User talk:Beamathan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tubeship Chronicles (archive)

Contents 1 The issue of civility 2 Congradulations for helping resolve the Kosovo article dispute 3 Pristina 4 An Autonomous Province, The Autonomous Province 5 Re. RoK Redirect 6 Re. Defying Logic 7 Recommendation 8 favour ... 9 Re. RE: Your comment to my new section on the Kosovo Talk Page entitled "The rest of the article" 10 Reply -- Pristina 11 Editing of the Kosovo article's Intro 12 May 2008 13 Thanks 14 Topic banned 15 Response 16 Israel article 17 actions of the controlled territories 18 Re:Burma article 19 Re. Burma dispute tag 20 Kosovo 21 A Plea 22 Topic ban lifted 23 Here you go 24 Reply 25 Regarding Ahl al-Bayt 26 Just a page you might find interesting 27 Re: 28 Peacekeeping 29 Rv back 30 Re:RfA 31 Admin abuse 32 DihOxy Rfa 33 Please 34 Showing Love 35 Kosovo subpage 36 Gandhi 37 Kosovo 38 Gandhi comments 39 Capital of Israel 40 Welcome to VandalProof! 41 Canvassing 42 Few Words 43 Kosovo 43.1 Map 44 As you suggested 45 FritzpollBot - reply 46 Rollback 47 Hello Beam

[edit] The issue of civility

Hi Beamathan. This remark by you was brought to my attention, and now I notice the friendly exchanges in the above sections of this talk page.

For the collaboration between editors to take place fruitfully, especially on conflictive and sensitive topics such as Kosovo, a reasonable degree of civility, tact and respect is required. We're asked to avoid upsetting other editors wherever possible, especially by avoiding unnecessary non-constructive remarks that we know may upset others.

That remark added nothing to the article's improvement, and could very well irritate some people. You'll help us all by avoiding similar comments in the future.

In any case, keep in mind that civility is subservient to the basic goal of writing an encyclopedia; of collaborating to improve the articles without disrupting the work of other bona fide editors in one way or another.

If you haven't done so yet, please take the time to read carefully our core principles, talk page guidelines and civility policy. You will find them quite usefull to facilitate your editing, and may help you avoid some bad experiences.

And congratulations for the part you played in helping to stabilize the article on Kosovo :-) Just try to keep a cool head while continuing your collaboration in this delicate area. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I hope you don't consider anything at face value sir. The remark that you even quoted was only in response to her/him "LOL"ing at me. And I didn't attack, merely commented. My Talk Page is simply so that she/he will leave me alone. There have been many accusations against me simply because I am very neutral and won't support kosvars or serbs. And thank you for noticing the work I've put in to this article. It's appreciated. I will continue to defend an NPOV, for as long as it takes. Beam 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm very sorry to hear that we have editors who take the time to complain and snitch on other users. I have been insulted many times, however I understand that most of these people are simply emotional about a cause they believe in very much, and I forgive them. When editors start turning on other editors it's a sad sight. Beam 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This was not really snitching, but an issue of balance and fairness, and the perception of it. In any case, irrespective of context, your comment was not precisely civil, and was unnecessary, since nothing productive could come out of it.

I have been editing Kosovo-related articles since July 2006, so that by now I have an idea of the problems it entails. I know what you are talking about :-) You will soon find out that adhering to our talk page guidelines and civility policy (even when you're irritated or others are rude) greatly facilitates your editing experience, and that of everyone else.

I hope to continue seeing good work from you in the coming months. Have a nice weekend :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness, but i hope you noticed the preceding comment, and subsequent comment. If mine is to be construed as an insult, than what are they? And if you've read my talk page, you'll se that that person has lied about me and basically depicted me as an asshole. And it's not even true! That's the reason I have these particular exchanges saved on my talk page Ev. So people can see that when he/she makes a comment on the Kosovo:Talk that she/he has lied in the past. Beam 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And also the fact that she's previously attacked me, should give you an idea of why i said what I said. Does it make it right to have said that? No. It doesn't, and I should be better than that. But it wasn't exactly uncalled for. Beam 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the general context. Tubesship behaviour has not been helpful, and I have told him so. But, as you aknowledge, two wrongs don't make a right... and Wikipedia is not a battleground. – I greately appreciate this edit. - Ev (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading your appalling comments, I would have blocked both you and Tubesship had Húsönd not done it before. If you are not able to remain polite, even when others make you angry, then you won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a usefull way.

In a controvertial area such as the Balkans, where sensibilites and emotions run high, you'll often find yourself in situations that put your patience and spirits to the test. If you don't have the ability to deal with that politely, then you're probably going to be blocked for the same thing again.

We need more "neutral", civil editors in these areas of Wikipedia. But incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable. They must stop.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. - Ev (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke. Did you not read what was said? At all? You have to be joking. Please let me know you're joking. Beam 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congradulations for helping resolve the Kosovo article dispute

Hi Bemathan, I'm User:R-41, I've been one of albeit a minority of moderate editors for the Kosovo article page who has strived to make it neutral as you have. I'm grateful to meet another user committed to neutrality on the issue. All I and most other Wikipedians have wanted is a clear, concise and neutral article on Kosovo, however fanatic partisan nationalists of the Albanian and Serb camps think they own the Kosovo article and have used it in the past to wage their edit wars with each other. For me as neither an Albanian or a Serb, but a Canadian viewing that the international community is split on recognition of Kosovo independence, I was dissappointed in how long it took Wikipedia to move to an NPOV position on the matter, but am grateful that people like you have pushed for NPOV on the issue. If you know any more moderates on the Kosovo issue, please inform me. As I imagine you know, it is very difficult to curb off attacks from partisans alone, and finding more moderate editors for topics on Kosovo will be quite useful in stopping future edit wars. Thanks for your help!--R-41 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pristina

Please would you give your view here [1]
Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Autonomous Province, The Autonomous Province

Surly its self evident that the correct article to use is the definite article, "the". There is only one object that we are talking about. You can only use the indifinite article, "a" or "an", when refering to an object that is part of a class of larger objects, and you do not intend to refer to a particular object within that class.

1. it is OK to say "Serbia claims Kosovo as an autonomous province" (there are a number of autonomous provinces, of which Kosovo is one.)

2. it is also OK to say "Serbia claims Kosovo as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M"

you can't say "Serbia claims Kosovo as an Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M" because it implies that there is more than one Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M - clearly there is not. Sentence 1.

In general, proper noun (ie names of actual objects, people or countries) can only be preceeded by the (ie the Frence Republic or the Atlantic Ocean, never a French Republic or an Atlantic Ocean - the latter implies that there are several French Republics and I am refering to any of them.

If you don't understand - please just post again and I'll think of a better way 2 explain.

