User talk:Bindicapriqi

Please post your message at the bottom of the page

I will reply to you in your talk page and I suggest that you do the same

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 2008, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. —BoL 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo town names

Stop moving Kosovo article names, or you will be banned. Last warning, as you did it quite a few times. --Bolonium (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the warning, it is agreed that Kosovo cities will be written in Serbian Latin, if you want to change Wikipedia policy, you have to discuss it first. Thank you, --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edits to Kosovo related articles

Hello, please note that your recent edits to the following articles: Kosovska Mitrovica, Peć, Kosovska Kamenica, Dragaš, Priština, Ðakovica, Kosovo Polje, Gnjilane‎, and Uroševac have all been reverted because the moves and edits were not discussed. The naming policy on Kosovo related topics follows the structure of the Serbian name as the title, and first in the introduction, respectively followed by the Albanian name. Please stop making undiscussed moves or edits or you will be blocked from Wikipedia for vandalism without further notice. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits

You have once again been changing the names of Kosovo towns/cities without any prior discussion of the matter. These names have been agreed upon and therefore will be used until there is consesus for possible replacement and/or removal. Also, your edits to the talk page in the article Priština under the header "Survey" have been removed because that discussion was from one year ago. It explictly states, "the following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. " Please follow Wikipedia guidelines or your edits will continue to be reverted and you will ultimately be blocked. Also, removing warnings on the talk page is not allowed. Please refrain from removing them. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits

You have once again reverted a previously agreed upon version of the Priština article, after being told numerous times by several users that the changes would need to first be discussed. I will now be seeking administrator intervention in the matter.Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm an administrator. Among other things, this means that I have the authority to intervene in disputes and, if necessary, enact disciplinary measures. I hope that disciplinary measures will not become necessary here.

I understand that you are Albanian, and as such it bothers you to have the names of Kosovar towns listed in such a way. Really, I do understand. But you have to understand - this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Serbian or Albanian. We do not represent Japanese placenames in Japanese characters, we do not represent Andhra Pradesh placenames in Telugu script, we do not represent Russian placenames in Cyrillic. We transliterate.

For placenames in multi-ethnic areas like Kosovo, we - those of us who have been working on the articles for a long time - have reached a consensus as to the best way to represent them. You are not the only person involved here.

Remember, names are not real. They have no actual existence, they are the result of agreements between people. They are collective fictions, like "borders" and "nations" and "laws". If you want to make major changes to the naming structures of Wikipedia articles - especially for Wikipedia articles whose names have been the subject of controversy - then I strongly recommend that you a) discuss the subject with the other people involved, and b) be prepared to make compromises. I also recommend that you read the archives of previous discussions, so that you can see what arguments have already been made.

I do not want to have to block you for disruptive behavior. But I will if it becomes necessary. Please do not make it necessary.

Thank you. DS (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kosovo

Hey Bindicapriqi,

I heard you've been very active within the Kosovo subject and would thus like to personally invite you to join the Kosovar WikiProject. Cheers. --Prevalis (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Handball

It doesn't matter if you can see it on television, you need to prove it here. Wikipedia doesn't allow for the following: "trust me, I saw it on TV, it must be true". Besides, your spelling and punctuation was abysmal and would have needed editing anyways. Currently, you still have spelling mistakes again in the edit. I suggest you review your edits better next time. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject European Union!

Hello, Bindicapriqi, and welcome to WikiProject European Union! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a European Union Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

-- J Logan ^t: 14:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Istog

Hi. Number of versions is not important, only one, but correct, is quite enough. This issue was already discussed a year ago, so please check the Istok talk page first. PajaBG (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Links in Kosovo

The history of Ottoman Serbia incorporates present-day Kosovo. Therefore, do not remove the links. --Bolonium (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not only did you remove that link, you removed another. And if you do not know, you might as well go read up on some history yourself. I recommend something that isn't on this Wikipedia, as others like yourself tend to remove links and data, screwing the whole thing over. --Bolonium (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant what I said. It's funny how you deny that Kosovo isn't associated with Ottoman Serbia hehe... --Bolonium (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Please pay attention to WP:3RR. You're entitled to only three reverts per day. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic names in Kosovo's infoboxes

Hi Bindicapriqi. I notice that you are removing the Cyrillic versions of Serbian names from all infoboxes of Kosovo's towns: diff., diff., diff., etc. Is there any agreement on removing the Cyrillic versions, or is it just your personal preference ? If the latter, please add them back: style issues like that need to be agreed upon in advance.

