User talk:Jawohl

Stop spamming the Talk:Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Not only that you opened sections with screaming titles "Is this article a joke?" "This is a big JOKE!!!!" but you have also opened three sections on the UN. That is spamming which we don't need. --Avala (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Partially_recognized_states is a good idea. I found it so good that I dared to suggest it to this article, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading I hope to get your support there. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox in Kosova

Hello Jawohl,I guess you could be helpful in this ongoing discussion if you want to have an infobox in the article like there is one in every countries article. I thank you in advance for your support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#The_Infoboxes --Tubesship (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this

[1] An interesting link Kosova2008 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hi. The article now, (location=Kosovo) will not be solely about the RoK. That is POV. If you want an article solely about the RoK, suggest a split (as Dab has been saying), gain consensus, and if that is what the majority thinks, it will be created at the location "Republic of Kosovo" (currently a redirect). And as R-41 has suggested, maybe you should create a sandbox: User:Jawohl/sandbox, with the content that you want for Kosovo, so people can better understand what your ideas are for the article. Cheers, Balkan Fever 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Jawohl (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you can claim that something is POV before it is created unless you mean the title of the article itself is pov. In that case I have to remind you that according to wiki NOPOV it is not because RoK exists. And so do other articles on other countries which have disputed sovereignty. The article on Kosovo is classified as one on geography yet it contains only a small section on that, the rest you have seen yourself. Ignoring facts, my friend is POV. If I was to make an article on RoK and claim that they govern the whole territory, that would be POV. Kosovo article has a section on Military, Foreign relations, etc. Answer please to me how can a region have those things? I understand the logic behind it, but that is not how a encyclopedia is written. Jawohl (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People would consider it a POV, but I would contribute NO DOUBT. I'm still new to wiki code but I've gotten the jist of it (I know some HTML, C++). Also reply in my page not as you've done above LOL. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can consider it however they want. Wikipedia does not and that is what counts. Let us just start an article on RoK. Jawohl (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Language

The discussion is about the English use of Pristina. Not weather if Pristina or Prishtina should be the name of the city. Pristina Municipality is not as senior as the Republic of Kosovo. They Speak Macedonian in Skopje not english so that is irrelavant as it has nothing to do with the English use of "Pristina". The Chinese "H" argument is also irrelavant as it has nothing to do with the English use of "Pristina". You have obviously got the wrong end of the Stick. We all agree that "Prishtina" is correct in Albanian, but not in English. The English translation for "Prishtina" is "Pristina" so we are discussing if we should use the English or Albanian name of the city. So your NPOV argument is irrelavant too Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I mentioned Macedonia, was to show that obviously everyone had its own ways own deciding. As for the government being senior, it is true as long as it is not anti constitutional. Two years ago the assembly of Prishtina decided to remove all the fences around the ministries i.e senior government. The decision was carried out. So much about the government on being senior. It is a very loosely centralized government. Another example, after the war, assemblies (both albanian and serbian run) started to rename streets. Some of these decisions were overruled by UNMIK/Government as anti constitutional and inflammatory. Again, I am not trying to offend anyone by posting twice. Just trying to help out. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Im not creating any confusion, my vote is on the Pristina section but on my userpage I can write whichever I want, and I happend to prefer the sh , in albanian but in english the s
Just to clear this up , Im voting for Pristina, thank you for your understanding --Cradel 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "sh" , but Im voting "s" for the sake of neutrality --Cradel 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of neutrality?. I vote for the sake of the facts and for my spinal cord, I still have one. Dude. Jawohl (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sake of neutrality? Prishtina is spelled "commonly" as pristina because it is based of Serbian "facts". The bigger guy always writes history. It is more common to believe what America publishes as fact rather than France because America has a much bigger Press, more power...even if France is presenting a fact and America a propaganda. I refuse to compromise since the spelling is about principle. Gjakova in Albanian means city of blood..what does Djakovica mean in Serbian..does it mean the city full of churches? Kosova is a name, but the Serbs thru cultural oppression changed the A and made it O and put Metohija to mean church land (this happend in the beginning of Yugoslavia)...bring me a Serbian map that dates 1300 years ago that says Kosovo i metohija..they either say Kosova or Dardania, or Albania, maybe even epirus. Stop trying to spread Serbian propaganda. That's my point, Jawohl I hope you can agree with me that we need to stop these lies..We present FACTS. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage discipline