Thanks

APM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one province in Serbia. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and... is just one of those provinces, unless I'm wrong and it's the only province in Serbia. If I'm wrong than we'll keep the "the", but if I'm right and there is more than one province, the correct term is "an" for reasons for which you seem to already understand. Luckily I'm such a nice guy I won't take offense to the insinuation that I am not competent in the English language. Let me know if you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it in a different, simpler, way. Beam 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. RoK Redirect

No, Beamathan, as you can read first and most in the summary I provided, "users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" may well be searching for plain Kosovo itself and all its related matters". The fact that the section you want it to redirect is a pathetic one line is just one more reason. Please don't create a problem where there is not a problem. Regard, Húsönd 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained it to you sir. You are creating the problem. I won't enter into an edit war tonight, but I will change it back tomorrow. Myself and others are correct to do it that way. You have a problem with the section in the Kosovo article. You should put your effort into improving that section instead of incorrectly redirecting something, against not only logic but myself and DAB. Simply saying the section isn't' good doesn't mean it is not the correct redirect. I ask you to revert it yourself, so I don't have to. This will allow you to take your own advice regarding problems. Regard, Beam 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, it's futile to threat an incoming revert war. Revert wars never go the way of those who start them unilaterally. There's no consensus for your intended redirect target, and that should suffice for you to give up on this. Siding with dab won't help. And I don't really see what's the purpose of accusing me of trying to get my way when I was merely undoing an unilateral and rather unreasonable action. Think about it. Regards, Húsönd 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not threating a revert war! Wow! Anyway, telling me to give up is very strange and I'd even consider that against Wikipedia. And for you tell me to "think about it" is either an example of drastic ignorance on your part or you're actually being a {{rpa}}. I can't honestly tell, but either way I don't appreciate your needless condescending tone. And last time I checked unilateral didn't mean me and another editor who are quite well versed in the Kosovo articles on Wikipedia. Let's go over the facts AGAIN:

- The Kosovo article is about Kosovo.

- The Kosovo article has a section about the RoK

- Someone looking for the RoK is probably looking to read about the RoK.

With those facts, how can you call it unreasonable? Pretty strange Husond my friend, it's as if you have some sort of agenda, and by belittling me you feel that my opinions are invalid. Again, I think your problem is with the section on RoK. I recommend you beef up the section, so that when they get redirected there they'll be something to read.

Think about it. Regards, Beam 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And your edit summary is insulting Husond. Pretty blatantly too. You really get {{rpa}}, huh? You have just dropped all pretense of discussion and exchange of ideas, and relegated your actions to pointed negativity and ill reason. Beam 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We might have not started out communication well, but since you insisted that my major edit to the article on Kosovo be reverted, please keep an eye on the latest undiscussed major edits by Boze Pravde. Thank you very much for your efforts!--Getoar (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Defying Logic

Sorry, like most users I don't provide my phone number. But I shall remind you once again of WP:CIVIL, which you have breached on my talk page. Húsönd 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, remind of where it says POV Pushing is ok...? Do you have a link to that? I'd like that, very much. Beam 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

I see you are new here and based on your edit log I do not see you have contributed with anything else than edit wars in the Kosovo article. With this recommendation I have good intensions and would recommend you to first read about the issue you are discussing and then come back and discuss in a polite way and remember that other people's bias do not justify your own bias. As some other editors said: Two wrongs don't make a right. :-) --Noah30 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost just choked on my coffee. You'd be funny if you weren't being an (Personal attack removed). Beam 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I have a new recommendation. Based on what you wrote in my talk page I think you should take a break and come back after some weeks. Right now I feel you are thinking black and white and excluded the things in-between. With this attitude and feelings of being betrayed I don't think you will be able to be an neutral editor. I have not seen your edits that contributed towards NPOV in the article but if it is true than I am very grateful. Please take into consideration this second recommendation. I believe even if you feel betrayed by RoK's supporters this can not justify anti-RoK edits. --Noah30 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very confused friend. There should be no "pro-RoK" edits, so if reverting such things are "anti-RoK" edits than there should be MORE OF THEM! Seriously man, you need to drop your bias. I won't let RoK Nationalists or Serb Nationalist push their POVs and that includes you. Beam 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) And that betrayal isn't a sign that RoK POV Pushers are necessarily bad, it's a sign that people will go to great lengths to get their POV Pushed. And that neutral editors must act fervently to prevent it. Which I will. Beam 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be butting in here, but what the hell. Guys, stop telling each other you don't contribute anything. I can't really say much for Noah, because I haven't really followed his edits. What I can say is that Beam is definitely a worthwhile contributor, and seems to always put neutrality first. That being said, Beam, you do get a bit aggressive (for want of a better word) when it comes to other views (be they nationalist or not). And if/when you are right, you should be a bit more on the nice side, even if you don't think it's warranted. Maybe one or two days (not months) of a break could help, but it's up to you. Don't feel obliged to stop the nationalists, because there are always others to cover for you. Now everybody please put personal feelings aside to improve the article. BalkanFever 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] favour ...

is the correct BE spelling. I do not want to argue that this is more applicable to a non-native English speaking, European country--what many people would probably do. My point is more that you should know what you are dismissing before you get excited on incorrect spellings. Anyway, you are right the style found in the Kosovo article abysmal and I wish you success improving it. I have chosen not to lie hands on this article, because of the abhorrent atmosphere prevailing the necessary discussions on its talk page. Tomeasy (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not retarded. I'm aware that it is the correct British spelling. However this article is in American English. It's not that favour is wrong by itself, but within this article it is. Beam 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. RE: Your comment to my new section on the Kosovo Talk Page entitled "The rest of the article"

No, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to send a simple message that your participation in discussions regarding Kosovo have been going from bad to worse. Your incivility is growing at a steady pace, virtually all of your comments carry some sort of aggressive, rude or arrogant attitude. Then your bossy calls on "Kosovo experts" or on "takers for working on sections you believe need to be worked on" isn't really a constructive approach. If you think something needs to be done, then go ahead and do it (or discuss what you plan to do). But don't be suggesting hard work for others, suggesting is easy but rather useless on Wikipedia. We're all volunteers here. I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot on my comment, I was just using a little bit of sarcasm in order to soften this message. But you clearly did not understand my point. I'm not against you or anyone else, I'm just trying to control the smooth progress of discussions on the topic of Kosovo. And lately you have often displayed a negative cooperation. Particularly when it comes to language, which will likely grant you a topic ban unless you moderate your tone and speech. I apologize for having to sound rather blunt. Regards, Húsönd 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is lacking and pointless. And I will be doing the work on the pages, in fact my little section there DOES explain what I'm doing. You either don't get it, or are continuing to screw with me. I can't tell which. Beam 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply -- Pristina

For the discussion on recent edits made against consensus please view Mareklug's talk page where it was moved, and continued in it's entirety. Thanks Beam 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing of the Kosovo article's Intro

O.k., thanks for your advice.--Andrija (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

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..

