User talk:Interestedinfairness

Welcome!

Hi Interestedinfairness! I noticed your contributions 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! Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians

Welcome to Wiki:)) Anyway I don't think that you should quit on this. Every article has this kind of issues (although Albanian related articles have more since there are many neighbours:) which prefer to put them outside that area propably descending from the Mars:)) The problem in the Balkan area is that there was not a free circulation of ideas and the problem is still persisting. For eg Greek editors publish in Greek language (from the Greek authors and others translated) mainly books supporting their thesis not alternatives (although you can find them in the web) and also the common people is more prone to believe and buy these books than the others. The same happens in all the Balkan states especially in those countires which have still open issues:) with their neighbours. That's why it is very difficult to cooperate sometimes. Anyway Fut is not as bad as you think;) Aigest (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep I know that photo. It was discovered near Pogradec. The original photo is more extended though, in the left there is an Illyrian fighter and in the right a macedonian. Behind the Illyrian(on horse) ther is a snake totem of Illyrians(not seen in this picture). The problem is we don't know if this photo can be used (property rights). Aigest (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope I didn't read Gawrych except few passages in a library while I was searching for other stuff. Interestingly sometimes it has been misquoted here in wiki. (eg Souliotes article talk page). If you need other stuff for Kosova just ask;) Aigest (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo article

Dude, you have made a real mess of the article, you ignored the warning at the start of the edit page, too many highlights in the intro, and included geographical info in the intro when it belongs to the geography section (which was a repetition anyway, believe me, I tried to fix it but gave up). I'm reverting it for now, otherwise it will start an edit war. There are too many issues with the Kosovo page, and the intro is not the place to start, what about all the [disputed] tags all over the article? They're a better way to start fixing the article.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice but if you look at the Germany page then its geography is highlighted right from the start because it is also landlocked. This seems appropriate. I have also taken examples from the U.K., France and Unites States of America pages. I don't see what the problem is, the article is very balanced , it makes the point that there is a dispute about the nature of Kosovo's independence. Yet then the more important aspects of the region are discussed, like geography; the history of the people; economy; etc. It took me hours to complete that page, and again, I appreciate your advice and the edit I made (I still have it) needs some adjustment, but overall I think that sort of structure could remain. I will also be happy to edit some of the disputed parts of the article, but the introduction is very important. What do you think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo article is under arbcom probation. This is explained at the head of Talk:Kosovo and in html comment in the article text. I am blocking your account for 24 hours for edit-warring on Kosovo. You are welcome to resume editing after your block expires, but note that future blocks for renewed offenses will escalate in length. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have discussed restructering the article, if you check the talk pages. The article looked great with my edit, I don't see what the problem is? I've mentioned the Serbian spelling of the name I've mentioned its undecided status but that's where the buck should stop. Why not mentioned its neighbours, its history, interesting facts such as the EURO and a young population? Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

your edit of tonight (apart from being in clear violation of WP:NPOV) was reverted. You then reverted back. This usually wouldn't be a big deal, but on Kosovo, which is under article probation, it is enough to buy you a block.

I do not doubt that you edit in good faith, and I can unblock you right away if you promise to seek consensus for your edits if you find yourself reverted in the future.

On the content side, I agree that there could be a Republic of Kosovo aritcle baout the 2008 Republic. But you cannot turn the Kosovo article into the Republic of Kosovo article. If you want to split off an article on the 2008 republic, you should make a clean split proposal and see if it gets consensus. Fwiiw, I would probably support your proposal. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to respect article probation, and it is not my intention to start revert wars. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you! I would have lifted your block upon seeing this, but I see it has already expired. Please feel welcome to continue contributing to Talk:Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

I tagged Serbia like you suggested it. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Number 60 is Bahrain

http://kosovothanksyou.com/ Bahrain recognized today and today is the 19th, right? So why do you revert it? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry bro, I was editing something else: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia

have a look, must of been by accident

No problem. Great article, Noel is so right! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets just hope Serb nationalists don't hijack it Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dardanians

I have updated the Wiki page at Dardanians, please take a look at the changes. Since you have contributed to Kosovo article I am wondering if you have any related material for the Dardani tribes. Bests Aigest (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found these coins attributed to Dardanian, Damastion mines;

