User talk:Noah30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Noah30, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --PaxEquilibrium 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive Archive

Contents

[edit] Answer

Yes, at one time the territory of today's Albania was in the Serbian Empire. Take a look:

--Еstavisti 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Račak incident

Hi Noah30, thank you for your note on my talk page. However, I was only reverting vandalism. I did not intend to become involved in the debate on this article. Regards, Accurizer 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, you're not disturbing me. You've laid out your case on the talk page today. I would suggest waiting a week and see if a discussion develops. Regards, Accurizer 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, {{wikify}} means to format the text as for any wikipedia article, boldening the title, adding headers, copyediting, etc. What is your point adding it to Racak incident article?!? Please have some rest and leave my talk page alone. If you actually want to learn how to properly archive yours, check the help pages. Asteriontalk 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have hated me since day one but the fact is that I do not understand why; how can you hate someone you have never seen. First you called me sock puppet, and now remove everything I do. Abuse of adminstrator authority. Calm down --Noah30 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noah, I do not know exactly what your problem is but I assume you have troubles assuming good faith. Around five months ago, I thought you could be a sockpuppet of Hipi Zhdripi, given your similar edit patterns and command of English. I was wrong and apologised to you at the time. This does not however excuse you making horrible accussations against me or insulting me in the way you have done on my talk page. If I were indeed "abusing my administrator privileges" that have been trusted to me by wikipedia community, I would have actually blocked you myself. It is not my intention to block you or have you blocked. It is for this reason I have reminded you of the ArbCom ruling and so on. If you want to carry on with disruption of the like of marking a properly formated article with a wikify tag to prove a point, it is up to you. Regards, Asteriontalk 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I have asked univolved editors at the neutrality project to have a look at the articles, including the titles. Hope this helps. Asteriontalk 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre vs. Incident

I will be reverting the title of the Podujevo article to Podujevo massacre. Generally massacre is used for "individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense". As Racak is still unclear, this is why this is called "incident". Regarding Podujevo, I can not find anyone disputing the civilian nature of the victims, therefore I think that it is better to keep the original title. Regards, Asteriontalk 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have copyedited and wikified the Podujevo massacre article. Hope you are happy with the result. Please note that I think you made a mistake regarding Goran Stoparic, as he was not involved in the killings. He actually testified against the two Scorpions according to the CBC article. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I also edited Gornje Obrinje massacre. Please note that the text needs to read "allegedly commited by Serbian forces" as no court case has been brought. Asteriontalk 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] of Kosovo or Kosova ?

Dear Noah30, regarding your edit at "Kosovo Liberation Army" , I find that instead of edit-warring in every single article containing certain names or words, the appropiate thing to do is discussing the issue in the main article dealing with that contentious name or word, and then, having solved the problem at its root, proceeding to modify all other articles in accordance to the result.

The same is valid to Wikipedia policies: instead of trying to edit articles in ways contradicting Wikipedia policies' you dislike, the correct thing is to attempt to change the policies themselves, and only after archieving that modify all articles accordingly. This includes, of course, the current policy on following common English usage.

So, if you consider that in this specific case "of Kosova" should be used, let's talk about it at Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo. If discussion there leads to the page being moved to "of Kosova", I would help to modify all articles that mention this party in accordance to the page move :-)

But while that article remains in its current place (i.e. "of Kosovo"), in accordance to the two main ideas I mentioned at the beginning, I will continue to edit other articles to reflect current consensus on the issue (based on common English usage) and for consistency with that article. - Best regards, Evv 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) If you wish to respond to this comment, please do it in this talk page; I will see it.

You have to understand that the name of the party in English is Democratic Party of Kosova and we can not change this name. Do you understand what I am trying to say?--Noah30 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe you that Thaçi choose to call it the "Democratic Party of Kosova" in English: I take your word that it is a clear verifiable fact. As such, this fact (i.e. that Albanian politicians use "of Kosova") should be included in the "Democratic Party of Kosovo" article, with a proper citation. But, in my understanding of WP:NC, for the purposes of article naming and usage throughout Wikipedia, common English usage (which appears to be "of Kosovo" - see here) trumps whatever name a foreign political party chooses for itself in English.
Of course, I could be wrong about this. If you think that "of Kosova" should be used you can always file a move request at WP:RM (to be discussed at Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo). If that request leads to the article being moved to "of Kosova", I will respect community consensus. - Best regards, Evv 08:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You are totally wrong about the name on Democratic Party of Kosova. You or me can not change the name of a political subject, therefore edit the name to Democratic Party of Kosova. This is very logical.--Noah30 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We disagree :-) Anyway, if you wish to move the article from "of Kosovo" to "of Kosova", you'll find instructions on how to do it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a (possibly) controversial page move. If you have any question or need any assistance, I will be happy to help. - Best regards, Evv 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Evv what about helping me request move of the Democratic Party of Kosovo to D. P. of Kosova. I hope you will help me.--Noah30 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Sure :-) To be honest, I really believe that such a request would fail, because it would go against the current naming convention of following common English usage. The idea is that we as editors should restrict ourselves to merely reflect common English usage, and not actively "correct" what we may percieve as mistaken or unfair usages. As a clear example of this, see the result of the very recent move request at Talk:Ushak carpet.