Note: as of 19:37, 2 May 2008 you have already violated 3RR. Your justification that "Starting a Talk Page section IS NOT CONSENSUS" does not wash as the other participant is at least making an attempt at discussion, which you choosing to ignore. Consensus is achieved through discussion. No other way. Given that you have already violated 3RR, you may consider this your last warning. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, as you say consensus is reached through discussion. I offered to discuss them with him, and went as far as to create a talk section. See his talk page. After he posted his own section, after I had made one in the Talk Page to get a discussion started, he immediately made the edits again. How was consensus reached? You say I ignored discussion, yet I tried to start it. You say consensus is reached through discussion. Which is what I was trying to enforce. He wouldn't have the discussion, he made the edits prior to, and without discussion. And, as you yourself point out so kindly, without discussion there is no consensus.

The edits he was making went against a previous consensus. By going against consensus, and refusing to reach a NEW consensus via conversation, his edits should be reverted. After the first revert, I pleaded with him to have a discussion. I begged him to reach consensus. As you point out in the last reversion I made, I said starting a talk page section is not consensus. There was no discussion, let alone consensus. The edits he was making went against a previous consensus.

You say I ignored his attempt at discussion. That's false. I tried hardest for discussion. I informed him the edits he was making were breaking consensus. I asked him to have a discussion so that we could form a new consensus. I did everything right as per WP:CONSENSUS. I do not see how you dare to say I ignored any attempt at consensus. I was one of the many participants to the consensus that was achieved through discussion that resulted in the decision that Pristina was the correct English way of stating Pris^tina/Prishtina. Please note the top of the Edit Page for the article of Kosovo.

This consensus, which even lead to that warning on the edit page, was reached through discussion. Markelug was making edits that went against a consensus. I asked him to please discuss them first. Discussion leads to consensus. He refused, continuing to break an existing consensus while refusing to let a discussion happen. With these facts I asked him repeatedly NOT TO EDIT WAR. He chose to continue his consensus breaking edits while refusing to have a discussion to reach a new consensus. Please review the facts of this again, I look forward to your response Fullstop. Beam 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) It may also be of some note to you that markel may have fought against the last consensus reached regarding Pristina, and it may be a reason why he made this changes. I'm not sure about that though. And I didn't mean to come off combative, but it's insulting to say I wasn't following the Wikipedia way. I strive for NPOV and Cooperation. As I stated on his talk page, I always try to adhere to WP:AGF, and have fought hard for neutrality and consensus for months on this Kosovo article. So when you give me a "last warning", it's pretty hurtful. I respectfully await your response with bated breath. Beam 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have just learned that I am blocked from Wikipedia? I implore you to remove this block after you investigate the facts that I have posted above. This is devastating. I was defending that article that I love and I'm blocked? Contact administrator User:Dbachman, talk to User:BalkanFever, User:Jonathanmills, User:Bože pravde, and User:Cradel. They will all attest to my unwaievering dedication to WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NPOV on the Kosovo article.

From my very talk page, User_talk:Beamathan#Recommendation, respected editor User:BalkanFever says: What I can say is that Beam is definitely a worthwhile contributor, and seems to always put neutrality first.

I have NEVER, EVER, gone against discussion, consensus, or NPOV. NOT ONCE! Look at the talk page section above. He wanted to make an addition to the article. I reverted, than went to his talk page and advised him to start a discussion to reach consensus. I am all about consensus and NPOV. Please review and respond sir, this is horrible. Beam 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: You were blocked for edit warring, not for your 3RR violation.

Edit warring is contrary to the principles of cooperation that Wikipedia is built on, and is never justifiable, regardless of whether you feel you are in the right or not.

Further, all Kosovo-related articles are under ArbCom probation. This means that edit warring and other policy violations will be harshly dealt with.

Finally, consensus is not what you or anyone else can reach alone, or with what you might consider to be a majority opinion. Even minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and these should be taken into consideration, and not just rejected out of hand. Thus, in practice 'consensus' means agreement (even it is only to agree to disagree, i.e. a demonstration of respect), and an application of force, which is what one does when waging a war, is obviously not going to help achieve or maintain consensus. Also, consensus can and does change, so even when you have consensus on one day, this is not necessarily still valid on the next day.

The bottom line is please don't fight. It doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that must always be every editor's first priority. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You STILL HAVEN'T READ WHAT I SAID. He was BREACHING CONSENSUS. I tried to have him try to reach a new consensus. I'm BAFFLED by what you are saying? Did you not read what happened? Do you not realize that he was breaking consensus? And that I was defending consensus, while trying to get him to start a new discussion?

What are you talking about Fullstop? Beam 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read what you said here and on the Kosovo talk page, and frankly, everything Fullstop touched upon is what I was going to tell you anyways. There are editing restrictions on Kosovo to a harsher degree than other articles because of the ArbCom case. Plus, if those users are really trying to establish consensus or have your consensus, they should have been reverting either with you or done the blocking themselves. But they didn't. Anyways, stop fighting, acknowledge this block and start discussing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also got your email, let's continue there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, Beam. I know we've got off on a bumpy start, but I can reciprocate and say that you're contribution to the Kosovo discussion has been very useful over the past weeks. Do keep it up! Regarding your "hating" me at first: I do recommend you avoid at any cost getting emotional about other editors. WP:DENY says, don't get worked up about trouble-makers, it only encourages them. Treat them as a technical problem and route around them. It's ok to feel annoyed when you feel Wikipedia is being disrupted, but do not allow this to develop into a feeling of personal animosity. It's ok to feel mild contempt, though, with all the stupidity abounding on Wikipedia, any sane editor will harbour such feelings from time to time. dab (𒁳) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ah yes, and I feel sorry about your 24h block. I guess it was sort of justified due to the article probation, but I don't think you've done anything wrong. You just shouldn't have taken it upon yourself to revert unilaterally: the great thing about any consensus version is that there will be numerous people defending it. You could just have waited for a couple of minutes, and somebody else would have joined in. --dab (𒁳) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hate" really means "disagreed with", lol. Even when we weren't on the same side of an issue you still stuck with Consensus and NPOV. If we hadn't disagreed than I wouldn't be sure that you were all about neutrality and gaining a consensus. I was a jerk about it then too, but you stayed calm and forced Wikipedia's policies. And that led to me becoming a better editor. So, thank you.

