Talk:Kumanovo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Kumanovo: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned


Contents

[edit] Freestylefrappe-Bitola dispute

Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bitola...you're BS amuses me. freestylefrappe 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing article content

Hello,

I've been asked to take a look at this article by User:Glenn Willen. I've had quite a bit of difficulty following the dispute, largely because the communication seems to have happened almost entirely in the various edit summaries. I've reverted to what seemed to be the longest and most complete version of the article, so that we can discuss the material. I'd like to ask the following:

  • That users removing copyvio material from the article post the source of the copyright violation on the talk page, so that we can verify the copyright violation.
  • That users removing noncopyvio material from the article move the material to the Talk page, rather than deleting it outright. This prevents material from being lost between revisions, and allows us to have constructive discussions about the material.
  • That users attempt to engage in discussion before reverting, and post their rationales to the talk page when reverting, rather than leaving comments in the edit summaries.

I hope that we can sort through these issues in a more productive manner. -- Creidieki 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I so sorry! :(. Thanks for your wisdom. freestylefrappe 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted summary of the history I'm just trying to understand.

I've dug a little into the history. Bitola's original changes on Nov 23 here (with the edit summary of "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!") were clearly a copyright-violating dump of this page. His later changes, at least until Dec 12, also largely dumped text from that same page. Freestylefrappe's reversions seem to make sense up to here. The Dec 12 change [1] by 62.162.225.230 (with summary "Bitola:Now there are no copyvios by my side") appears to add "History" and "Cultural Monuments" sections to the existing contents, leaving the others (including "Violence" and "Narcotics" alone.) For reasons unclear to me, Freestylefrappe then reverted these additions with the comment "rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio.". [2] I'm not sure why the new content was "nonsense", though I very much want to believe I am missing something. At that point, Glenn Willen and Creidieki started reverting the article back to the state before Freestylefrappe's revert. Freestylefrappe has the last edit right now, edit summary "rv self-explanatory." Freestylefrappe, it isn't. Please fill us in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Terorism is not welcomed in the official Kumanovo's article

I don’t know why FreestyleFrappe is insisting so much on terrorism while describing Kumanovo. I visited Belfast or Beirut articles (they are pretty good examples of towns that suffered a large number of terrorist attacks) and believe me, there is nothing about the bombs and killings as FreestyleFrappe is saying about Kumanovo. Fortunately, Kumanovo experienced only a few bomb attacks, but mostly it is a quiet and ordinary town. If he wants to talk about terrorism, he should do it in another article. About narcotics, unfortunately, drugs are spread across Europe and the rest of the world; it is not some kind of isolated problem that happens only in Kumanovo. Also, I cannot understand why he is putting commercial on the page (Also notable is the private practice "Otodent", located in Goce Delcev suburb, which offers different medical services like ENT and dentistry. The founder and the director is Dr. Milenko Trendafilovski). I really don’t understand how a Wikipedia administrator can behave like he is doing. Someone should consider his administrator status.