As shown in Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo, common English usage appears to be "of Kosovo", and based on this I will oppose the move to "of Kosova"; but if you really want to go ahead with the move request I will do my best to help you organize it :-)

The required "paperwork" is fairly simple, consisting in adding the three templates mentioned in the WP:RM instructions, which in our case would mean:

In WP:RM, to inform about the move request:

{{subst:WP:RM|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|summary of the reason for move}}

In Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo (top of the page):

{{move|Democratic Party of Kosova}}

In Talk:Democratic Party of Kosovo (bottom of the page):

{{subst:WP:RMtalk|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|reason for move}}

As you will notice during the previews, before saving the page, those templates generate all the standard WP:RM text and format.

Of course, what the above examples still lack is the important part, the reason for move: the explanation of why the move makes sense, and the demostration that it would comply with current Wikipedia policies (as stated before, it's with this last part where I see the biggest problem).

The reason for move could be given along these lines:

{{subst:WP:RMtalk|Democratic Party of Kosovo|Democratic Party of Kosova|The party has adopted "Democratic Party of Kosova" as its official name in English (as proven in these links link, link, link and these books/articles/papers example, example, example). This official name is used in many English-language books and publications: book, book, book. Therefore, this is the name Wikipedia should use, and the one the readers would be better served by.}}

Did I correctly convey your view of the issue ? Of course, I don't agree with that opinion :-) and I believe that most editors will oppose it also. Does this look like what you had in mind ? Did I succeed in dissuading you of going ahead with the move request :-) ? - Best regards, Evv 10:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am still not shore if I am going to request move. --Noah30 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure :-) In any case, you get the idea of how it works, facilitating any other controvertial move request you may want to carry on in the future.
As I said before, I believe that this specific move won't stand a chance while the underlying policy remains that of using common English usage instead of official names. What would be required is to modify the Wikipedia naming conventions first, and only then request the move according to the new policy. - Best regards, Evv 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic

You say that the Serbs in Kosovo used Latinic. That is neither correct nor relevant. The Serbs could have used Albanian and wrote it in cuniform if they so chose, what one does himself is private, what is official comes from the top, not half way down. The Latinic used on roadsigns in Kosovo is present all over Serbia. The old signs are based on Serbo-Croat which for its own reasons, favoured Latinic. The point is that even in Yugoslavia, Serbia regionally used Cyrillic for its own language, even when Serbo-Croat was the face of things outside. By this, I mean that the Serbian constitution was written in Cyrillic, and an article in it explicitly stated that Cyrillic was the official alphabet, with Latinic secondary, in reflection to Croatia where Latinic was primary, and Cyrillic secondary. I don't think that you have fully grasped the status of Kosovo even at its most powerful: the powers given to Kosovo as opposed to other parts of Serbia gave rights to the Albanians, namely an Albanian language administration. It did not affect the Serbian status regarding language and its people, it just gave privileges to the Albanians over certain issues. It was not full independence like what the Republic of Albania has, there came a point when pupils had to attend their school lessons in the national language (be it Serbo-Croat), and the privileges excerised by the Kosovar Albanian authorities were limited in that they adhered to the republic's constitution. Officialdom with regards language and alphabet is determined by state, and some states impose no official language or alphabet. Yugoslavia and Serbia were not examples of these; there is no clause which states that Cyrillic is the alphabet of all regions exlcuding Kosovo and Branicevo, whereby the language remains Serbian but official literature is only published in Latinic. Firstly, there has to be a reason why Latinic is being used: ie.Croats preferred it by the 19th century because they had used it for centuries before due to historical reasons; if a group of Serbs living in another territory had similar issues, then it would be an internal matter between local Serbs and Serbian administration. Kosovar Serbs were not an example of this. Albanians would not come into it, they control their language - Serbs control theirs. So, 1-The girl was born inside Serbia; 2-Any official publication in Serbia coming from the top (government, or town municipality) will have first published the literature in its own way, 3-Any additional languages or variations come next, here is where Albanian may or may not have come in. Equally, with Kosovo not controlled by Serbia now, there is a legally settled population who declare themselves Serb, and as such, by following Serbian principles, they use a language whose academy primarily uses Cyrillic. they don't have to use it if they don't want to. Then they don't have to declare themselves Serbs either, but they do, and Serbian is what it is and there is no place for Albanian argument between what constitutes Serbian and what other Serbs choose to do. It is between them. If it is easier for you, try to forget that you havn't seen Cyrillic in Kosovo, Serbs don't use it much any way; to be official, it doesn't have to be present, but then again, Serbian citizens from all over the country were issued with medical cards and all kinds of documents from the head of the relevant department, and anything governing Kosovars from Serbia, outside of Kosovo's autonomy but within Serbia's self-rule outside of the federation, would have only used the Serbian language and alphabet, and this was and still is Cyrillic. I won't go into it now but there are even more reasons that ones name should be written in Cyrillic if they are born in Serbia. Evlekis 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done Noah young man! I am quite happy to keep Jakupi's page as it is, simply with the word Cyrillic. If it keeps the peace, then that is fine; as for the Albanian name for Srbica, as I said before, I am more than happy to see two, even three names where they are relevant. Keep it up. Evlekis 09:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the message you wrote me was in the user page and not the talk page. I'll sort it out, don't worry. What you're saying about Milosevic and Cyrillic, I know, I am not arguing with that. He asserted Cyrillic and introduced a level of beaurocracy which wasn't recently seen. He did not however introduce Cyrillic as something new. Cyrillic has represented the Serbian language for centuries, and Serbian has been official for any Serbian administration whilst it has existed, as Kosovo has been a part of Serbia for all of the time in question. After Milosevic's changes, Cyrillic may have been present where Latinic Serbo-Croat had been previously, but even before that, Cyrillic was Serbia's official alphabet - even if you didn't see it anywhere. I said before, officialdom doesn't really mean a great deal. But what Milosevic did is totally irrelevant, as is the fact that you may not have noticed anything in Cyrillic in Kosovo. If it makes it easier for you, try to think of Cyrillic as only being ceremonial, which it is largely, confined to churches and government building entrances. But it is there, and it is constitutional, was and still is. The language of the Albanians however is Albanian, therefore they have no concern over what Serbs do with their language. There is no point you listing examples of what people have said, to prove your argument, you need a link to a site which expressly states something along the lines of "Serbian uses Cyrillic in Pcinja, Srem, Sumadija and Branicevo; but Latinic in Kosovo, Metohija, Zlatibor and Backa." You won't. The Serbian language is for the Serbian people. Jakupi is not Serbian, but she was born there, so somewhere on some official records, all be it on a Belgrade computer database, her name is written in Cyrillic and that is that. Evlekis 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC). No offence to you personally.

