User talk:Evlekis/Archive9

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Archives

April 2006-April 2010
May-July 2010
August-September 2010
October 2010-January 2011
February-April 2011
May-June 2011
July-August 2011
September 2011-February 2012
March-April 2012
May-July 2012
August 2012-January 2013
February-March 2013
April 2013
current

Hi

We've obviously put out a confusing message somewhere. Can you tell us where so we can fix it. You should not be this confused. If you want to go to a meeting soon and help then contact user:MrJohnCummings. There is a big party on April 21 where all contributors can help amnd enjoy. You don't need to join Wikimedia to do this. Do tell us more about what you understood as I want to fix it. Victuallers (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regime

Hey! I also don't want to make an edit war, but I'd like to remind you it wasn't me who started it. Let me quote from the wp article's definition (which I thing it's a fairly accurate one): "In politics, a regime is the form of government: the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789. Although modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, like an authoritarian one, Webster's definition clearly states that the word "regime" refers simply to a form of government." If you google out the term "democratic regime", you will find hunderds of thousands of results. I insist on the term because, among all suggested, it's the most accurate one. Pučnik fought against a specific form of government, including a specific set of social norms, net of institutions and constraints etc. I think two terms suit best this meaning: either regime or system. Regime is a term that puts more emphasis on agency (that is, the political & institutional agents sustaining the form of government), while system refers to more impersonal features. Therefore, I think in this context, regime is a more accurate term. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gauck

Hello Evlekis,

I am sorry that I reverted your edits altogether yesterday, instead of exclusively correcting your mistakes. The reason was that in my view the factual mistakes were so obvious (You claimed the Communist Party was founded in 1922 instead of 1919; you wrote that Gauck's father "was not to return", when the article states some lines below that he was freed after Adenauer's talks in Moscow), so I decided that the article was overall better off before your edits (the factual errors were much more grave than the slight improvements by copy editing and re-wording). This does not mean that I did not assume your good faith or did not appreciate your contributions. Again: I am sorry if that false impression has risen. I hope that we can collaborate well further on. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Dispute

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion on the article on Kosovo (see here: Talk:Kosovo#History_in_the_lead_section). I believe your expertise in the topic could help resolve the ongoing dispute.--Guraleci (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions for naming conventions

I would like you and Majuru to argue out your nomenclature issues on Talk:Shpëtim Hasani instead of constantly reverting each other.

Remember, this is a nomenclature issue. There is no objectively right answer. It's all about names that were invented by humans.

Now, sit down and reach consensus with each other. DS (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on talk page of User:Bwilkins

Rita Ora

Hello Bwilkins. Thank you for the action you have taken in both raising the protection level of Rita Ora and blocking the user for the edit war. I am aware that editing sanctions may be imposed at any time and do not necessarily endorse the frozen version but this is why I need to speak to you. It may appear that I was the other party in the edit war but my edits have all been in good faith and I'd like to explain why. Once I've done this, I would be most grateful if you made one minor edit on that page for reasons I shall explain. But first, to sound you out. The question of "origin" was down to two locations and both had sources (ie. Shkodër vs Pristina). The editor who first mentioned Shkodër is User:Olsi and he in turn provided an Albanian language link from Top Channel. I read it and can make out that this is what it says about the family. Olsi and I discussed it briefly here. But prior to that, before it was clear to me what is what, I tried to resolve the matter with the Pristina argument here, and I tried demonstrate good faith with User:Durresary|1 here and here. Put simply, I am not party to either argument, and the dispute is between Olsi and Durresary. However, I and not Olsi have been more instrumental in the edit war with Durresary because his edit goes one step further than simply restoring Pristina. Look at this, two minutes after my restoration of his preferred source and content[1]. THAT is what it's all about, and why the article was protected in the first place. Durresary's reasoning for leaving out the sovereign state reflecting historical accuracy? Here! Commentary in the wrong place is not so much the issue, it is the snide remark. The overwhelming consensus is to observe historical accuracy and his statement offered no reason to remove the section. To that end, I need to ask you to do either one of the following things (as you have the power to edit):

1) Amend Pristina, Kosovo for Shkodër, Albania because that is the source being used. Durresary shows signs of amateurism and never amends the source each time he restores his version.

OR

2) Restore the correct source for Pristina. Restoring this would be easiest to save messing about - no new material has been added since that edit so there is no fear of any blanking.