I must note that your talkpage behaviour is deteriorating from bad to worse. Please read WP:TALK (really) and make an effort to stick to it, avoiding WP:POINT. Persistent failure to comply may be considered as falling under WP:DISRUPTION. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was bad and turned to worse? Is there nothing good on my talk page? Jawohl (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to take dab serious when he was the one who deleted someone's talk page. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this thing and I do not know who to address and ask for help, because what he just wrote is completely childish and shows lack of respect. There is no need for him to get personal on me. I did not insult him. Unbelievable. Jawohl (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Dab to User Happy Melon

if you follow "Jawohl" around a bit, you will note that his approach is to sprinkle talkpages with innocuous tounge-in-cheek rhetorical questions for no reason other than WP:POINT. I've left him a note about it, but obviously, he'll not listen to me. In due time, he'll just take the path of all the other misfits: (a) reform, (b) get bored, or (c) get kicked out. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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 21 days. This ban extends to any talk pages of any major Kosovo-related talk page, especially Talk:Kosovo and Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. If you breach this ban by making edits in this area, 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). This topic-ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia‎. Regards, Rudget (review) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was banned for continuously asking "who is disputing the territory of Kosovo" and all I got as an answer was: leave, stop it , troll, - then this really borders to childishness. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to provide users with information (and unbiased ones as much as possible). Obviously I was wrong. Jawohl (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour has been unbecoming, and relying upon being new to provide a basis for not knowing to restrain yourself in an argument with another user is also a little below par. Instinctively, (for me at least) civility and etiquette is an integral part of communication with others and I rarely lose my cool. However, I am willing to see that you are still unknowing when it comes to Wikipedia policies and per the exemplary reaons below that have kindfully been written by Husond, I am reducing this 'topic ban' (which does not affect your right to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia) to 7 days. Within this time period, you must not edit any Kosovo-related articles and you must make sure that you do not attack other editors or assume bad faith systematically. If you violate these terms you will be blocked for around 24 hours (or depending on the severity of the violating edit, longer). Obviously, I don't want to do this–it is not in my interest to log on to Wikipedia and block people first thing. In fact, I very rarely like blocking users who have the potential to contribute constructively. Kosovo (and the Balkans are in general) is a very-hot topic 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. Regards, Rudget (review) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban is now lifted. Rudget 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dab

What has user dab done? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see you have been banned from Kosovo related articles. Bad luck mate. We'll continue the naming dispute later. If you have any news on Kosovo you wish to report, post it on my talk page and i'll present it for you. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told people about them links on the Kosovo page. Ive been trying to update the EU part, but a consensus is never reached ;( Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Hello Jawohl and thank you for your comment. I am sorry that this measure had to be taken, but I believe it was necessary. As you know I monitor Kosovo-related talk pages, often actively participating in the discussions occurring there, but above all I verify whether or not users also participating there are doing so in a constructive, civil manner. Unfortunately in this hot topic, many users seem to ignore a few rules and fuel discord by resorting to incivility, trolling, and personal attacks. Your behavior lately was in my opinion often inadequate. You too often reacted aggressively against users with whom you disagreed, and blatantly exposed an intent to circumvent WP:NPOV as per your own views on what should be a neutral point of view. For that, a ban is in order. If it makes you feel better, other users are likely to have a banning procedure initiated if they, too, won't stop warring each other and instead start communicating cooperatively and with respect for different opinions. However, as strictly as I adhere to civil cooperation, I also adhere to WP:AGF and I applaud your acknowledgment that by being new here you may not be accustomed to the way discussions on controversial topics must be carried out in order to produce positive results. Therefore, I may suggest Rudget to ponder reducing the length of your ban, although that would rest entirely within his discretion. And above all I exhort you to, once the ban is lifted, join any discussions, always bearing in mind that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:AGF are the only combination allowing you to have your arguments given proper regard, and preventing the escalation of a disagreement into an unpleasant exchange of attacks. Regards, Hús ö nd 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jawohl, I understand that you have valid points, but the ban was not because you were right or wrong. You were banned for persistently displaying a tendency to collide with other users, often stepping on the border of incivility. Instead of presenting your views in a calm and constructive way, you were prompt to war with other users simply for disagreeing with them. You obviously are not the only one who's been discussing the Kosovo topic in a negative manner, but users who can't control themselves should be banned when they keep causing discussions to become disrupted or derailed. You happened to be the first. This drastic measure is only intended to restore cordiality and cooperation among users, therefore I hope that you rejoin the discussions when the ban is lifted. If in the future you refrain from an aggressive stance and from attacking users whom you disagree with and instead write your comments calmly, focusing on the article only and not on its contributors, then you can be rest assured that no further bans shall be enforced upon you. Your ban was reduced to 7 days by Rudget, by the way. Regards, Hús ö nd 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence

Greetings. Thank you for tasking me with this important correction, and spotting the defect in the first place. I replied in detail with more information on my talk page, for continuity and transparency, and mentioned my talk page in the edit summary. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

This is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. Please do not do it again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I updated the page accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i noticed that when editing. It isn't ex US president Bill Clinton though is it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]