[edit] Peaceful Solution to naming in Cyrillic

I have fond a better way to end this dispute over the names which should and should not be included in Cyrillic, particularly regarding non-Serbs born in Serbia before the break-up of Yugoslavia, which for the time being is just about everyone. Given that the izvods issued by the state were all in the name of Serbo-Croat, and that in turn blocked development from both Serbian and Croatian from prospering independently, it seems that this is where Serbian as a Cyrillic based alphabet lost out completely. Now it is a fact that when one is born inside a certain country, then the national language/s need/s to be reflected. If we say that the national language was Serbo-Croat and not Serbian, we can avoid using Cyrillic. However, we do need to put the Serbo-Croatian Latinic down. In the case of Jakupi and Adelina, they may just about escape this because their name spellings will not change, as the letters used will be the same in Serbo-Croat Latinic and Albanian. For those born before World War II, leave them for a moment until we can investigate it for accuracy. Happy with that? Evlekis 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quicky: the only example so far which I have ammended after only yesterday adding Cyrillic is of the former speaker of the Assembly for Kosovo, Nexhat Daci. See now how it is, probably better. The problem is that I will have to do the same thing now for all non-Serbs born in Serbia, in keeping with a universal approach. You may know that I live in the UK, well in just a few hours time (22nd in the morning), I fly out for Belgrade, and go to the home region for a few days! So I hope it will be a good week. You have a good one too, don't vandalise too many pages! All the best. Evlekis 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tung

Flm që më njoftove Noah. Unë jam shumë i zënë me shkollë, por duke prapë do të përpiqem të luftoj kundër atyre terroristave. Ata edhe Skënderbeun vazhdimisht e quajnë grek, e pastaj edhe me të zezat e shkijeve, shqiptarëve iu ka dalë faqja e zezë në Wikipedia. Ndoshta duhet të drejtojmë një peticion diku më lart.--Albanian since Stone Age 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian

I refer to Talk:Illyrians. Sentence about Swedes was actually written by you, I only replaced the word Albanians with Swedes. You did not get offended, or did you? Hope not, but in case of yes then you must have been offended by your own sentence. Besides I have huge respect for Swedes and consider them to be a very innovative/ creative nation. Regards --Noah30 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings whatsoever! As I said before, the Swedes are not world's most polite people, which means that conversation Swede-to-Swede sometimes can be rude in a very sharp manner. I also saw that your claims about Albanian-Illyrian have some important sources, so even though I'm still inclined towards some Dacian descent, pinpointing the domination of the Illyrian theori is the correct solution according to Wikipedia policy. We're not proving anything else than that we can collaborate to make the worlds best encyclopedia for all times. Rursus 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/a/User_talk%7ENoah30_fcdc.html"