly, thanks for noticing my attempts at being neutral; that is my general idea and as you can gather, it is not always a possible task. Conflict by its very nature forbids such a state as neutrality and only arises in the first place because there can only be one of a number of solutions which will in discriminate all of the other parties involved. I want the light switched on, you want it off, what do we do? A light may either be on or off and if we try to force the switch into the middle position, the system will be in conflct with itself not knowing if it wants to go one way or the other, and soon enough, the power will die as a result of the abuse!!

I don't actually support the Serbian name so to speak, I don't believe I have in recent months taken part in debates to defend its usage. I generally apply it if the article exists with that name; when it comes to moving pages, if we talk of a mountain or plain shared between Kosovo and Albania, I leave the Albanian name alone, if between Kosovo and one the three Slavic entities to surround it, it then becomes controversial to use the Albanian looking at the wider handling of Kosovo coupled with the involvement of the other entity. I need to know precisely where you see my support for the Serbian name so that I can explain the circumstance, it is certain to be something different in all scenarios; as such, a link would be helpful if you reply to this. Apart from that, I'll try to explain everything briefly.

If we are talking about birthplace names, I take historical accuracy into account, and bare in mind that this will mean the Turkish name if the subject was born in the Ottoman Empire. If it is a simple case of mentioning a settlement for contemporary purposes, this is where sources have to take effect. Now according to the details I am given to believe, the "reliable sources" still use the Serbian names, I for instance have only known the BBC to speak of Peć and not Pejë. But be realistic and imagine the opposite, sources are invariably one-sided and any English language source to contain the Albanian names has clearly declared its position. How unrealistic does the following look?

"...then spread their terror to the non-Albanian population of Ferizaj, previously protected by the Serb police deployed to protect them."

I know, it looks like a joke! That type of usage can only be biased and if you see it half way down an article, you are wasting your time reading the whole publication. Now one thing I mst draw your attention towards is this incorrect assumption that "English doesn't have names for places", in fact all national languages have all sorts of names for everything. How a local population calls its settlement would be appropriate if a name did not exist, but it does at all times. There are maps and other publications that do indeed mention these tiny villages in Kosovo and they are published in all countries. We have an old Yugoslav map from about 1970 published in the UK, it has got Kosovo down to villages of fewer than 100 inhabitants, plus lakes, plus mountaints, etc. And it is not true that Đakovica only dates back to 1999, it had been mentioned before in travel writing and other reports; Kosovo was first making headlines as we knew them from 1996 and it began to feature heavily from 1998. It featured sporadically before 1996 and the town had been mentioned; so there are always names for everything. Now regarding post-2008, this is the sticky issue. I want to see a solution and I don't mind which way it goes; I am personally more frustrated at this stupid and futile Pristina with no /h/ after /s/, and no diacritic on the /s/ policy. It suits nobody, either have the Serbian or the Albanian, but it is not the English adaptation in its Wikipedia form, it is the Serbian minus the diacritic. Diacritics in turn are included or discluded according to publisher. I feel that Mitrovica is used more than both Kosovska and Mitrovicë, and as you know, they are both Albanian forms, but until this is passed, I am wrong to push it by removing Kosovska from all contemporary references. As for "nobody knew anything about Gnjilane, etc.", I contend that nobody knows anything about it now. Ask an average Englishman where Podujevo is and he'll believe you if you tell him it is in Brunei. I don't think the events of 1999 attracted new enthusiasts, most just watched the evening news when they are their dinner and that was the end of it. One who can speak of Prizren with knowledge today probably knew it before 1999 unless he is very young. That is all I can say at this stage. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

firstly, I apologise for assuming you would automatically know what I was talking about, I was referring to the talk pages of Đakovica and Uroševac (that discussion seems to have happened some time ago). Anyway, I completely agree with you on one point, that historical names are to be used when refering to events in history, it would be absurd to say Kant was born in Kaliningrad, just as it would not make sense to say :

"...then spread their terror to the non-Albanian population of Ferizaj, previously protected by the Serb police deployed to protect them."

however nobody talks of Leningrad or Petrograd when they want to go to St.Petersburg, even though there were probably enough sources to consolidate them, and probably even more for Koeningsberg, as exonyms or english equivalents (since you may argue that they are not the same). Their names were changed by their governing authority and successfully adapted into english, a country may even request their adaption in the UN (many have been successfull). In that case, what really is an english name for a place than merely what the inhabitants (or their representatives, which can change) call it ? Exonyms are different though, they are created when a place has some importance to the foreigners and becomes popular usage, which is not that easy to change and probably even shouldn't ( for example I'm opposed to using Kosova instead of Kosovo since it has already entered popular usage).

