User talk:Int19h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Contents 1 Auckland meetup 2 Calling programmers 3 WP:RM Priština -> Pristina 4 MedCab case 5 Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Serbia 6 Transnistrian referendum 7 Terrorism & Mass Murder categories 8 Request for Mediation 9 Mediation 10 Not quite 11 Vote on Siberian Wikipedia and Siberian Wikisource

[edit] Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM Priština -> Pristina

I would kindly ask you to reopen the RM proposal discussion, as quite a few active editors of Priština have not stated their position yet. This request is according to WP:Requested moves policy which states that, "The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." I believe this to be the case here. -- int19h 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be technical, there were two opposes versus one support which is 67% oppose. That is beyond the 60% required for consensus - so there was consensus (to not move) meaning no extension was needed. In fact, the one neutral vote seemed to be leaning towards oppose as well. You can feel free to re-list at WP:RM but please notify the users who voted the first time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: my point was that you cannot really have consensus when there is no quorum. So far we have had 4 votes, 3 out of those which actually count (i.e. are non-neutral), and all votes but mine were from users who did not participate in discussion on Talk:Priština before (and my participation was cursory at best). On the other hand, no word was heard yet from active editors such as User:ChrisO, User:PANONIAN, User:Ilir pz, User:Tonycdp, User:Mig11, User:Phildav76, User:Hipi Zhdripi and User:HolyRomanEmperor, to name a few. Admittingly it's strange that noone took part in the vote, seeing how the article name was a rather heated discussion topic not long ago... Either way, I think it's just a tad too early to say that consensus among the editors is clear, with so few votes, none of them being from the editors themselves. -- int19h 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, against my better judgment, I'm re-opening the survey as it was left and re-listing at WP:RM. I'm assuming good faith here so hopefully I don't see any vote stacking or anything inapproproate. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Hi, is the MedCab case still required, as the situation appears to have calmed down... Addhoc 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It has calmed down in a sense that the page is no longer protected, however, the problem itself persists. Here is a couple [1] [2] of recent related edits. There is clearly no consensus, and no attempts to discuss it have been made ever since the page was protected (and subsequently unprotected), so I'd say the case is still very much open. The relative quietness is simply because concerned parties have moved their edit wars to other Kosovo-related articles - see e.g. [3] (the anonymous editor is in fact User:Hipi Zhdripi, who was also one of the more active editors of the article on Pristina, at least in the past. -- int19h 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, those other article would be covered by the ArbCom case. Addhoc 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have missed the fact that it now covers pretty much everyone involved anyway, and, by the looks of it, nearing completion. Hopefully it will do the trick for now. -- int19h 05:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been marking Hipi Zhdripi's sockpuppets with {{Hipi Zhdripi}}. Feel free to do the same. This guy is gaming the system to circumvent the injunction. --Asterion^talk 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Serbia

Can you find here in rez 1244 and last statment of CG the combination of strings "Serbia" Just find this combination and I will accept your faculty or what ever you have wrotit here. I know thate you are dreaming about Rusia als superpower evean if you eat USB Brot. Neverminde just find this combination "Kosovo" als part "Serbia" in the paper witch was acceptyt from USA and Rusia and UN since 1999. - Hipi

Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was a party of numerous treaties, and was mentioned by that name in many documents. Once it was dissolved, the UN recognised Russia as a legal successor to the USSR, and thus all those treaties - which still talk of the Soviet Union, without a single word changed in them - apply equally to Russia. It is the same in the case of Yugoslavia. Yes, it no longer exists, but Serbia is its legal successor, and thus any international treaties still in force that applied to Yugoslavia, apply to Serbia. This is not only my position either - the USA repeatedly refers to Kosovo as a Serbian province, and so does EU and many other countries. You were given numerous sources supporting this. If the majority of qualified sources in the field consider it to be the case, then, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is the case. If you can find any reliable sources explicitly disputing the assertion that Kosovo is still de jure a province of Serbia, please go ahead and include them in the article on Kosovo. Otherwise you're falling into the trap of original research.

As for my personal opinion on Russia, Serbia and Kosovo, if you really wish to know, I can elaborate on that. For now, suffice to say that I am a Russian separatist, so I am not dreaming of any kind of a new Russian empire quite the opposite, in fact... But it is in no way relevant to my contributions to Wikipedia. -- int19h 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont remove Yougoslavia beacose is not the same like Rusia and Sovjet Union.

Why not? -- int19h 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of UN, you might find this interesting. Note how all UN online documents and press releases consistently refer to Kosovo as "Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro)" or "Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro". Also have a look here - yet again it is "Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro", right next to "Abkhazia, Georgia". Looks clear enough to me. -- int19h 12:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistrian referendum

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Terrorism & Mass Murder categories

Whether a State-terrism or individual Terrorism, the terrorism is a terrorism. The Brirish Imperialist/Colonoialisit officeres master-minded the show and killed thousands of lives of the innocent peaceful demonstrators was nothing less than a intentional killing to teach the peaceful protestors (Punjabis) a leasson they shall never forget (said Michael O'Dwayer) ....So it was clearly a case of mass-murdering...or mass-massacring. The category is appropritate for a people whom Nigel Collett has branded as Butchers of Amritsar. So Pl stop reverting and vandalising. Sze cavalry01 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists and Category:Mass Murderers both have clear rules for including people into it. The description of Category:Terrorists specifically states that Category:Terrorists is for individual terror only, whereas Category:State Terrorism is for actions of terror carried in the service of the state. Amritsar Massacre was an instance of later, not the former. By the way, for your interest, Category:State Terrorism is a subcat of Category:Terrorism; it's just a more specific one appropriate in this case.

Category:Mass Murderers also explicitly states that it "is not to be used for terrorists, or for those who carried out massacres in service of a state - these belong in Category:War criminals". If you have a problem with that definition, feel free to discuss it on Category talk:Mass murderers, but as long as the definition is there, category should not have any content not fitting its criteria as defined in that definition, and I will keep reverting any edits introducing such for the sake of consistency. -- int19h 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Mediation

Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite

The MM Alam "kills" have not been confirmed by the Government of India or the government of Pakistan. Using a stream of private often underground websites, complete with sensational language and claims violates the policy of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The sources and the claims are private, and belong on various discussion forums available on the internet, not enclyclopedias. In absence of any proof of the Pakistani government's very claims of him being an "ace", let alone them mentioning him anywhere. I'm going to revert the article to what we do know. Freedom skies 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your civility. I appreciate it. The article should be limited to what we do know, not what a group of private websites would like us to believe. Freedom skies 08:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Siberian Wikipedia and Siberian Wikisource

I hereby authorize that this vote to oppose closure of Siberian Wikipedia, and this vote to support creation of Siberian Wikisource, were cast by me. -- int19h 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Бладарю ;-) --Amir E. Aharoni 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)