User talk:Outsid3r

Re; Your question

Hi, Outsid3r,

As I understand it, since you have registered an account, you shouldn't have to worry about the actions of your shared IP. Only your contributions will show up under your account, and you should not experience collateral damage if the IP in question is blocked.

Thanks for your polite question and your desire to help out Wikipedia. As I'm sure you already know, your English is very good, by the way. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Shop Pro

Good job catching that vandalism. I went ahead and fixed it for you and warned the vandal against it. Regarding reversions, you might find this link helpful: Help:Reverting

Thanks for the fantastic work. P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English

About the non-specific "there was other evidence" and "Serbian sources" -- From a scholarly point of view, you are right, it's very badly written, and is exactly why that paragraph has POV problems. From just a standard English point of view, however, it's written just fine. You will regularly hear things like that on TV, on the streets, read it in school papers... Unfortunately, not everyone who edits here is a scholar (I'm certainly not), so the style used below that level is typically looser, and that's what whoever wrote that section used.

As for "manufactured"... That one could go both ways. It is one of the stranger words to be used in that situation, but it's not unheard of. Again, it's a POV-pushing word, because even without the rest of the information (whether related to the war, or anything else -- for example "The Holocaust was a story manufactured by the Jews." -- I've heard things like that before.) it implies that the information is false, and doesn't give the benefit of the doubt that it may be true.

So basically, both cases could have been written by a native speaker, could have been written by someone else with a good grasp of the language, could have been written by a POV-pusher, could have been an honest mistake by someone not so alert to what is POV or not. Hopefully that makes sense, if not, let me know and I'll try to explain better later, once I get home from work. -Bbik 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me just make sure there is no misunderstanding on one particular point. I am by no means fighting to keep POV or trying to deny that atrocities have happened (and from all I've read still are happening, to some degree or another). I don't really believe you think that's what I'm trying to do, but it never hurts to double check. I can't honestly say I understand, because I don't, I have no idea at all. I've never seen, much less lived with, anything like that in my life, and for that I'm incredibly grateful. I never want to be forced to experience something like that. But I am still incredibly sorry that it's happened, that others have to struggle for basic survival. I wish that this world weren't so set on the power struggles and fighting that cause these sorts of results. To deny that something so easily confirmed ever happened, though? I don't understand how people can do that, much less believe they can get away with it.

Anyhow. Looking at it again now, I see that my Holocaust example was actually a bad one, and probably caused some of the confusion that seems to be around now. My example is one that could be used to say that the entire event never happened, thus implying that the sentence in the Kosovo War article was stating that there were no refugees. This is not, however, what it says, though I can see how it could be understood that way. For that reason alone, you're right, it should be rewritten, even though the English, as it is, is not incorrect.

"There was other evidence of the refugee crisis having been deliberately manufactured: many refugees reported that their identity cards had been confiscated by security forces, making it much harder for them to prove that they were bona fide Yugoslav citizens. Indeed, since the conflict ended Serbian sources have claimed that many of those who joined the refugee return were in fact Albanians from outside Kosovo."

In this case, it's the bold part that matters. The sentence is not saying that the refugee crisis does not exist, rather that it was caused intentionally, by "security forces" who took people's identity cards, knowing that it would turn them into refugees when they could no longer prove their citizenship. The italicized part is pure propoganda, by definition POV. Both statements are unsourced; both really should be sourced, especially for such a sensitive topic. If they can be sourced, though, perhaps they should stay there. I could go both ways on that -- in a war, there are always sides, and remaining neutral, or even reaching neutral ground after, is nearly impossible. The next best thing is to show both sides equally.