As things stand, we have the statement alongside a source which supports the opposing entry! But even if you decide to do nothing on that note, please could you restore "then Yugoslavia" or something to that effect because it really is futile for any editor to think he can spread culture-fascism by rewriting the history book. All editors worth their salt support historical accuracy and the only opponents are opportunist IPs or short-lived editors who come and go to make one point. There has never been a serious call for consensus to reverse this feature and those who like to remove Yugoslavia or Soviet Union etc. always end up losing. This is why I ask you please to change that part if nothing else. Many thanks Bwilkins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have no business trying to come to WP:CONSENSUS on that article, what you propose MUST be discussed on the talkpage of the article itself. This will generate appropriate consensus, and will be beneficial once the blocked party is no longer blocked. I cannot take a side either way - so please, discuss the edits, and once consensus is made (remember: it's not a vote) make the protected edit request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you know what I was getting at. Durresary is a certified disruptive account who has not made one constructive contribution since he joined. My honest opinion is that this isn't even a real person but an account launched to push POVs whilst protecting the conventional identity of the puppet-master, very possibly part the User:Sinbad Barron franchise. If indeed this is a genuine account, I doubt the editor is even aware he is blocked. You see, you froze the article per his non-constructive version and he in turn has no reason to even log in otherwise. It has been a single issue with this user (a tell-tale sign) since his arrival. Now you've frozen the page, he isn't going to join a consensus, he'll be turning cartwheels in celebration that his version came out on top. And besides, as I told you, the country of birth was not the issue, it was place of origin; that means the consensus needs to be reached by Durresary and Olsi, not me; I am neutral on that. What I was merely doing was applying a timeline which is conventional practice and constructive. If you wish to resolve the matter, I implore that you block Durresary indefinitely, and reduce the protection level for established users. I assure you then that there will be no disruption on that page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you the way forward. Period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary you told me the way backward. You've handled this badly Bwilkins I'm sorry to say, and played right into the hands of the non-constructive party whose only intention was evidently to disrupt. You will NEVER get that user onto a talk page, he hasn't even appealed his block, anyone can see that it is a duff account. Do you know the way to initiate discussion with someone like that? Also, is this page to be frozen indefinitely? I make no secret of the fact that I intend to standardise the page from this erroneous layout the minute it is lifted. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sanabria the salsa its all Cuban music

Here first part [2] second part [3]173.78.130.133 (talk)

Dear user! It is a little bit late now you are blocked. Your ban is temporary. Now if your edits are genuine, you really must learn to use the edit summary to explain why you are making radical changes to articles by removing extra large chunks of text plus sources which other editors have worked hard to uphold over long periods of time. Better still, if you want admins - they with the power to block - to realise your good faith, you need to use the talk page and obtain consensus if your vision of an article is to reduce it greatly. Think about it and work on it when your ban is lifted. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop undoing my edits. Those flights do not exist. 166.147.125.46 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air India

Hi. Regarding AI flights between AMD and LHR, i just checked Air India's website/timetables and Amadeus, flights from LHR to AMD operate under different flight numbers and requires connection at either DEL or BOM. However, AI131 (AMD-LHR) is the same flight number but there is a change of aircraft from A321 to B777 at DEL. Therefore, we cannot list those flights in the destination list. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All I saw was an IP removing edits many of which contained sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and the sources do not show the flights exist. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I am happy with your findings and the articles as they now stand. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lidhja e Pejës

I think that this is a caase of WP:COMMONNAME: The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.230 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do you know this? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too....I figure he must have checked Special:ActiveUsers list. 129.49.73.32 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I never knew such pages existed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Arben Zharku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Pristina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation now removed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

On Ukshin Hoti you replaced the term Serb with the term Yugoslav i.e source misinterpretation as the don't use the terms you added, so please stick the sources. Btw in 1943 Rahovec or Orahovac could be regarded as belonging to either the Kingdom of Albania or the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, so when writing the article I avoided altogether to open that inane can of worms. Btw In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editingBalkans-related articles in a disruptive way. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stub category

Hi, do you know if there is a category for stubs if started articles on sports stadiums, or something similar? Good day from here. Sincerely. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing...

...here? Leave people's userpages alone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to facilitate a link for admins, nothing else, when I realised that the edit made a footprint I deleted it. There was no harm indented and it is something I won't do in future now I know it is not required. If you feel the need to restore the red link by deleting the page, nobody is stopping you; if you'd like to deal with the issue at hand, do so, if not, get off my back. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.4.17 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of you to notice! Thanks! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reminder

Monmouth! next weekend Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkout the m:Meetup/Monmouth/1 page for activities on Saturday. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please lets talk about issues and stop reverting

I have been asked to look into the NPOV and fairness of the reverts on Tringa_Hysa and would like to have a discussion with you before you revert altins edits. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you Mdupont.