And no worries about the block. As long as the people who actually contribute know what happened, I don't care. Beam 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic banned

For continued and sustained disruption on Kosovo-related articles during the past month or so, you are now banned from all Kosovo-related articles for 14 days. This ban extends to any talk pages of any major Kosovo-related talk page or user talk pages where incivility is displayed, especially Talk:Kosovo and User talk:Husond. If you breach this ban by making edits in these areas, you could face a block of an then-to-be determined length, or renewed sanctions. You are however, free to make edits anywhere else on Wikipedia. Some comments that have been used to provide a basis for this block are: (1, 2, 3 and 4). This topic-ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia‎. Rudget (Help?) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is Disruption defined as defending Consensus and NPOV??? Do you have some special definition of disruption? I missed that definition, but if you can show me that than I'd agree with my "topic ban." If not, than I'm very sorry to see such a ban occur, and even more sorry to see people like you enforce it. I'd laugh if this wasn't retarded. What a joke! Beam 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reduce the topic ban for 7 days starting after 14:28, 5 May 3008 (UTC) (the timestamp above), especially after some constructive contributions, here for example, however, this is particularly worrying and the sanction remains in place (considering that the ANI thread didn't gain the attention I thought it may have). Rudget (Help?) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the ANI thread, please? Rudget (Help?) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure hold on a second. Beam 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)[here] Honestly man, I'm no bad guy. I really do contribute and such. And me and Balkans didn't start off as friends, but eventually through WP:AGF we found out that we were both just trying to help and for the last 2 months we've been cool. Beam 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to seem like I'm too involved with Husond already, but I'll ask him for his opinion. Rudget (Help?) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem. That's why you went to ANI. Because taking the word of someone who, according to Dab and msyelf, has bitten me, isn't right. But ok man, you do your thing. Beam 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But, if I reduce this without the input of Husond it'd be without due consideration. Rudget (Help?) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But inducing it in the first place with his input was wrong to begin with! But fine, I don't want you to have to put up with his complaints, so do what you have to do. Beam 16:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undentified)

Please let me clarify that last statement, it's not an attack towards Husond or an insult towards your adminship (or his for that matter). You banned me with what, at first glance, looks like good reasons, nicely packaged and sourced in wiki style. You got these reasons from an Admin you respect or at the least work with, a coworker. I have no problem with any of that, and it is Husond's right to complain.

My main problem is that Husond is an involved party to many of his "reasons." In Wikipedia I've noticed that administrators usually do not ban someone they are involved with at an article. He contacted you, and without thoroughly investigating further than reading the nicely layed out excerpts prepared by a an involved party, you banned me for 14 days from the topic.

That's not right. Then after I realize this has happened, I immediately contacted you as did an administrator, who actually is familiar with the article, and is even less involved than Husond. He points out that Husond may have bitten me, since he is such an experienced wiki user, and I am not. I am new, and after it was pointed out, I realized that I was "set up" in a lot of instances. As an example: please read this section from the Kosovo Talk Page. Stuff like that, trying to get a reaction out of me, is pretty vicious and against the spirit expressed by WP:BITE. Does this excuse my behavior? Not at all. As BalkanFever points out I probably was pushing WP:COOL.

I really don't want to spend much more effort here, but you rightly went to ANI, and the two people who did respond, that weren't you, me or Husond, agree that I have been a good contributing editor exhibiting positive influence upon the article and that I should not be topic banned. I don't want you to take offense but I think this should have been brought to ANI before a ban. Or at least more investigation prior. In thise case banishment from a topic is warranted, and I don't think Husond should have to agree to me being unbanned. I tire from defending myself but I do want to work on the Kosovo article which I have never wrongly disrupted. I would like to be unbanned. Beam 19:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Response

I'm going to get some flack for this, but here goes. From what I can see, you are clearly a dedicated editor who has been here for a little near 2 months now, and you are probably not that familiar with the policies of Wikipedia, despite a multitude of warnings from above quoting relevant policies and guidelines which are aimed to prevent any sort of disruptive behaviour and ensure that all editors are able to work in a collegial environment in which contributions are constructive to the 'furtherment' of an article. I read a very good piece of advice the other day, and hopefully it can apply to your situation in particular.

I think it's generally true that any contribution to Wikipedia indicates that the person has a desire to contribute something, even if it's absolutely not useful in the slightest.

Now whether that could be seen as some elusive ideal by an editor could be debated, but since I am the initiator of the topic ban, then I will apply it here appropriately. As you know Husond did notify me of the events that were occuring as a result of your conduct (especially on Talk:Kosovo) and I must admit a few diffs that were presented as evidence (in colloboration with I few I looked at aswell) were damning and did seem to conclude that you were in fact 'disrupting' the talk page with either 'unhelpful' or otherwise inappropriate comments. (I think now would also be a time to mention that I did not take Husond's evidence at face value, I did, as I say, look further, hence some diffs in the topic ban implementation were different to those given by Husond). However, I do see an editor in there who is willing to contribute, and whether or not that is debatable or not, should be taken into account. An example where you have sought help is here which impressed me somewhat. I don't want any further contact between you and Husond, since it is clear it could become heated in the future. I hold equal respect for both of you and I acknowledge both arguments, and I appreciate BalkanFever (talk · contribs) coming to my talk page briefly explaining the rationale behind an edit you made to their respective talk page. Note that I will be reviewing your case constantly and you are not off the hook. If I see any conduct here or anywhere else that is severly inappropriate, then renewed sanctions and/or blocks may be to follow.

The situation. Kosovo (and the Balkans in general) are very-hot topics, and conversation can quickly become heated, we as administrators have a responsibility to make sure that we nip 'bad-blood' before it can develop into something that drives even more people away. Topic banning in general is to provide all contributors with an equal chance to discuss how an article may be modified, by removing users who are either disruptive or messing around intentionally. I would like to remind you that now you have had warning and community feedback on your actions so far, that your behaviour must not violate any policies here on Wikipedia: namely not to make any personal attacks, or to impose restrictions on other users contributions, to remain civil during discussion, make sure all contributions don't come from specifically your point of view and represent interests of the article, assuming good faith (for example when someone makes a mistake, it's not always intentional) and not to revert anyone else's changes on more than three occasions. You know all this so far, and I am willing to give you a second chance. Don't let me down. Topic ban reduced to 7 days (effective of 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) hence otherwise it will expire at 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Sincere regards, Rudget (Help?) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you went above and beyond what you had to in this case. Very appreciated. Beam 14:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing well. Thank you for proving that I can trust you. Rudget (Help?) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your trust is well placed, rest assured. Me and Husond are actually working together on the Burma article regarding a Disputed Title Tag. So I don't see any problems occurring between us any time soon, and I will work hard to make sure you don't have to hear any bitching or complaining regarding me. I truly do appreciate your effort in resolving the topic ban. Other admins might have refused to do what you did. So thanks again. Beam 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel article