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=247008&AucID=359&Lot=211

Also this figurine, although 6000 years old might be relevant?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43007000/jpg/_43007819_goddess203.jpg

What do you think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They look great but there is the same problems as that of Illyrians (property rights) only free photos are accepted in wiki. Bests Aigest (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort

Could you also take care of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Free_Trade_Agreement TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo again

Please avoid blind reverts that include removal of sources. It's disrespectful to say the least.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your source was not necessary, Noel Malcolm, the distinguished scholar described what happened in 1912-1913. Your the one pushing POV. As Noel explained; no one gave Serbia or Montenegro the territory to divide between them. The two states took it upon them to invade a territory (see: the Viyalet of Kosova), formerly a part of another state (see: the Ottoman Empire). Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As i explained in my edit summaries, Malcolm carefully places his perspective in an issue which he asserts to be disputable. I've added a source that makes a fair approach regarding this, it also mentions the role of the Great Powers. I'll try to find a link from googlebooks as i don't have time to copy it by hand. Your accusation of POV pushing extents to those that maintained the previous version for some time time now, i only reverted to that, adding nothing else but a source. Thanks anyway.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If Noel is carefully placing his perspective in an issue which he asserts to be disputable then we can both agree that Noel is neutral. Therefore, the statement that the territory was conquered is a fact and a fact cannot be POV, hence no need to edit my addition. Thanks for your curiosity however. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a third party source, that's different from saying it represents NPOV. NPOV adds up by giving the correct weight to every source (cause every source has bias). The source i added for instance avoids using words like "conquered" and keeps a distance from Malcolm's need to justify its use, and it's not so much the word by itself but the connotations it carries. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean third party source, it comes straight from Noel Malcolm; Kosovo was conquered; just as Africa was during the nineteenth century; just like the Balkans was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read Malcolm's article in the English newspaper "the Guardian" shortly after Kosovan independence, you'll see he is far from being anything near distinguished. "Extinguished" in his tiny brain perhaps, but his comments were laughable. Even some of the peasants in our villages know more than he does. He started by attacking Serbs for demonstrating that Kosovo is several centuries Serbian by announcing that the region spent over half a millennium subjugated by the Ottomans. He then shot himself in both feet, first by stating Serbia "occupied" (his word, not mine) it in 1912 - "when Serbs made up a maximum of 25%" - after that, it was part of a Yugoslav federation (Malcom: until it was destroyed by Milosevic). With ignorant, opinionated remarks such as the last one, I'd like to see how long his comments would last if he were to use them on Wikipedia; just try going onto the Milosevic page and on the opening line, write "he destroyed Yugoslavia". Rhetoric of that kind was not even used by Croatian state television in the 1990's. At worst, they accused him of creating unfavourable conditions which caused them (and Slovenia) to declare independence thus ending the federation; not the same thing as a man destroying a country on his own/or with his party only. But back to the important factors: Kosovo - census information from 1912 time is very bleak as a result of numerous incidents over the previous years, with Albanians boycotting in certain areas and information not accurately counted in rural areas amid the chaos of unrest dating back to 1908; but the Noel Malcolm figure of 25% Serbs can only apply to the urban areas of what is today Kosovo, but before 1946, these current frontiers were yet to be drawn. The actual Vilayet of Kosovo included far more than just today's Kosovo, it stretched to areas far beyond where Albanians are traditionally settled; and its capital was Skopje - where the majority declared either Bulgarian or Serb - but not Albanian, and Novi Pazar was also within this territory. There the overwhelming population may not be Serbs, but Slavic Muslims are still Slavic, not related to Albanians. So even if there were an Albanian majority, 75% is a bit of a far cry and only "neutral" people like Malcolm can produce such remarks. But go back to the first Balkan War, did Malcolm not know that the region was awarded to Kingdom of Serbia in London, 1913? He jumped from the 1912 "occupation" to Yugoslavia in 1919. Sure Kosovo was occupied, by Austrians however, from about 1913 until they were ejected. And another thing Malcolm crealy either forgot, or simply never learned, was that before the Yugoslav entity existed, an initial state was declared in present-day Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia which de-facto existed alongside an internationally recognised Kingdom of Serbia which included Kosovo. Only when they opened the borders to each other to form Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes months later did present-day Kosovo exist within a federation, either way, it was one which Serbia chose to join, where its population was a constituent nation, whilst Kosovo stood within that Serb entity; so what the Hell it's got to do with Malcolm whether Serbia stands alone or is a partner in a federation I don't know. Slovenia once hoped to have Trieste within its borders, the fact that Slovenia was in Yugoslavia at the time didn't make matters different. It wasn't Bosnia or Montenegro which wanted Trieste. If you want more comedy by Malcolm, he is on record as having told the Macedonian press is 1999 after the handover in Kosovo to the UN that if NATO hadn't acted, Milosevic would eventually invade and annex Macedonia. He said this at Skopje airport, over seven years after the FRY recognised Macedonia's independence and installed an ambassador there. If you want insanities by Noel Malcolm, I could give you a list of a thousand in half an hour. Evlekis (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A critical wiev [1] over Noel Malcolm and Serb migration. Hope it is useful. Bests Aigest (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo - your recent edit