Since you believe there is an english name for every place you must have a definition for "english name". If it is the earliest mention in english then Istanbul and Kaliningrad should be renamed. If it is the most commonly used one then they would become completely trivial in cases of dispute and we would have to rely on google books hits.If it is popular usage (which I prefer) then a map from 1970 or some evening news would not establish it, in which case not every place has one, and when it doesn't the name that be used to refer to these places in english is the name their inhabitants or their representatives use as well.

still, a solution is what we both want. I agree that Pristina might not be an appropriate one since instead of solving the the spelling it changed the pronounciation and invented a new word, however this new word can become an exonym and solve the problem. Finally, what I meant with "support serbian names" was that that you claim they (or any) can be the correct english equivalents for these places which are impossible to put into popular usage, whereas I claim there can be none--Cradel (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I confess that this is a very difficult call, with a huge gray area. What would an English tourist really say if he were telling someone that while in Kosovo he wished to visit Ferizaj/Uroševac. I would be very happy to apply all Albanian names if policy were amended to accept Kosovo's international status as a country. In my honest opinion, we should only ever accept de facto status in all areas because any de jure factor is controversial and open to debate but de facto is plain and simple, and most of all, it applies whether people like it or not. That is also the key to this problem, it may otherwise have been felt appropriate to rename Preševo to Presheva for its municipal majority; it wouldn't be accepted because of the country it is internationally recognised to be a part of and what that government calls it. The country issue is the problem here, not so much settlement names, they are mere residue. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If de facto would be more important albanian names would be used, with de jure there would be a dispute sincce Kosovo is partially-recognised and partialy-unrecognised, if both would be considered alb.names would have the advantage. The problem, though, is elsewhere, as you argued earlier : the english names. I haven't been able make out if you dismiss their existence from your response, but you seem to agree in using the alb.names once Kosovo is both de jure and de facto a country, which could mean that eng.names change together with the de jure situation or that there are non. First you give importance to de jure and then you say only de facto should be considered, which does confuse me a little. In any case, it will be some years until Kosovo is fully-recognised and the only problem to remain would be whether the english names have been established (and if so, are they srb. or alb., for I have noticed a tendency in recent times to use alb.names in international media, b.t.w try translating Urosevac or Dakovica from srb. to eng. in google translator), but that is not the not the problem now.

Since a solution has to be reached before that (waiting is not a solution, as you said: the light must either be on or off, if it's not one, it's the other). Personally, I would agree to the "de facto advantage" solution since it is easier and more logical (it should even be used for Palestine places if it doesn't already) but it is unacceptable if established english equivalents exist (for which I'm not sure what your opinion is). If this problem is solved, there remains no actual dispute, don't you agree? I am afraid, though, that it would still not be accepted by some editors just as there would be editors favouring Kosova or Presheva, but with no real argument. So would that really be a solution or just a logical consequence ? I do favour an actual solution but it would be naive to hope one can be reached with the "light switch" being in the middle, it will either be Uroševac or Ferizaj, there are no alternatives, any choice will be considered either biased or logical.--Cradel (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest pushing for de facto recognition, I declared my favour for that position for all practical aspects. The Republic of Kosovo is just the tip of the iceberg here; accepting national status will mean doing the same for all self-governing entities such as Abkhazia and others; that then leads to conspiracy debate as to who really gives the orders in those places. With Abkhazia, analysts may think Moscow and in Kosovo, others may think the U.S or Germany. I mean, Priština has landmarks devoted to Bill Clinton and George Bush, where do you find tributes to those two cartoons even within the States? De facto has arresting and far-reaching implications; WWII entities would have to be renamed and here it is even more justified than anything in the world today. That is because the world was split into two and there could be no way that one faction had more right to claim continuity from the previous system than the other, still some do not like mention of the Independent State of Croatia; but in reality, letters sent from that state had NDH stamps, not Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The other point I have to raise is that Albanian has an advantage in de facto situation but definitely not in de jure; that is the whole point of something being legal. In real-world contexts, nothing can be de jure unless it is accepted by all parties, for one government is only as important as the next and they are all players. That is not to say that Serbian has de jure advantage, that too is subjective. These are not reasons to adhere to Serbian names, we just cannot find convincing purposes to switch to Albanian. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