Hello Beam, I am happy to work with you and others on the Israel article. I would suggest that you could try to qualify how people you disagree with do not conform to guidelines and that you contribute to propose new wording based on sources and guidelines. I hope you don't mind my unsolicited suggestion. Keep up the good work! Winetype (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] actions of the controlled territories

Hello, in your edit, what did you mean by "actions of the controlled territories"? thanks, Imad marie (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Burma article

Kindly do not insert undue "edit-war warnings" in user talkpages, especially on issues in which you are directly involved in.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be reminded of the 3RR rule. I, myself, have had trouble with it in the past. Beam 12:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that is good to know, considering how you appear willing to revert even prior to concensus making. I hope your "reminder" is done in good faith, and in good faith alone.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well denying that consensus is present, and has been present isn't really an option for me. As Husond points out, the tag is simply a sour grapes action by those who were against the move. I think it's NPOV to NOT have the tag, and POV Pushing to have it. Also, I'm weary of your tone regarding my good faith. Maybe you should review Wikipedia's Good Faith policy. Beam 14:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Burma dispute tag

Sorry Beam, apparently I didn't notice your report yesterday on my talk page about Huaiwei transgressing WP:3RR. He did in fact violate the rule and a block was in order. However, since it has been many hours now since the transgression, I won't issue a block. Besides, he seems to have stopped warring, at least for the moment. I will pay attention to further transgressions. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with him, all appears well. No block in order. Beam 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Beam, edit summaries such as this will bring back your probation. Please observe WP:CIVIL at all times. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I really DO NOT appreciate you threatening me. I am being CIVIL. He has made those edits repeatedly, I am not the only one who reverts them. So run along and go talk to him, I'm taking the correct action. It's bullshit to threaten me when I am being Civil. I'm not reverting him without an explanation, I'm not going to his talk page and telling him to stop and that he sucks. I'm simply letting him know that his constant POV edits, that have no consensus and in fact have been agreed upon not to be included will not be tolerated.

I want an apology. And if you won't apologize for threatening me improperly, than I just want you to agree not to do it again. I'm willing to work with you, see Burma article, but I'm not willing to let you try to intimidate me and hold a topic ban over my head that I didn't deserve in the first place. I won't let you ruin my Wikipedia experience with this type of action, please cease and desist and apologize. Beam 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, for your flagrant inability to comply with WP:CIVIL, I have reinstated your topic ban on Kosovo-related articles as per the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia for 15 days. You are also placed on indefinite civility supervision, meaning that you may be promptly blocked if you transgress WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I therefore recommend that you read those two policies carefully and engage in a peaceful conduct henceforth. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 12:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Show me where I broke WP:Civil! Show me once! Your sick bias against me is really disgusting. I can't even believe you'd do this. After all that with Rudget, after all that you still act like this? Who do I have to talk to have your adminship removed? You're raping me and enjoying it. lol unbelievable. Beam 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, you have been blocked 48 hours for your continued incivility and threats. Húsönd 14:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not threatened once. Please stop lying. I get it, you don't like me, that's fine. You shouldn't have this power if you continue to abuse it. It's disgusting. Beam 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Plea

Rudget, or any admin: Please prevent Husond from taking any action against me. He is a biased party when it comes to me. I would like to insist that Husond is not allowed to act against me. It's stupid. To have a party to a dispute (the only party IMO), decide the fate of that dispute (me), is against Wikipedia.

Someone needs to put a stop to it. Unfortunately his illfated admin powers have given him power over me. Stop it, please. Beam 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Husond's ban still stands. I have not broken civlity, and I did not threaten anyone. Are there any admins out there that can fix this? Hello? I can't even edit other pages to get help, what an efficient manner of harming me. Congratulations husond, you got me good. Enjoy it while it lasts. Beam 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying here soon. Rudget (Help?) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am, to say the least, disappointed that editing from this account, and in view that you worked with others, had culminated in a block. I know that Husond and you, Beamathan, have contentious relations right now and I do realise that both of are probably getting under each others skin. This whole situation has "interfered with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", which is the primary purpose of why we are here in the first place, which although may be cliche number one, is true. I am growing tired of having to deal with both the blocks, topic bans and comments that are coming about as a direct result of just that. I am contemplating lifting the indefinite topic ban implemented by Husond at ANI per here, as he should have discussed this block with me or another administrator prior to the sanction. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Now commenting on WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban lifted

I am now lifting the topic ban against you, as per the discussion thread on WP:ANI. For form's sake, I'll also declare the "civility supervision" lifted, although I'd recommend you should not rely too heavily on that, as it's sort of in the nature of things that there'll be a few more eyes on you during the next weeks than usual, in effect "supervising" you. I trust you'll try to keep your temper under control. I will put on record that I would consider it inappropriate for User:Husond to directly take any further admin actions against you in the near future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I won't be holding my breath for that apology you suggested though, ;) . Honestly, I don't mind the extra eyes on me, I have nothing to hide. Husond has destroyed my reputation the last few weeks, which sucks. The more eyes on me, the more of a chance that it can be repaired. Beam 12:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad now things have calmed down somewhat in the past couple of days, but I really wish not to be seen as standing up for anyone. I try to convey an impartial view of situations, something I hopefully did here also. I am sure that Husond does respect you at least a little, and labelling each other different names et cetera et cetera doesn't help. I am starting to like your approach and outlook for the future and whether or not what conduct you have will affect your future. All too often we have users who disregard the community's opinion and act upon their initial thoughts whilst neglecting what the potential magnitude of their actions might be. You, as far as I am aware, don't do that. If I were you I'd do two things:

• • a) Just don't interact with Husond at all, ever. He is actually a nice person, he just misjudged you and acted upon that. We all make mistakes, and I am sure you can forgive him somehow.
  • b) If you are thinking about any candidacy within the near future, always represent both sides in a comment regarding your past. It would unfair and unnecessary to only show just our own opinions.

I have in this case come to have plenty of experience with you and Husond, and gotten to know both of you further; both for the better. If we can somehow utilise that knowledge in the future hopefully we can avert any use of the self-destruct button. Rudget (Help?) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here you go

Your latest one was the clincher. I even compromised my beloved Australian English for this :D BalkanFever 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

.

[edit] Reply

And reading from your user page that you contribute to MLB:

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a useful page located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox/Articles. --RyRy5 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Ahl al-Bayt

I'm gonna mark it all up first, give it a little bit, and try and look up a few easy-to-find resources first (encyclopedia of Iran, Britannica, etc.) and then delete anything even remotely dubious. Peter Deer (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a page you might find interesting

WP:AAGF. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could accuse me of not WP:AAAGF, but citing AGF generally means you aren't. Go ahead and trout me if I'm being silly.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself trouted. Beam 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

The Simple English Wikipedia is a place where you can write articles in Simple English. Feel free to drop by. Cheers, Razorflame 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacekeeping

Thanks for contacting me. I started planning a rewrite of the article some time ago, but have never had the opportunity to do more. Feel free to do what you want with it. --Tjss(Talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rv back

I just reverted it back the way it was.