Because you've seen sense and rephrased reference to "conquest", I shall respect your new revision. Thank you for the diplomacy. regards. Evlekis (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:-) Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Freedom fighters??

Interestedinfairness, it really doesn't seem to be that you're interested in fairness. I hope you know that this edit is in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rule. Do you? Now, I'm sure you're well aware that the word "freedom fighter" is an POV word in no matter which context you use it, as somebody who is a "freedom fighter" (or "freedom warrior" or "freedom fry", whatever) to you, might not be that to the rest. "Separatist guerillas" is something, however, that I'm sure you should agree with - Did the KLA want to separate Kosovo from Serbia? Yes, therefore, they are separatists. Did they engage in guerilla tactics to try to achieve this? Yes, therefore, they are guerillas. Try to be more neutral in the future. Thanks, --Cinéma C 19:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, why don't you go check out the Serbia page which is full of erroneous statements and stop worrying about Kosovo! Was Milosevic the cruelest and most brutal head of a state since Hitler? Yes he was. Did he terrorise Albanians in Kosovo through his druggie army? Yes. Therefore the KLA were freedom fighters, who engaged in guerrilla tactics. Nevertheless, I won't use the word freedom fighter, I will say the KLA engaged the Serbs that is it, if people want to find out about it they can search KLA. Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And your edits are useful, but too long for the introduction. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the difference between facts and opinion. Was Milosevic the cruelest and most brutal head of a state since Hitler? In fact, Hitler caused a war that cost the lives of over 24 million soldiers and 49 million civilians, while the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, according to some sources, led to over 140,000 deaths (35,000 of which were Serbs, 64,000 Bosniaks, 21,000 Croats, 14,000 Albanians and 18 Slovenes). 73 million and 140 thousand - that's the difference. In fact, here are brutal and cruel wars and conflicts since Hitler caused by heads of states that did much more damage than Milosevic, Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Jashari and Thaci altogether: Vietnam war (1959-1975): 2.5 - 5 million dead; Korean War (1950-1953): 2.5 - 3.5 million dead; Afghan civil war (1979-present): 1.5 - 2 million dead...

Did he terrorise Albanians in Kosovo through his druggie army? The Yugoslav Army (you might be surprised, but soldiers aren't allowed to take drugs) did commit lots of war crimes towards Albanians. The Kosovo Liberation Army's goal was to provoke them by attacking civilians and security forces. Now, your argument could be used both ways - Yes, Milosevic did terrorize Albanians, but yes, the KLA terrorized Serbs, pro-Serb Albanians and others who were loyal to the Yugoslav government - and you VERY WELL know that Albanians didn't want to separate because of Milosevic - pro-independence protests started back in the early 1980s, while Milosevic was an unknown banker... so guess who started turning up the temperature - something that usually leads to war in the Balkans.

Lastly, the term 'freedom fighter' is a relative term and can NOT be used generally. Reason? I can say that my physics teacher doesn't let me go outside the classroom during class and then take out my gun and shoot him. To me and my fellow classmates, I am a freedom fighter. To the real world, I'm a murderer. Everyone sees things differently, depending on their perspective. Deal with it. Thanks, --Cinéma C 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo was not "returned" to Serbia, because it had a history of an Albanian majority within Kosovo before the Slavs settled there. So please refrain from edit warning and provide reliable sources; [2]. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is disputed if Albanians are direct descendants of Illyrians, seeing as how all the peoples of the Balkans mixed up with Illyrians (did you know that the first Croatian national movement was called the Illyrian movement?).. so don't present theories as clear, undisputed facts. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Thanks, --Cinéma C 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo... YET again.