there would be no such implications for the argument here is not "de facto has advantage" but "de facto must be considered". Kosovo is recognised by 69 states and has an ICJ opinion ruling it's independence legal (both are de jure-ical advantages) while it has the disadvantage of the majority of UN members not recognising it). Even if de jure means everybody accepting, that does not help us, the scale is balanced in this point, for then the serbian claim over Kosovo would also have to be accepted by everyone to be legal. How can we get to a solution ? By looking at different arguments. Earlier you claimed srb.names are to be applied because they are english equivalents as well, is that so or not? you must have dismissed that claim as you now claim there is no convincing reason for any to be favoured as the de jure situation is unclear and de facto has arresting implications, basically agreeing that the names to be used are those used by a de jure government. well, there is no such goverYou just need to point out wherenment involved. the only thing we are left with is a de facto government which is neither legal nor illegal. What is your solution, to wait ? --Cradel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To wait is all we can do for the time being. Unfortunately for you and other Kosovans, the situation is not as clearcut as the simple independence of Norway whereby even its former overlord Denmark recognises it and no one disputes it. The ICJ was by its own admission not a competent court and its ruling was not based on experts examining the occurrence and consulting the foundations of international law but rather a platform for nations' spokespersons to proffer their views on irrelevant matters that were anything but legally concerning. 69 states recognising Kosovo puts the entity in a unique never-seen-before situation. The number continues to rise but no one honestly knows how this will help or make things worse. The term de jure is one of the most dangerous and provocative terms one can use here because its very requirement suggests conflict. If Serbia hurried up and recognised Kosovo, I am sure it would make matters a lot easier as all other countries supporting Serbia's claim would follow suit, Kosovo would then be as accepted as Montenegro. There are no real principles for holding onto the Serbian names but the ultimate question was only ever, "What is the English?". Over time, English does change its names for places but a corpus is required to substantiate this. Take the name Kosovo, and Kosova: in Turkish, you will not have feared the name Kosovo staying because Kosova is what it has always been, it is their name for the land. But they also have their names for all settlements in Rumelia (eg. Yakova for your Gjakova). As I see the exonyms, they still seem to be Serbian endonyms though no doubt this is starting to change in some publications. You just need to point out where. All I can say is, forget all this talk of de jure; establish extactly what is the English name in each case (it can be done properly); and do not push for de facto because it too is tied in with too much controversy, it would cause us to ackowledge all rebel states and organisations. Evlekis (Евлекис) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's forget de jure and de fact and concentrate on the name being more used in recent times (check the CIA world factbook maps [1], [2], or a recent map in BBC[3]). There might still be more serbian sources but they are older, I am however prepared to wait until there are more alb. ones (if, of course). But my problem is : how do we know when there are more ? You say that we can properly establish which the english name is, how can that be done ?--Cradel (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. How does one find this? I'd like to see a road map as these can be the best sources. The problem there is that they will start from the top, they call the land Kosovo, make a decision whether to mark it as independent or in some other way to reflect dispute, but then refer to the big towns by their Serbian name. Only when they jump down the list of smaller settlements will they either need to use one or the other if not both. Sometimes I think that is the best solution: Prizren/Prizreni. Who will accept it though? The bigger problem Cradel is that there are many other editors involved, it would be improper for an agreement between you and me to count as a consensus. If all written names were piped to a bilingual article name, would that help? It would mean alternating between variations in the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch demographics - height