It's the standard term for that territory, and that way all controversies on Kosovo could easily be evaded as well. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just a political division, established in 1945:

Kosovo(-Metohija or not)

Central Serbia

Vojvodina

Some also divide the City of Belgrade itself for its hugeness and importance as a forth entity (and because it has autonomy, unlike any other District). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:RfA

Goodness, no, I wouldn't consider you a jerk. ;) You have a a right to express your opinion - I just happen to somewhat disagree with it. The thing is, what I consider most damaging to a new user's morale (at least for me it was, way back in late 2006, I believe) is to be slighted by another editor, not to have their article deleted. Being blocked, true, would be a major factor, but I feel that being slighted by a non-admin who told you something like "It was a lousy article. Get over it." might be even worse. Another point on which I differ with you is whether DHMO would be "mistaken". I do believe that DHMO would try to be as careful as he could with his admin tools.

Anyways, no hard feelings! You have every right to your oppose! Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I've read the entire RfA too - multiple times - and have come to a radically different conclusion. Though much of the support, I'm afraid to say, doesn't seem to consider concerns, many of the supports just as thoughtful as the opposes, perhaps more so - see Rudget's, and mine. Ask yourself this: would you withdraw this RfA right now, in DHMO's shoes? Be honest with yourself - no need to tell me. It's completely normal to not want to withdraw a RfA which is succeeding. As for the impatience thing, DHMO addressed this in one of the questions. I, for one, will believe his explanation. It's your choice whether to believe him or not. I personally see absolutely no sign of power hunger (though perhaps a tad bit of impatience) - really, what is there to be hungry for?

Anyhow, perhaps admins do have more power to stress editors - I concede that. I, however, remain convinced DHMO will not do so. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a case example that's more recent, and therefore would be more representative of his actions if his RfA is successful: The CWii blog posting. Here, DHMO, instead of taking it to ANI or in any way trying to get CWii reprimanded onwiki, manages at least to vent it on his blog. Admittedly, venting at all was a very bad move, but the fact that he had the control necessary not to do it onwiki is a plus. He also privately (via Wikipedia email) reconciled with CWii later to an extent that the latter is now supporting DHMO's RfA. You could say that this whole incident is evidence of impulsive behavior - that's somewhat true. But I believe that with his admin tools, in a moment of impulsiveness, DHMO would not block, but instead "vent" about it somewhere - for example, ask on ANI. That's not even considering the myriad of comments by others during this RfA for DHMO to take his admin tools slowly should he get them - those are sure to affect his actions a great deal. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure I understood your last comment. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to discuss it with him. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse

I've read your comments at my RfA with interest. You've said numerous times that you almost left the project because of an abusive admin. Without doubting what you say, could you point me to where this happened... I take this sort of thing seriously and would be interested to see the events that almost led up to your leaving. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm weary of saying "abusive." In fact, if good faith is to be followed, he may have even thought he was right. That's the thing: it doesn't take purposeful abuse. With your history of bad decisions and spontaneous outbursts I fear nothing more than someone being discouraged. And no longer would it be simple reversions, or an off wiki blog, or an edit summary... it would be a block and block summary. Anyway, if you must check out my talk page, rudget's talk page, dbachman's talk page, and future perfect's talk page. I don't feel right touting this specific case as it's not necessary to support my concerns regarding your maturity. And as a result of this specific case I gave my word not to agitate this admin, and I feel that I'm pushing it by even mentioning his name (which I haven't.) But Rudget, and FuturePerfect, along with Dbachman having my back, saved me (twice).

I really can't understand why you can't withdraw and wait 2 months. How does that hurt you? Are you that greedy for this power? I want to AGF but it doesn't make much sense. Beam 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I looked over the page a bit more and saw what happened... don't want to comment on that other than to say that overall, you seem like a good editor, so I'm glad you're still around.

To answer your question... waiting two months would give the impression of even more power hunger! ;-) If I was to wait, say, 6 months, I get the feeling that at least some of the opposition that came to this RfA would turn up again. The drama would take place again. If I pass now I'll take it slow—everyone has my promise that I have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart—it's what they make of that promise that differs. If I'm unsuccessful now I don't know if I'll run again... at this stage, I doubt it. Looking at the blocks/topic bans/etc. that happened to you, I think I know how you feel—what I've copped in the last few days, onwiki but especially offwiki, has really been tough. There's a few days left, I'd much rather just have them go as smoothly as possible, and see how it ends. It's up to the community. (I also said a bit about this yesterday on the RfA talk page; I'm not sure if you noticed and apologise if you did and this seems condescending.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DihOxy Rfa

No Beam, definitely not an asshole. Some people are just born to tell it like it is (thank goodness for that) and you're definitely one of those people! I agree with your points about admins being a big deal and that it is important to select admins with care. But, in this case, I think you're getting swayed by the messiness of the Rfa itself. My way of looking at this is quite different. If you ignore the rfa and focus on his editing and talk page history, you find a person who is not only fairly rational, but also continuously seems to think about being rational. That is a huge plus in an admin. Second, if you look at the opposes and supports, you find that many notable wikipedians are on both sides. This is another plus because it shows that he is not the usual rfa type person and will likely bring a different flavor to adminship. The rfas that one should be concerned about are the ones that pass overwhelmingly with little or no opposition. Third, the oppose reasons are not really good reasons (purely IMHO of course) to oppose the rfa. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin and wanting it badly because that is one of the few rewards that wikipedia has to offer a dedicated editor. Not being critical enough in the FA or GA process (or too eager to approve an article) is hardly a negative (IMHO again) because, in one sense, it shows a person eager to see more content on wikipedia which is definitely a good thing. Not everyone needs to be a quality maven and an admin certainly need not be one. The stuff about white pride etc is quite meaningless (with AGF I assume that little or nothing of that translates into action) and, even if it is more than just an attitude, it is far better to know where an admin comes from than not know (a truly hungry admin like person would hide any personal information that could be used against him or her). The only thing that is troubling is the blog and, I think, one will rightly be curious whether his admin actions will be colored by how they would end up looking on the blog. However, once again, everyone knows about it and there are sufficient checks and balances that, if there are any issues, they will be discussed ad nauseam on the admin noticeboards. I'm not concerned and (I did look up your history a bit) I think you'll find this user to be on the upper quartile of reasonable admins as well. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. If nothing else, this is one interesting Rfa! Quite a change from the usual stuff.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please

I don't mean to be harsh or uncivil or whatever you want to call it, but please, shut up.