Macedon5 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedon5, I've left Bitola's part in the article, but I've also added Freestylefrappe's content back in. Please, let's have a discussion here before anyone else removes anything! I understand that you feel terrorism and drugs do not belong in the article. I also feel that it would be unfair of me to yell at Freestylefrappe for removing Bitola's text and not do anything when you remove his.
I don't think it will be possible to have a productive discussion about this until Bitola and Freestylefrappe's blocks expire and they can post on this talk page. Until then, is it possible that you can let the article stand as it is? Again, I understand that talk of terrorism in Kumanovo offends you, but if the facts are right then please let the article stay as it is. It won't hurt the article if, for a few days, it has some violence in it, while we talk about it and decide what to do. Do you see what I mean? User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel little tired about all this confrontations here. I hope that FreestyleFrappe will accept that other people have different opinion about how the Kumanovo page should look like and will accept my good-faith adds to the page. I’m not going to remove his adds to the page and I hope he will leave my adds as well. The worst he can do is to start revenge actions after his blocking expiration. However, I respect other people opinion and I will accept the overwhelming decision about what should stay, and what shouldn’t in the article. Also, I would like to thank User:Glen Willen, User:Creidieki, User:Bunchofgrapes and User:karmafist. They all expressed good will in order to resolve this unpleasant situation.
User:Bitola (Talk) 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the new version will accomodate everyone's concerns. However, I never violated 3RR, and the only reason I was blocked is because I temporarily dared to vote against Wikifanatic's RFA. I am considering an RFC in regards to misconduct by Karmafist and Asbestos though Asbestos was probably just being lazy. Bunchofgrapes' comment makes it quite clear why I didnt break 3RR. freestylefrappe 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you would say my comment makes it clear that you didn't break 3RR. [3], [4], [5], and [6] are four reversions within 12 hours; the material reverted, even if copiovio, is not simple vandalism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? IF its a copyio then its vandalism. Perhaps I should engage in the same arbitrary blocking other admins have here. freestylefrappe 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Vandalism must be manifestly bad-faith. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Slapping in some copied text from a web page is not manifestly bad-faith: some people don't know it isn't permitted. Even if you, from a past history, believe Bitola knew and understood copyright rules, that still does not make it "simple vandalism", removable without regard to 3RR. Simple vandalism is obvious on its face and does not require further research, neither into the origins of the text added during the edit nor into the motivations of the editor adding it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. So you're rationale is that Bitola was unable to understand Wikipedia ediquette so I had no right to revert his edits. Thats got to be some of the stupidest logic I've ever heard. "Slapping in some copied text from a web page" is always done on bad faith. Have you even looked at Bitola's comments? Are you unaware I'm an admin? freestylefrappe 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware you are an admin. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The logic is that very few things give you the right to edit war. Most certainly being an admin is not one of those things. "Slapping in some copied text from a web page" is not always bad-faith; errors made in ignorance are simply not bad-faith errors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
For any users who might make the mistake of believing the above comment, please see Talk:Bitola. freestylefrappe 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war again

I really cannot understand why you (FreestyleFrappe) are doing this. Does it give you some kind of satisfaction? Can’t you see that you are going in confrontation with every person included in this dispute? My last version was a bigger good-faith correction of the page, of course, without removing your favorites, the “Violence” and “Narcotics” sections, but it seems that nothing can satisfy you. I have the following questions regarding your last revert:

  • 1. Why are you putting info about surrounding Kumanovo’s mountains into the Economy section?
  • 2. Why you delete the “Geography and Climate” section?
  • 3. What does the private dentistry (an apparent commercial) do in the History section?
  • 4. What is the benefit of having the Kumanovo’s jazz festival into the “History” section?
  • 5. Why you deleted my whole “Tourist attractions” section?
  • 6. It is not important for you to have the biggest Kumanovo tourist attraction “Kokino” present in the article?
  • 7. If my English is poor as you are saying, why don’t you just simply make grammatical corrections to the text?
  • 8. Why are you starting again the edit war?

Bitola (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All I did was correct grammar. freestylefrappe 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please show what content I deleted. The only content I recall removing was stuff you had added to the intro which was repetitive as it was already in the economic section. That and a few needless subsections. freestylefrappe 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've protected the article in the hopes that all of you will discuss changes first and reach consensus. Please use this time as a "cooling-down" period and discuss the article on the talk page. In addition, I just wanted to remind all of you to refrain from personal attacks; such comments don't accomplish anything except to antagonize a situation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont think a protection is needed just yet. freestylefrappe 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "just yet"? I'm hopeful that this cool-down time will cool off everyone and encourage discussin here and an attempt to reach consensus. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone would like more information about what has been going on here, there's an RFC in progress at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Freestylefrappe regarding (among other things) the dispute here. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(cross-posting to User talk:Freestylefrappe) Freestylefrappe, you should never unprotect a page in which you are involved in a content dispute and then proceed to edit the page. Even if you thought the protection was unnecessary, you still shouldn't unprotect - ask the protecting admin (me, in this case) or another admin to unprotect. You unprotected this page with the edit summary "Not needed" after I had protected it and then edited the page several times. Your above post also indicates that you thought protection was not necessary, yet you have not answered to my response yet. Even if the unprotect and then editing is justified, an involved editor should never do this because it creates the perception of misusing your administrative tools. In the future, please do not unprotect and then edit an article in which you are involved. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fine to see things settled