Oh, and Wikipedia's guidelines don't say that you can't edit something if you see that it's wrong/confusing. Go ahead and do what you can for the article! Unless you really screw it up (which I don't get the impression you'd do), there are enough reasonable people around who will support a more NPOV and/or sourced version, even if that requires reverting vandals and POV pushers. Everything takes time, but nothing will get anywhere if everyone sits on their hands afraid of disrupting what's obviously a bad "balance". Sure, discuss major changes first, but don't be afraid to then go ahead and make the changes if there is no resistance. Heck, if you want, make the change first (especially if you have sources), then discuss it when (if) people complain. At least then you'll have their attention! :) -Bbik^★ 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree or disagree with your view of it, though it's not how I understood it (For what it's worth, I took the italicized part to mean that (some) Serbians (government?) were claiming (obviously falsely) that the crisis was way overblown, perhaps made up, but that other sources didn't necessarily support that, hence it being only "Serbian sources" rather than worldwide sources.). But as I said, I don't know, and I don't really understand the whole situation, much less the subtle insuations related to even more specific details.

I am, however, curious. So, a question for you, if you can answer it. Why would they say they had no IDs, whether because they were stolen or otherwise, if it would make them become poverty-stricken refugees? That just seems to be completely lacking in logic and against all basic survival instincts. Is there some other side to the situation that can explain it, some part I'm missing?

Oh, and while "Serbian sources" is grammatically correct (though in this case, perhaps not accurate), "Serbian" and "Serb", though frequently used interchangeably, are not the same thing. I've learned at least that much! :P

And as for that Roma bit... Judging by this, the sentence may or may not have been accurate, though definitely POV and intended to inflame. (On the other hand, Human Rights Watch has its own sort of POV, too, so...) The next paragraph, though, is a direct copy from that link, however accurate HRW is. Any chance you feel like reworking it a bit so it's no longer a copy vio, while you're going through whatever other edits? -Bbik^★ 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your second paragraph is exactly why I said the sentence was propaganda. From the Serbian government and/or media's POV, the refugees having no ID cards may well have been enough to claim the crisis was a fake. After all, if they wanted to continue fighting in Kosovo, they would also want/need the support of the Serbian people, or at least of the Serbs in Central Serbia and Vojvodina. They wouldn't get support if they looked like monsters. So if they could convince people that the refugees weren't actually refugees, it would keep the army and government from looking as bad.

Now, on the other hand, would a situation like that (no IDs) justify the claim? Would a desire to look better justify the possible taking of the cards so the crisis could be construed as false? No. But those in power don't seem to look at things in terms what's morally and ethically (or even truthfully) right, unless it can be used to their advantage. I haven't looked closely, but I would imagine the KLA claims there were very few or no Serb refugees, but thousands of ethnic Albanian refugees, much like the Serb(ian) government claims there were thousands of Serb refugees but few ethnic Albanian refugees, right? In reality, there are probably rather too many of both, but neither side wants to look like they were in the wrong.

The comparison to Iraq, though... The more common opinion is just that the war has gone on too long and needs to be finished. Beyond that, it's pretty split about whether something needed to be done, thereby meaning the war was "right", and whether we should've left well enough alone and kept our hands out of what wasn't our business.

It's the sweeping generalizations that cause the POV, in relation to Kosovo, in relation to Iraq, and everything else. It is extremely rare that all people, even from the same background, believe the same exact thing. I've come across several Serbs, both here on Wiki and elsewhere, who acknowledge that both sides were stupid and commited horrible acts, and that those acts have resulted in there being refugees from both sides. I've also seen those who are convinced everything the Serbs have done is justified, that non-Serb refugees don't matter, much less whether they are truly refugees or not, because Kosovo must remain in Serbia at all costs. I haven't met as many Albanians, but it's the same situation. There have been those who, like you, recognize that both sides commited atrocities, and there have been those who say all Serbs are a bunch of liars, especially those who claim anything bad ever happened to Serbs in Kosovo, or that the KLA might be partly at fault.

There will always be the extremes. The extremes may even outnumber the others. But I highly doubt there will ever be a complete lack of people who are more neutral, and willing to see both sides. It's this neutral view that needs to be attempted, regardless of what extremists say. -Bbik^★ 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mir

Please stop changing Mir's height to 6'3" without a source. Every source linked on his page has him listed at 6'1". As your changes are not only unsourced, but directly contrary to his listed sources, your changes could be construed as vandalism. Gromlakh (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]