I didn't withdraw because you told me to. If anything, I deliberately held off withdrawing, despite being semi-aware of what was going to come, because of your comments.

It was the fact that the RfA was passing, despite east718's (completely justified) oppose, that made me withdraw. Not you.

Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Withdrawing was fucking awesome man, I support you no matter what happens now. It was the right thing to do, and it took a lot of selflessness to do this! Congrats on making a good move and you have my support no matter what in the future! (posted in his talk page as well)Beam 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Showing Love

What's up Beam. The name is Kosova2008 and I am not sure why you insist on calling me "Kosovo '08" but I have been around. I have been checking on discussions on daily basis but I wanted to keep a distance because people were accusing me that because my name implies that I'm only here for one issue, and that I am biased. The reason why I joined wikipedia is because I was inspired by recent events in Rep. of Kosova, my only biasness comes towards Serbian users who blurt out propaganda such as Kosova is Serbian etc etc. Nonetheless I am going to bring sources in the Kosova or Kosovo article...but I am no good at editing so you or others will have to edit the article. Kosova2008 69.29.70.177 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo subpage

It is clearly marked as an archive at the top, and thus does not need an archive box. it is, as a page, archived, not a single section archived. It falls to those editing first to read through things; you did not. I reverted it out, and gave the explanation in the edit summary. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can take my tone however you want. The fact is, it is clearly marked as an archive. There was a problem with an admin deleting numerous subpages which became orphaned when the main articles were moved. His actions were reversed a couple days later. That page was thus restored, though it was already archived. It's not that complicated. ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a link to that talk page in your note to me. Also, the value of blunt, honest speech is greater than the value of dissembling to 'save face'. Blunt speech makes plain the problems, hiding behind fancy language hides the problems. ThuranX (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi

Three reasons. One, it is an honorific that is not necessary. Two, the most common English name for MG is Gandhi, not Mahatma Gandhi and it doesn't make sense to call the article that. Three, I think it more appropriate - Gandhi would approve of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi rather than Mahatma Gandhi. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did check and Wikipedia is fairly consistent in not using honorifics. For example, Saint Francis of Assisi is just Francis of Assisi. Alex the great is an exception and I'm curious as to why that is so. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, so is Saint Francis of Assisi the most common way of calling the man but the Saint is dropped in the article title. There seems to be an inconsistency here with Alexander the great (rather than with Gandhi).--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me. Everyone calls him Saint Francis of Assisi! Still, with the Alexander the Great article there does seem to be room to discuss Mahatma Gandhi as well. With Mother Teresa, on the other hand, there is no alternative name. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Beam, the reason why the Alexander the Great article uses the honorific is less to do with disambiguation and more to do with a tussle between Greeks and Macedonians. (I did a polite check.) The use of 'the Great' turns out to be the NPOV solution. (This is FYI.) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

lol! (It's the best thing to do. The article has his full name in the title so there's nothing wrong with that. Best to move on, IMHO.)--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that the title is an acceptable one and satisfies most wikipedia criteria for naming. Unlike in the Myanmar/Burma case, the name of the person has an intrinsic legitimacy as a title and it is hard to argue that it should be replaced by something else. Whether Mahtama is better or worse is a different issue (I think not but the case for that is not without merit) but is it worth fighting this fight? --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Beam, that stuff was ages ago, and might me a little hard to source. I'll try nonetheless. Here are some links that might interest you:

• The Essential Gandhi by Louis Fischer
• Official website of the Mahatma Gandhi University
• The Day Gandhi Become Mahatma
• Source site of the above - Amog |^Talk 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

You do know that I stay away from all Kosovo-related pages as much as that's possible? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

“	And I'm constantly reading up on the Balkans, it's quite interesting.	”

You must have gone totally mad. ;D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am entitled to warn you that between 10% and 20% of foreigners that become involved with the Balkans commit suicide and between 40% and 60% have serious difficulties of returning to normal social life...these days. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Europe Has No Alternative", UNHCR and countless NGOs.

Joking aside (although to the up is indeed the truth), as a Balkaner, it is morally to inform you that this is the hell of Europe.

There is almost no crime here (last week's UN report claims the Balkans are the safest part of Europe, with least crime), in here people commit crime in the name of history, illusion and ethnicity (and idiosyncrasy too, I guess). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi comments

Just to be clear, I do not think you are acting in bad faith and that what we have is an honest disagreement. Your refusal to engage in more than surface level discussion on fowler's more detailed analysis or explain how you reconcile certain contradictions in naming on wikipedia lead me to believe you have an agenda. If I am wrong, my apologies, but I feel that is a fair position for me to take under the circumstances. I have not, nor do I plan to engage in personal attacks in the matter under discussion on the talk page, and my comment on fowler's user page was merely a personal appraisal of the situation that I do not consider relevant to the debate itself, which is why you do not see it on the Gandhi talk page. Indrian (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Israel

How can you say it's not disputed when no country in the world recognizes it? At the very least it's "not recognized" but that keeps being removed as well. To state that Jerusalem is the capital without any qualification is biased and pushes Israel's point of view. Strongbrow (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because no one can dispute it! By definition of the word Jerusalem is the capital. Beam 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By Israel's definition but not by anyone else's. Every reference book I can find disagrees with your opinion at least when it comes to listing a capital that isn't recognized internationally. See this entry in Britannica for instance. You're expressing a point of view and that's very nice and all that but your point of view isn't a fact. Strongbrow (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But when it comes to a capital other countries don't have to recognize it. Beam 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and even that britannica article states "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government." So yeah.... :) Beam 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what it says is "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; international recognition of its capital status has largely been withheld" so there is a qualification there. Strongbrow (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote I took is exact, it's from the first or second paragraph. It has no qualifiers. And in our infobox the Capital means just that "The seat of government." Which is indisputably Jerusalem as that is where the Israeli government has placed it. Beam 03:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote I took is exact as well, and it does have qualifications so obviously, if you put your quote in context of the rest of the article there is a qualification. Strongbrow (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the infobox in the Wikipedia Article is simply stating it's the seat of government, while the intentions of the Britannica article's section that you quote is unknown. Especially since within the first paragraph that article states what we state in our infobox. Beam 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we shouldn't be comparing wikipedia's infobox to Britannica's? Strongbrow (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. Wikipedia isn't a normal encyclopedia. It's this awesome wikipedia created by the people! Check out my userpage for why I joined Wikipedia, which is basically why Wikipedia is what it is! Beam 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange! In this case we do not need any recognition but we do need recognitions in Kosovo's case. Where is the logic?? or are we witnesses to what is called opportunism. Just wondering... --Noah30 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in regards to the capital, not the country itself! Beam 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Beamathan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Beam 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