I’m relatively a new user and for that reason maybe I did some mistakes handling this dispute. In that manner, I’m sorry if I made some personal attacks on FSF or if I was to fast and responded not courteously in some cases. However, everything I did was done in order to have more appropriate article that will thoroughly describe Kumanovo. As I can see, the page is unprotected now and FSF returned the most of my new additions to the page (and I’m thankful for that). For now I’m not going to make any corrections on the current text and I will leave FSF to do it if he feels the necessity for that in order to finally shape the appropriate look of the article. I would like to propose to FSF several minor changes on the current version which I think should be done in order to achieve further improvement of the article:

  • 1. I think the following geographical info should be moved from the Economy into the Overview section: Although Kumanovo lies 340 kilometers above the sea, it is surrounded by the Karadag part of Skopska Crna Gora mountain on its western side, Gradishtanska planina mountain on its southern side and Mangovica and German mountain on the eastern side. Kumanovo has a temperate climate.
  • 2. I still have doubt about the presence of private practice “Otodent” in the Culture section
  • 3. By my opinion, the last three sentences in the Culture section would be more appropriate in the History section.

Thanks

[edit] Language again

Let's examine MatriX's sources:

  • Ethnologue: Information mainly from B. Comrie 1987; W. Browne 1989, 1996 - if Albanian was made official in 2002 [7], you can't expect them to record it.
  • US State Department Q&A, dated August 24, 2005: U.S. reaction to Macedonia Prime Minister’s rejection of request from Albanian community to designate Albanaian as the official second language for Macedonia? - this doesn't address the issue. Albanian isn't mentioned in the constitution, but by virtue of Article 7(2) any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population also has that status (only Albanian, hence the Britannica article).

I don't see why we're still discussing this, it has been discussed before. Worst scenario: we can't agree and just don't mention official language in the article.--Ploutarchos 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article 7(2) of the constitution: (2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.... (further are noted restrictions where the Albanian can be used and in all other situations it cannot be used officialy) so it is official, but not in the same level as the Macedonian language. For example, in the government, in the army, police, border crossings, in all those places only Macedonian is used as official language. If we put in the intro section both languages, it looks like they have the same level of usage in the whole country and that is not true. MatriX 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the constitution proclaims it "official", and secondary sources endorse the position. Altering them for such considerations or because you don't believe that their status is quite "official" breaches WP:OR. There are levels of official languages you know, for example in Republic of Ireland, Irish language is the "first" official language and "national language" and English the "second" official language (according to Article 8 of their constitution). Nothing prevents their inclusion in infoboxes of the state etc.--Ploutarchos 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Come on, the English is included in the infoboxes because this is English encyclopedia. Like I said, the Albanian is not official on the national level and for that reason it shouldn't be included in the intro and in the info box. MatriX 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop removing Albanian! There are 25% Albanians in the town and the language is official Mr. Neutron 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albanian language is official

See this!. 27920 Albanians out of 105484 people, more than 20% of the people and Albanian is official! Mr. Neutron 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the 2002 census data. Mr. Neutron 18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The above link is faulty. Frightner 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is just a little slow. Mr. Neutron 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Add the link as a reference to the article in order to avoid confusion. Frightner 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Albanians are 9% (10.059 out of 105,484) in the city, they have to be 20% for their language to become official according to the Ohrid Agreement. Hotty34 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)