Hi Woodstone. I have for the moment restored my original version about national heights for the following reasons: I see your point that it is senseless comparing state with region, but on the whole, it is region and not state that counts. State discludes adjoining areas where the phenomenon applies but can also incorporate regions where it doesn't apply, after all, average height goes up and down in gradual stages as you travel. With anthropology, all factors are taken into account so as not to produce artificial data. In the US for example, there is variation between white, black and Latin. In Italy there is geographical variation with northerners significantly taller than southerners. Now I have no problem with editing my revision but there is no way we can remove sources and replace the text with erroneous information, and saying "Dutch people are world's tallest" is just that. And if states are essential, then it may be worth you knowing that there is one country entirely within the Dinaric Alps, that being Montenegro; and more often than not, people that know of the Montenegrins being tall speak only of them being tall forgetting about the neighbouring Herzegovinians and Dalmatians, yet I can tell you that the very tallest are in the Croatian hinterland and over into the Bosnian Krajina, but just like the suggestion than Frisians are on average taller than the people of Maastricht, it is original research. These are the things we need to consider. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You rightly start above by talking about "national heights". Since this is an article about a country, you should only use country aggregated data to compare. I understand your reasoning about gradual geographic spread and racial influence, but that would belong in an article on "human body", not in a country article. If you can find sources showing a higher average length in Montenegro, (and it is deemed to be a country, I'm not keeping up with developments) you can state that fact. −Woodstone (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, another user reverted me back to your revision and so I found a better solution by adding the word "among" before "the tallest"; that now removes the need to restore all the irrelevant data I originally gave. It seems to have survived and given the variation in measurement applications from one source to the other, I may just add the word "among" on all the references to Dinarians being the tallest too (such as in the Dinaric Alps article). After all, it is more accurate and less insistent upon one fact that nobody can honestly prove. The Dinarians and the Dutch are most definitely the tallest, but which is bigger than the other is the hard part, and in any case, it is by mm and not cm. I won't revert again if anyone cancels my contribution but doing so would present a conflict in information between two articles. Thanks Woodstone. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo's border

I appreciate your good faith edit in the International recognition of Kosovo article, fully removing the sentence containing information on which of Kosovo's neighbours recognise it. I am just puzzled as to why you feel that a word such as entity is "horrible", I've never encountered such a hostile approach to the usage. It is just that across the whole site, the word is so useful in that it can allow everyone to exemplify precisely what is planned, even amid bitter conflicts, and yet it causes offence to nobody. If you have followed my recent activity, I've been submerged in this controversial Occupation of Albania (1912-1913) article. We dispute the title, not so much the article itself. Here where we are dealing with a soon-to-be-inaugurated territory called Albania in 1912 and a de jure Ottoman Empire that has fled the scene and two would-be belligerents fighting alongside each other in the hope of dividing something that is res nullius. The only word I can think of that can serve as an umbrella term for all parties is "entity", it means thing that exists. That cannot be "horrible", surely? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was being overly hostile or rude - probably "horrible" was an inappropriate word to use. The reason I object to the use of "entities" is simply because it is too broad and imprecise. "Political entities" might have been better, but "entities" by itself could refer to any number of things - e.g. fields, lakes, parishes (or the Balkan equivalent), people. I know what you meant, but it just seemed strange. In any case, I've removed the text now so I don't think we need to worry about this too much. Bazonka (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. In light of the full extent of "entity" per se, you did the best thing and remove the information. After all, it is not difficult to establish which countries do and do not recognise Kosovo as there is ample thread to follow. And which of its neighbours recognise it is not even important, it amounts more to trivia. So good call. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of Ottoman Albania

I think that you did great job here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you believe?

Just check this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APrince_of_Kosova&action=historysubmit&diff=384959417&oldid=384953343

))))

--WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tadija. I read the link but I didn't follow what the admin was talking about, sorry about that. Evlekis (Евлекис) 03:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you believe it! [4] Evlekis (Евлекис) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history

Hello. Vraneš may have once measured 2.26 however he is at an age whereby one may still just about grow, and there are more sources to state that he is now 2,29 and these are measured sources. This coincides with what he declares and what people say he is. Earlier sources did have him at 2,26. Anyhow, please be aware that when making reverts, you may not remove sources in the process. Such behaviour is unconstructive and can lead to a block from editing. If there is more doubt concerning his height then it is fine to give two heights along with sources to explain dicrepancy. Note that all 2.10+ basketball players have disputed heights over one or two inches for various reasons. Furthermore, Vraneš has not played in the NBA or had anything to do with it since 2003, then he was just 20. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please stop reverting Vranes's height on the page. He may very well be 7'6" now, in fact it's likely that he kept growing since he was only 20 at the time, but it doesn't change the fact that he was 7'5" when he played in the NBA. His official height, as listed by the NBA, was 7'5", when he played in the NBA.