Perhaps you didn't intend it this way, but your comment at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain gave the impression that you were willing to start canvassing for support of this article. Please be aware that all canvassing is prohibited on Wikipedia. 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Fram (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Sign your name next time. Stand by your accusations. Beam 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now signed correctly (used one tilde too many). You could have seen my name in the history[2] of this page though, it's not as if I was hiding myself... Fram (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Fram, I'd be happy to tell you (if you had asked instead of accused) that I was simply letting him know that he could ask me to represent my self and my opinion any time if he was in need of support. I don't really appreciate your accusations, if you can't tell. Thanks for coming by though, and hopefully it will be something nicer next time I run into you. Beam 12:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You literally said that you would help him garnering support if he wanted it: "let me know if you need help garnering support for its inclusion."[3]. Not "if you need support", but "if you need help garnering support". This is a statement that, if it is not an intention of canvassing, could very easily be mistaken for one. But I specifically left open the possibility that it was not your intention in my post here. No need to get all defensive about it... Fram (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few Words

We have had our differences in the past and we still have them. Is there any chance that you will be a man and stop posting pro-Serbian comments? It was insulting when I read your comment "legally resolution 1244 says that kosovo is part of serbia", it may sound funny or cute but to me personally that's an insult; it brings me back memories when the Serbian police would beat Kosovars for no reason and than the radical serbs would throw the 3 fingers up and shout "kosovo je serbija". I am not asking you to change your stance, opinions, or beliefs, just please refrain from throwing fuel in the fire. The Kosova is an issue that has been engrained in our genes from birth, it is more complicated than life itself and explaining the Balkans is like reinventing the wheel, I doubt you "get it". Anyways, keep being commited to your work on Kosova or Kosovo articles in the road to neutrality but personally do not display biasness. Ari --Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what the resolution says. I'm sorry that your countrymen were beaten, tortured, and basically treated like shit. I really am. However, I am truly neutral. And as Pax explained that's what 1244 says. And let me tell you something else, something separate, as an American I understand what declaring independence is all about, don't think I don't. Beam 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Read you message. Waiting for a solution then. --Noah30 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your message was archived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noah30/Archive1#Wow. By the way I don't hate you but I disagree with you on many issues. I don't hate anyone in this world. I hope we can overcome our disagreement. --Noah30 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to say that to you its between 2 people but for me my country is a personal issue; I've seen too many of my closest people killed. In America there is this idea of "just forgive them", it's not that easy, forgetting about everything won't bring back the people I love. Anyways, much love, please help me to change the map. And I didn't blame you, I was saying that I think it was you who had your way the last time I tried to change it. Ari, Kosova2008 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, holding onto hatred or ill-will won't bring those people back either. Beam 15:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Ok, feel free to modify my edits. I was a bit surprised that the Racak incident and Rambouillet accords weren't even mentioned there, and it wasn't clarified when the KLA had started fighting, so I decided to be bold. BTW, the article is cluttered with maps, so the "edit" buttons of the first ten subsections have been displaced, which makes the article hard to edit. Is it possible to move most of the images to the left? Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I didn't mean anything when I removed the term "ethnic cleansing" and I have no problems with it. Though I am from Russia, I am not pro-Milosevic at all. Moreover, I am very much in favor of Kosovo's independence. I just don't know where to put the term now. Colchicum (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we can use this article (subscription needed, but the article exists offline, so it is acceptable) as a source whenever needed. It provides a rather neutral, accurate and detailed account of the history of Kosovo in the 1980s-1990s and meets the criteria of WP:RS perfectly. Colchicum (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Beam 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Why wouldn't you support both maps. The link was working this morning. Ari (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How long are we going to wait until an admin makes a decision? Is there a time-limit? Ari (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Switch out the maps now. Go for it, with my permission. (not that it means anything but still). The map you're putting in is better than the existing. Once the existing is better labeled we will put that in. Go for it, with my blessings. Beam 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As you suggested

Well since you go about it like that, the USA has a larger army than Russia. So there is no chance of Russia invading the USA. However Russia has more nukes than the USA, so Russia could bomb the shit out of the USA. All down the west, south, eastern coast, a couple on the major cities, a few up in Alaska and one on Hawaii and one on Puerto Rico. Jobs a good one. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to answer your comment with a source. [4] ;)

1. Im pisssed Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you don't get it? Or do you? I'm confused. If you do understand "MAD", than your realize any nuclear attack on the USA will result in that attacking country (or countries) being destroyed. And if a war didn't go nuclear, the USA has the capability to establish naval and air superiority. I don't think we could invade and hold China, but we could certainly cripple it. Russia... the USA might be able to invade Russia, but it hasn't worked in 200 years for anyone else...but the USA has the most powerful military in the history of the world so I don't know. It's 50/50. You shouldn't let your hatred of the USA blind your common sense :). Beam 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We lets agree to disagree. Its not in the US's interests to attack Russia or China and vice versa. If any of these countries went to war, then it would end civilization. They would never use nukes either. They are just there as a threat. No big countries will ever fight each other these days. Them days are over. Nukes would destroy everything. America would not be able to hold Russia, as it can barely hold Iraq. Also Russia would not be able to hold the US either if it invaded. Also i do not hate the US, i just disagree with some of the things it does. Just like i do with my own country. Please to say im foolish for disagreeing with you. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to hold Russia than Iraq. Having an actual army to fight is what the USA does best. Beam 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that it is not in the US's best interests to attack Russia or China and vice versa. But from what I have read, I remember that the Chinese nuclear forces are not very modern, reliable and effective and don't represent any serious threat to the US (as of now). Russia has had some increasing problems with reliability of its systems and attack detection too, and, first and foremost, problems in the society and economy, so it is my impression (I am Russian, if that matters) that it will be lucky to survive any global war. Moreover, I doubt that there would be any serious grassroot insurgency in Russia like in Iraq. So yes, it's 50/50. But excuse me for asking, what is this all about? I am a bit confused. Colchicum (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw a conversation between IJ and Ari about the USA, how it sucks, can't hold Iraq, and would get beaten by Russia because it has more nuclear weapons than the USA. Etc etc... I had to say something. But it was a cordial discussion, and now I'm happy you hae joined it. :) Beam 14:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FritzpollBot - reply

(crossposted) The actual proposal has actually achieved consensus as per WP:GEOBOT - perhaps I can answer any questions, or address any comments you may have. Alternatively, the working group is currently working out of User:John_Carter/GEOBOT_group and you can see how things are building up into activity Fritzpoll (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Done - only use it to revert obvious vandalism, or it will be removed. Neıl 龱 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Beam

Thank you for the smile. The ability to heal unpleasant disagreements by offering a handshake is extremely rare on human beings, and I deeply appreciate yours. I was surprised. Thank you. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)