To keep the discussion coherent, I would appreciate if you could answer here, in your talk page, please. I will see your post :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been removing them because I see them as unnecesary there. The serbian cyrillic version is alredy there (and appears first in the introduction), plus , I am not deleting the serbian latin from the list because that could be useful but the cyrillic is very unnecesary , however if they do need to be there I'd suggest putting them last in the list not first--B.C. 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for responding here :-) I understand your reasons, and yes, it can be argued that mentioning the Cyrillic forms twice is redundant and unnecessary. However, such mentions of "native/original" names in the infoboxes is the standard practice of the English Wikipedia (even for those with non-latin scripts, cf. Damascus, Moscow, Sofia, Athens, and even the Roman Empire :-).

For the articles on Kosovo's towns, as far as I know, the general agreement is to follow this standard practice and list the Cyrillic forms in the infoboxes too. To change this to another format (cf. Tel Aviv), it would be better to have a centralized discussion first (for example, at Talk:Kosovo), and reach a consensus to make the changes before actually editing the articles.

In any case, I fully agree with you that in the infoboxes the Cyrillic forms should be the last ones, as is the case with all the examples listed above (except for the odd case of the Roman Empire, listing Latin first and English second :-)

So, would you agree to add them back, although this time as the last ones of the list ? Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will open a disscution on Talk:Kosovo on wether they should stay there or not , however until then I will put them back , although not right now :). --B.C. 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding & willingness to discuss. And there's no hurry :-) In any case, after reviewing the {{Infobox Settlement}} template, I think that it would be better to list only the latin-script versions of the names in the official name field, and add the Cyrillic forms in a newly-added native name field.

I will be paying attention to the Kosovo talk page. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Until then perhaps we should leave the cyrillic names on the list--B.C. 21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean continue to placing the Cyrillic forms in the same official name field as the Latin-script ones ? That's fine: the main thing is that they be not removed from the infobox before an agreement is reached to do so :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of names in infoboxes

Keep in mind that this very minor issue is not a disagreement over content in one specific article, but a simple editorial choice affecting a whole category of articles. It's not about adding or removing content, but merely about deciding which presentation of that content could be more beneficial to our potential English-speaking readers.

To edit war over it in over a dozen articles is a very very bad idea. Instead, try to reach a general agreement on which format to use by starting a centralized discussion somewhere (perhaps at Talk:Kosovo or Template talk:Infobox Settlement). Only after a general consensus is reached should the changes be implemented in all related articles. As I mentioned before, style issues like this need to be agreed upon in advance.

Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Europe on Kosovo related articles

Since Serbia is in Europe, there is no need to have both Wikiproject Serbia and Wikiproject Europe templates. Wikiproject Europe "concentrates primarily on matters of a pan-European nature". I'm not aware of any city or geography articles which have both Wikiproject Europe and Wikiproject <country> templates (Brussels does, for example, but it's because it is EU capital). Nikola (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. Kosovo is completely a part of Serbia, though not under Serbian administration. Nikola (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is under UN administration. Nikola (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Geographically at least, it is in Serbia. Either way, Wikiproject Europe deals primarily with pan-European matters, which cities in Kosovo are not. Nikola (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikola, you're right on this; WP Europe isn't appropriate. I'll get to work on setting up the framework for a WikiProject Kosovo - both of you, please see my comments at the bottom of Talk:Kosovo. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded: Nikola & ChrisO are right on this. - Ev (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Istok

You are currently involved in an edit war at the above article. Consider this a final warning: if you attempt to use reverting to force through your change, you will be blocked from editing, to prevent further damage.

It is essential you sit down and discuss the differences you have with the content of an article and other editors, rather than revert war. Open up a discussion on Talk:Istok, invite other editors involved in the dispute, and talk about what you are disagreeing over. If that doesn't work, come back to me, and I will assist you in seeking dispute resolution.

Once again, refrain from edit warring at all times: discuss with the other editors!
Anthøny 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)