See for yourself here: http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=slavko_vranes Cheers.Hoops gza (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that your source is fine, except it's not for his time while playing in the NBA, and the NBA has its own official measurements that we should go by.Hoops gza (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you are talking at last. There is a way around it. You (or we) will need to add a footnote to confirm that this was his height at the time, since that is the subject of the article. I didn't realise your interest was NBA only, it seems odd but fair considering. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How about now? A minute or so after your last revert. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note to the notes section that explains it. How do you like it?Hoops gza (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed. You've done a good job and I'm glad we've reached a solution. They'll be no more need for reverting now. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! Good teamwork! :) Hoops gza (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please don't break my paragraph, but enter a new one. I cannot accept that my thoughts are broken apart. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Many apologies Sulmues. It was wrong and insensitive of me, so here I have reverted those contributions[5]. I will refrain from restoring those edits onto a new section for two reasons: one, you've read them, so rather like a note for the milkman, it can go in the bin once read; two, it offers no new argument and that is what has personally caused me to shy away from the debate these past days. There are no new arguments from any party and have not been for over a month; everyone is arguing according to national consciousness and this just goes on and on with no fresh proposals. This is not your fault, nor mine, nor any individual's, just a collective mess. Anyhow, I am sorry to have ruined your statement and I promise not to react in that manner again. All the best. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good decision Evlekis. May I suggest that you offer counterarguments to the opponents points in your argument? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chipmunkdavis. Sorry I didn't quite grasp what you were saying about counterarguments, can you explain what you were suggesting? Sorry about this! Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no it is fine. I'd like to clarify that I did not set this up as a vote or anything. The debate was stale (I'm sure we all agree), and in some places quite convoluted, so I tried to set up a method to get clear and concise arguments from both opinons. I felt that the arguments placed could be well developed after such a debate, and when I said to include arguments I meant that both sides know the others opinions, and thus in their argument could say "the oppositions argument of X is flawed because of etc." The eventual aim would be to allow these arguments to be seen by others. Of course, I have given an opinion in the debate, and so probably better to pull in more third opinons who could make decisions based off these arguments rather than have me close it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis thanks for reverting yourself! Please feel free to put your comment right after my paragraph, just don't put my words into pieces. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Advice needed

There are various layers of answers here :) Here are few things that I believe are known for sure. A lot of this you can also verify from the existing articles.

The Latin-speaking people in the province of Dalmatia (which encompassed roughly what we'd call the western Balkans today) were the indigenous population from the times of the actual Roman Empire. Ethnically speaking they were probably descended from the Illyrians rather than actual Romans, simply because that was the local population. It took several centuries for things to calm down - starting with the Goths and all that, and nobody really took a detailed record of what was really going on back there in the hills. That's why it's called the Dark Ages - the historical record is feeble.

So your article speaks of year 864 - at that time, the area of Dubrovnik was somewhere in between the emerging Croat and Serb principalities - one under Trpimir I of Croatia, the other under Mutimir of Serbia. Yet in the same decade, Dubrovnik was laid siege from the sea by the Saracens. In general, the coastal fortresses such as Dubrovnik were trading communities that a life of its own and were not bound to the hinterland in terms of nationality. They were, however, clearly having to import labor force from somewhere, and there's no better place than that the surrounding villages.

The language spoken by Ragusans at a time when Latin was lingua franca in the wider world can't have been anything other than that, but at the same time the locals had the local Ragusan Dalmatian language, as well as emerging Croatian language. As time went on, the answer to the question "how was the Republic of Ragusa called internally?" gradually shifted. But it was always gradual, never with any violent coup d'etats or anything like that, because I don't believe I've ever heard of anything like that happening (and if it had, the resident Italian irredentists would surely have dug it up by now ;). It is clear that the locals were increasingly Slavic by simple virtue of them using Slavic patronymics as surnames, in the original documents spelled without Latin 2 characters which didn't exist at the time :) but still.

Yet at the same time they weren't being obnoxious about it - they knew that their existence depended on their ability to maintain international trade, which required them to be very flexible. So just as the Republic literally gave away Neum and Sutorina to the Turks to protect them from Venice, Marin Držić had his works printed in the very city of Venice. And they weren't hell-bent on particular Slavic identities both because the national character of the Slavs wasn't built up yet (they were mostly divided on religious grounds), and because the integration into the city required Catholicism. So the "immigrants" weren't necessarily united, a chunk of the population was converted and a chunk wasn't, and their commonality was living in the Republic. Hence, they had no incentive to stand out and cause problems like that.

