User talk:Ruach Chayim

Welcome!

Hi Ruach Chayim! I noticed your contributions to Prizren and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indent

Please read wp:indent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, please stop moving things without discussion--even if you are reverting earlier moves. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I do not understand. I should think of the good will of the editor who accuses me of vandalism? — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that you indent one to the right when you reply to a user, thus the way you indented your reply on the NPOV board was a reply to me, not the post you wanted to reply to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: So I should start a discussion about moving articles that were previously moved by individuals on their own initiative? That makes sense. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense, doesn't it. As for the indents, you need to indent correctly regardless of the alleged intentions of the person you are responding to. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This (however) would be reply to Drmies' comment above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example this is a reply to your post of 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thank You. But, I wonder why you didn't write this to the people (that is, the person, given that it's an obvious example of a sockpuppet) who originally moved the articles? — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I know how to use indents. I apologized for not clarifying that I was speaking to the sockpuppet, although I think it was quite obvious. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such an obvious sockpuppet, maybe you should report them rather than disruptively moving. And I can't help but wonder where all that knowledge comes from, given the newness of your account. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Drmies: We've gotten to the point where I'm "disrupting" by reverting unapproved article moves. Secondly, I would like to thank You for noticing my knowledge, it's a nice compliment.

It is clear that this user(s) is a sockpuppet, as other editors have already said before, but it is also easy to conclude from the user's edits. Also, it's clear that you don't want to answer why you didn't warn the user that they shouldn't move articles on their own initiative, but okay. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop deflecting. This is about your behavior. I do not believe you came here with clean hands; there is no way that a novice editor could know about sockpuppets, let alone sockpuppets in a specific area who moved specific articles. And you can repeat "sockpuppet" all you want--no, in fact, you can not, because next time you call that editor a sock, unless it's at SPI, with evidence, I am going to block you for personal attacks and a violation of WP:AGF. It's a serious accusation, and you cannot make those lightly and without evidence, in edit summaries. I hope I am making myself clear--and I'll add that insinuating something about my objectivity or whatever is not going to help you. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: First of all, I would like to ask You to calm down and stop threatening. You are the one who speculates and says that I came with "dirty hands". The editor we are talking about is a sockpuppet, which has been proven, and after that he was blocked. However, offense is the easiest defense, but okay, I don't plan on arguing any further with a person who doesn't want to be constructive, let alone apologize. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how did you know what a "sockpuppet" was? How did you know to read histories and talk pages and how did you figure out that the person was socking? Because I know how to do that, but I've been here for years. Don't tell me to "calm down", BTW, and please consider this: I am not threatening you--I am simply warning you. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Podujevo. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited District of Gjilan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vitia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Fix" campaign

I friendly wanted to remind you that your edits (e.g. on Vushtrri, etc.) aren't improvements. Adding the footnote in every Article that somehow relates to Kosovo are not enhancements to Wikipedia. Please invest your time and make sensible edits. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: Greeting. All my edits are constructive. If you think otherwise, feel free to post on the admin panel. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is just as good as before, before your edits that you've made. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: Likewise. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Instead of always pasting this footnote, you can add more useful things such as expanding the history sections as long as it is not disputed. Cheers AlexBachmann (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: The note is being added and will be added until it is decided otherwise. I'm sorry if You don't like it. Also, I would like to ask You to stop spreading pro-Albanian propaganda like You used to. It is time to stop with pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian propaganda, and to turn a little towards neutrality. Greeting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the ladder part of your sentece, I'd like to hear some examples of my "pro-Albanian propaganda". Be careful with accusations. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: 1, 2, 3 (added without consensus) and it goes on and on. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was later resolved with the result that only persons without an separate article should have the Albanian name included. The second one is true, or don't you agree? If you have something against it revert it and discuss in the talkpage. As about Nish, I've reached consensus. All of those edits are not "propaganda" but controversial. Not the same thing. Again, be careful with your accusations. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: As for the first example, it is quite clear what your intention was (it is interesting that you did not add Serbian names in addition to Albanian names anywhere), please don't act naive. The second is extremely biased (needless to say "Miley's album was the best-selling album in the US that week and #1 on the Billboard charts, but Billboard provided no evidence). The third was made without consensus (only one editor (admin) spoke up and even he was against). Like I said - less propaganda, more neutrality. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to include Serbian spellings while they are mostly included. If you think something is missing in the article then add it. Secondly, if you haven't noticed, there is a whole section about the false claims that Serbia has made (Alleged withdrawal of recognitions). Only to write "x countries have withdrawn" in the lead without mentioning this would be even more biased.

Take your time for the third case. At 00:53, I have requested to add Nish to the lead on the Talkpage. On the same day, namely 20:57, I added the name. After that, the Admin intervened. He stated that I need to prove that Nissa and Nisha are indeed common names and not misspellings and so did I. I asked multiple times if anyone has something against it and the admin hasn't intervened. And they surely saw my further comments, as the admin processed the "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023" right underneath my request. I think it is clear now. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: I would again ask you not to act naive. So, you added Albanian names even though you should have known (of which there is no doubt) that it is not done that way.

Even worse if you added the text the same day without waiting for anyone to respond (which means you didn't expect a response at all).

False claims were spread by both Kosovo and Serbia officials (although we currently "trust" the Kosovo officials who tweeted something?). Again, let's focus on n-e-u-t-r-a-l-i-t-y. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I made a mistake, everybody makes mistakes, right? The whole discussion on the admins page could have been avoided if you had discussed in the right way. See, everybody makes mistakes. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBachmann: The mistake is that you asked a question and only after a few hours did what you intended without waiting for someone to answer. Someone replied (an admin, no less) and objected to it. However, you did not remove the text either then or now. You will agree that you are quite prone to making mistakes (and that, quite by accident, always in favor of the Albanian side). I just informed the other admins about your mistake. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]