Obviously I had Tringa Hysa in my watchlist and I consult that prior to anything else upon logging in and I did indeed revert to my revision; I read your request after that. I am very happy to discuss this with you and with the editor who has twice cancelled my edits. First of all, I can assure you there is no POV issue; there were no adjectives thrown into the main text which were evidently contrived to swing people's opinions of fact, the edit is merely a content issue. To be honest with you, these things are ongoing and normally from IPs and single-issue accounts. Most patrollers tend to instantly revert persons who play with presentation facts - on this occasion, User:Altin.ukshini's edits slipped through the net.

There are two matters regarding Tringa Hysa, the first is her birthplace. The practice followed by editors in general is to produce the sovereign nation observing historical accuracy which here produces FR Yugoslavia because she was born in 1995 when her territory was recognised as such by every country and intergovernmental organisation with the exception of Albania who instead recognised Republic of Kosova, furthermore, the Republic of Kosova exercised no de facto control over Priština in 1995 therefore it is wholly correct to apply the term FRY for the region up until 2003, Serbia and Montenegro 2003-06, and Serbia 2006-08; for all subjects pertaining to Kosovo post-2008, we use the Kosovo note template when using a raw Kosovo, OR we use either AP Kosovo and Metohija or Republic of Kosovo depending on the actual subject. Kosovo is a disputed region with recognition and non-recognition by world states in almost a 50/50 deadlock as we write. The codes of practice are already laid out for us and most established editors know exactly which entity applies and where there is doubt, others such as I may be on hand to correct the edit in good faith. What we never do is use an emphatic Kosovo all by itself, especially in a birthplace slot where everywhere else historical accuracy is observed including on all Kosovan subjects.

The second issue concerns the spelling of the individual's name. Indeed per source and convention, Tringa Hysa is correct. The Serbian name is not a claim on the individual's ethnicity; if that were the case, there would be an attempt to move the article. The entire site is full of articles with translations and for each one there exists a purpose. In Hysa's case, it was the spelling of her name in the land her parents chose to give birth to her and send her to school. I have recently been involved in a discussion akin to this with User:Majuru. I don't believe this is a genuine editor any more than Altin.ukshini, activity from them is too rare and furthermore they all pop up time to time simply to adjust presentation on subjects in a favourable way. So I don't go on and on too much and exhaust myself rewriting things and presenting examples, I'd like to draw your attention to a discussion between Majuru and me which he appears to have abandoned - probably because it is a duff account controlled by an anonymous user (in my opinion). If you read the contents here, you will see that there are indeed exceptions to people having their names in the local Slavic language even when born there; as well as whether it should be included in Cyrillic. I have reached consensus in the past with other users, however they don't seem to edit these days. I can link you to the talks, but for now - please see the discussion. By the way, it is open and you are most welcome to continue to talk there as is Altin.ukshini, it is on my watchlist so there is no urgent need to write here or on my talk unless you wish to. The link follows below, thanks Mdupont.

See [4]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at Mother_Teresa she accepted the indian nationality thus died an indian, independant of where she was born. So lets just add her nationality to kosovo and be done with this? James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm!! I don't know quite how to reply!!! Teresa was indeed an ethnic Albanian born in Üsküp (Skopje/Shkupi) which was as you say in Kosovo in 1910 - Kosovo itself being an Ottoman vilayet. But I don't know what you mean "add nationality to Kosovo", none of my edits have ever interfered with Kosovan nationality (I assume you mean citizenship). I believe most Kosovo-related pages that deal with persons related to the entity normally refer to the present-day territory and Skopje is outside of this. I opposed Macedonian language used for Teresa's name based on there being no Macedonian entity until 1943, and even Serbian does not suffice for although the region went to Serbia from 1912/13, I don't think she lived there for very long before departing to become the person we knew. Difficult one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also - looking at your edit to Tringa Hysa, I see what you are getting at and I endorse your version. Ethnic Albanian she is and if a Kosovan passport is what she happens to possess, then possess it she does and is a Kosovan citizen. The document exists and is accepted in over half the world's states so there is no problem there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Wikimeet and Editathon

Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at Mrjohncummings's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you have been reported to ANI due to your massive reverting

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Don't forget that users are allowed to remove warnings left on their user talk pages, per WP:BLANKING. The warnings are still present in the page history, and when a user blanks a warning, it's understood that they've read and acknowledged it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right, no dispute there which is why I made the last edit explaining that this was so (on the user page). I shall not restore anything there from this point. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.241 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! It may be you too have done a lot of work here had we only known your identity!! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place

This is supposed to be at WP:ANI, not WP:AN. Oddly enough, I had already actionned a block before I saw it, as I have their talkpage on my watchlist (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]