Because you're pushing a POV, not focusing on Neutral reporting, because, I know...'there's NO neutrality as long as Kosovo is owned by 'Serbs/Albanians and Albanians/Serbs stand on the ground.' I don't care. When you pull cites to push a POV edit about who 'really' owns that land, it's going to be reverted, as NUMEROUS editors have done to you repeatedly in the past few days about this edit. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific edit where I was pushing POV? As I said the Ottoman part, in particular has been made so much better, sources such as Noel Malcolm are neutral so is Isa Blumi and George Gawlyrch, the last two in particular are recent works?! Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, a link for the population of Pristina was added (as was requested). A link regarding the Young Turks was also added. Non neutral sources claiming Serbian deportation were removed, as Noel Malcolm clearly identifies these to be false claims by Serb nationalists. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you made that section horrible. You removed halves of sentences, leaving fragments behind. What was left was not coherent, left out massive sets of facts and citation, and came off as a "Kosovo's always been 'ours'" set of edits, rather than a neutral history of who has lived there and who controlled the land. Until you learn to write in English as a fluent writer, and to work with others collaboratively, I think you're gong to have more problems.ThuranX (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll keep reverting so long as you continue to POV push about who 'really owns Kosovo', and continue to remove citations to fact which you feel cast Serbia in a light you don't agree with, and continue to use poor grammar, fragmentary sentences, and other poor language. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The farce (Kosovo article)

Dude, I have just checked the difference in the article from when I found it (30 April 2009), to now. My conclusion is that there has been no improvement and the article has degenerated in a spiral of revertions and tit for tat. Your contributions have been a pain in the neck for many people, starting from me, who felt you wanted to improve the article according to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Regrettably, this has not happened, as it looks you have just been pushing a personal agenda on your own view of Kosovo. Remember, this is meant to be a team effort, and your contributions are letting the team down: people reading the page are being told completely different things from one day to the other. Since I think you come from Kosovo, is this the way you would like to see your country represented to the world?(if you feel that strong about it why not start your own website?) I am really tempted to revert the whole article to what it was on 30 April, and to fight to keep it that way unless the edits being made aren't constructive. Yours,Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC

I think your jumping to conclusions. It doesn't matter if I'm from Kosovo or not, I read English books which are considered neutral such as Noel Malcolm for example. I don't read Albanian or Serbian ones as I am not comfortable reading either of those Languages. Check the edits, I put a link for the population of Pristina, a link regarding the Young Turks movement which were both constructive. The introduction was kept the same with the only difference being that I have mentioned the Viyalet of Kosovo and the introduction of Islam. I have kept the word partitioned to describe how Serbia and Montenegro obtained Kosovo as apposed to conquered in order to maintain a consensus. What other problems do you have with my edits? I have provided sources with the aim of removing that ridiculous tag at the top of the article which makes the page look ugly. So don't just jump on the bandwagon of criticism, but rather, check out my posts realistically and sincerely and then make up your mind .(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Notreallyinterestedinfairness, you can't pick books by English writers who agree with your POV. Noel Malcolm is a biased historian 'wannabe', and frankly, his rants are laughable. There are lots of books by English writers who don't agree with you, for example The Last Kosovo Serb Won't Leave by Susan Southworth, Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption by John Laughland, Media Cleansing, Dirty Reporting: Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia by Peter Black, etc. Would you read these books too, or are you only interested in ones that support your POV... --Cinéma C 01:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Those writers are Russian agents/Serb spies, not neutral historians. They're probbaly all of Serb descent anyway, pretending to be Americans. Metrospex (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Good one :) --Cinéma C 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Cinema your a a discrase, and those books you mention are written by half-wits trying to cash in on the Kosovo war. So go away and go and concentrate on the Serbia page which is in desperate need of some neutral sources. Bruteldeluxe, hopefully you can see what kind of people I have to deal with and the types of 'sources' they come up with. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If Cinema's sources don't comply with this then he can't use them.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. It's better to discuss article content, instead of contributors. TNXMan 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[3]. I don't think this is called for. I have accepted your rules about not personalizing discussions, but as you can see 'cinema' is as much at fault here as I am Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New edits (Kosovo)

+ :) You're doing O.K. with your last edits, just watch what you delete or someone will find a reason for deleting all your (good) work.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Here [4] please read it before discussing. Aigest (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already studies the Ottoman period, but unfortunately the emphasis is not laid on the Balkans as much as it should be. This should be useful.

Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

G-4 Super Galeb

Hi, Interestedinfairness, I need your assistance on this article, especially with this paragraph: "During the Kosovo War the G-4 was used in few combat missions. Propagandistic claims were made in the Serbian media about G-4 Super Galebs being used in attacks on NATO bases in Tirana and Tuzla but Yugoslav Army officials never confirmed the rumours; the Albanian government also denied any G-4 attacks took place. Seven G-4 aircraft from the Leteće Zvezde display team were destroyed at Golubovci Airbase." I cannot find any info in English, seen as a Google search just returns lots about the NATO bombings. I was wondering if you might be able to find an Albanian/English source for the claims about the Galeb's actions in the Kosovo War. Yours,Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha that was funny. Yugoslav navy stayed in the ports (none dared to move and they were spared for Montenegro's sake non wanted to expand the conflict in Montenegro since Montenegrins also wanted the separation from Serbs) and the Yugoslav airspace was 24/24 surveillance, those who dared simply were shot down quickly. What we have here is pure propaganda of Serb media (not even Yugoslav army officials confirmed that!?!?!) Haha also to many reporters of foreign newspapers in Tirana (refugee crises) none listened?!?! It would have been ridiculous if it wasn't still used to "form" Serb nationalism. Aigest (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I've only seen one instance where Serbian forces crossed into Albania, there they were held off by Albanian villagers until the proper army came and took care of them check it out. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:29552965tEerSBreIF fs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:29552965tEerSBreIF fs.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Your edits have become POV vandalism, including, but not limited to editing against consensus, and blanking of entire sections of cited information. If you cannot stop POV pushing for nationalistic interests, please go elsewhere for a new hobby. Otherwise, accept that the world doesn't care what your opinions are, but what neutrally citable information shows. If you persist, it seems inevitable that an RfC will be opened against you, as you're upsetting many editors with yoru behaviors, and that's the usual course for such problems. ThuranX (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have a look at the article you will see ridiculous "information" all over the place. The great Serbian migration is one such example. It is possible that you cannot tell the difference between neutral sources and myths. But nonetheless, with my help the article looked good, so stop complaining and accusing me of nationalism?! Wikipedia is maintained by people like me. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

I see you are revert-warring at Kosovo again.[5] Your account has already been blocked once (by me) for exactly that, and you should know better. I recognize that your edits are in good faith. Parts of them are clearly improvements, while other parts are not. This isn't good enough. After you were reverted, you need to sort out which parts of your edit were uncontroversial and which were problematic. Just restoring your revision wholesale is unproductive edit-warring and gets you blocked. I refrain from slapping you with another block just now to give you a chance to sort out the mess yourself. Unfortunately, your general behaviour is not very promising, and you show little signs of being here for anything but patriotic pov-pushing. Such behaviour is not welcome. I recognize that you are open to reasonable debate, but this attitude needs to begin affecting your editing behaviour rather soon now. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try my best, I'm improving all the time :-). I've used the Japan article as a blueprint for the Kosovo one, it made the article look 100% neater and its still edited, you ever wondered why?? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

I have again reverted your edits, as vandalism. You know the content you keep pushing is seems as a POV push, and you clearly don't care abou the opinions of others regarding your edits. You are clearly intent on continuing to POV push. Stop now. ThuranX (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Be specific on what you are accusing me. I.e. give me an example of "POV" pushing. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

I have already. For one, putting Ottoman empire in quotes, which implies the title is not legitimate. Or saying it 'enjoyed' something, instead of held a status. Further, you've had repeated plagarism problems, and many, many edits about which people Kosovo belongs to, and these are problems others have noted and explained as well. I'm jsut the one who has tried the longest to talk to you about this, and frankly, I'm done, and see the next step as referring you to WP:AE, as I believe there's an open arbcom decision about this article and topic. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notreallyinterestedinfairness you really need to take a break and rethink the way you edit, I'm starting to think that you are just a troll.

Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thuranx, the only criticism of me seems to be that I used the word 'enjoyed' and also putt Ottoman empire in quotation marks! I've checked out all your edits against me and you have absolutely no argument, so please don't threaten me.

• Regarding the plagiarism, that was a mistake borne out of ignorance, not POv pushing.

Regarding the origins of the Albanians, you have no say on the matter because you are not involved in the discussions. It's easy to get involved, here: Illyrians.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

The above listed problems were examples, symptoms, of a greater problem. You have been pushing your POV regarding the serbs and Kosovo, and frankly, many people have said so, have reverted you, and it's just getting tiresome. ThuranX (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The only people reverting me are:

• a) you
• b) cinema

If you feel that strongly about the state of the Kosovo article, why don't you ever do anything about it, i.e. add some more neutral citations or shortening really long sections?

One more thing, you don't see me accusing you of pushing a POV, even though your actions can be interpreted that way, so please pick your words more carefully in the future.

Any constructive criticism you may have is welcome. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Kosovo. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, since Kosovo is under article probation due to the ArbCom decision in the Kosovo case, edit warring is even less tolerable there than it is in the rest of Wikipedia. I'm strongly considering topic-banning you from Kosovo. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Interestedinfairness (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you check the edits I made, it was to make the article 100% more neutral. Thuranx was the one edit waring, refusing to have any sort of debate to gain consensus regarding the changes I had made. I removed erroneous information from the article, and would have been more than happy to discuss further changes with any of the editors. What seems to be the problem however, is that there is a group of editors who do not want this article to reach its full potential. Only a few other editors are on here to improve the article, some on the other hand seem only to want to keep it in its confused state. One example, here, it was suggested that the 20th century section was shortened. This I did, and it was reverted by Thuranx, and Cinema. I have removed controversial and misinterpreted cites from "Sima Cirkovic" and replaced them with a more well renowned and non biased author (Noel Malcolm), who's book on Kosovo is one of the only reliable sources out there. I have also added numerous cites to the article which were required. For these reasons, I feel this block you have imposed on me is unjustified. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Decline reason:

It takes two to edit war. You were very clearly edit warring, regardless of your intentions, and were attacking ThuranX in your edit summaries. As you've been blocked for edit warring on this particular article before, I would support a topic ban as Akhilleus suggested, should one be proposed. This article is on probation, and you are clearly aware of that fact by now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Interestedinfairness (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that the block is no longer necessary because I completely understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again and try hard to make productive contributions in the future. Regarding my edit waring with Thuranx; I sought the help of numerous editors and administrators here and here. On both occasions I was asked to pursue dispute resolution. Before I was allowed to do this however, I was blocked. I understand now that Thurancx is an established user, and that he possibly commands more respect than me and that I should try and seek alternative ways to get my point across in the future.

Decline reason:

You did not seek help until you had already broken the WP:3RR. As Kosovo is under article probation and you have been warned of this before, even two reverts is unacceptable. Dab already threatened you with a block two days ago and yet your response was more edit warring. I believe the 48 hour block is reasonable, to give you time to figure out a new approach. Further, I'm imposing a topic ban under the ArbCom ruling: for the next month, you are banned from editing Kosovo at all; you may edit the talk page to pursue discussion but you may not edit the article at all. Mangojuice^talk 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to add in regards to this user's requests to be unblocked that yes, he did contact several people, he also contacted me in resolving the dispute, but has not answered my accusations that he's mixing up facts and opinion and continued to push his own POV. He has been warned several times, but he still doesn't consider that he's done anything wrong - he believes Kosovo is Albanian and I haven't seen any evidence that he'll play it neutral on Wikipedia. I think a topic ban (for Kosovo-related articles) is needed because I doubt that this user will stop trying to prove "who Kosovo really belongs to" in the near future. --Cinéma C 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah cinema, it's good to be back. You have put the words "who Kosovo really belongs to", to suggest I ever used those words. LOL. Let's play fair, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).