It may be true that a 19th-century nationalist Croatian agenda pushed the Slavic terminology onto the rest of the world, but it wasn't based on fiction, just on a more self-serving interpretation of history. After being so flexible for so long, I guess it was expected.

I hope this answers your questions. Let me know. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not just later years, it was most of the time, as the Republic existed from 1358 to 1797. But, that's just nitpicking :)

Indeed, Neum was never meant as an actual outlet to the sea, and indeed these days BiH uses Ploče as its main port, not Neum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Lontech

Well, i dont know... There is something there that breach wiki rules, that's for sure. I am more worried about his contribution, and his reappearing only for questionable votes, and similar. You may notice that he reported me also for similar thing. He did that on purpose. Well, some action is needed. We will see. This kind of editing usually draw some admin attention. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, but Lontech is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kosovo, broadly construed, per AE. So it doesnt matter now. If he reemerge as a sock, then we will point at him, and your thesis will be confirmed. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are very much right, as usually. At least, we will not see his disruptive editing for a while. :) Be good, all best, my friend. Just a tip. You didn't know, but just to remember you not to expose sinbad barron characteristics on wiki. You know that we have here "some users" that will try to unblock him, or some of his socks here to edit again. Don't help them in disruptive non neutral editing. Admins will be informed, but off wiki. Information should be kept. So he will remain duck, as long as he is here. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just don't post comparations. Things like, "this account have nja, nja, nja, same as previous sock of SB had nja, nja,nja...". That kind of things. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Those will, but will the future ones be found easy as now? :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, well, i hope that you are right! Anyway, we will see! :) Going to bed, laku noć! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Subst'ing warning templates

Hey, just letting you know that you should substitute warning templates. I've gone ahead and substituted several of the warning templates you left on user talkpages. Leave a message on my talkpage with any questions! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello to you Cymru lass. Thanks for the information on warning templates. As you'll no doubt be aware, I am not fully familiar with all aspects of disciplinary procedure and oly recently did I discover those templates. They are useful in that they alert other patrol users or admins that a certain individual has been warned but by nature they do not draw attention to the particular edit or page that has been vandalised. All I know is that whoever is issuing these warnings is doing so very quickly without typing out full passages, and my only method to date has been to copy an example and then paste it on the user's talk page. If you know of the proper manner, I'd be very grateful if youn share it with me. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(tps) You can find a list of all these user warning templates here. Those who are issuing these warnings very quickly are usually using semiautomated tools such as huggle or twinkle. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 169° 1' 45" NET 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Like The Seven Seas said, Twinkle is pretty good. Basically, it puts a little menu at the top of the screen (to the right of the read and edit buttons). It will help you automatically add user warnings and a whole bunch of other things.

What I was talking about is substitution. Click that link for more information; I'm running out the door so I don't have time to explain (Sorry!) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Evlekis - Basically, substitution copies all of the marked template code onto the page in such a way that it won't update when the template is updated. To substitute a template just use

{{subst:template}}

where template is the name of the template in question.

@ cymru lass - Surprisingly, this link you gave didn't actually exist! I guess everyone uses this link instead. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 243° 14' 45" NET 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the information. I'm quite interested in this Twinkle arrangement. How do you apply for that status? Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Impartial Unbiased

Can you believe it!!!!!!! He STILL hasn't learned. Same name type, same methods, same everything! Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sincerely, it is unbelievable... Whats the point of that edits? We will be reverted in seconds? Man, don't know what to say... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Was he definitely confirmed as Sinbad Baron having bypssed my suggestion that this is Lontech? Or Lontech himself being one of the gang? I just found it odd how with his first edits he began pampering Lontech's user and talk pages. Lontech was never real as can be seen now we never see him, his topic ban keeps him away and he only ever popped up occasionally to push his points. Look at this idiotic summary[6]. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

O Jesus Christ, what a summary... He was blocked as a duck of User:Neutral Player. We will see, anyway, Lontech will hardy edit here ever again, so... We will probably never reappear again as Lontech, as far as i think. Don't know, will see. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell me something, I've never been too familiar with WP terms, what exactly is a duck, what does it mean to be one? Obviously it is not a sock as such, do you know? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just read it! :) Duck essay Be good! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)