User talk:Sanmint

Kosovo

Dear Editor, I am informing you that I have mentioned the recent revert war on Kosovo at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Kosovo. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pristina

I have added a different map to emphasise that Kosovo is under UN administration. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you for that. Pristina article has been like that (with a map of Kosovo) for ages even during the height of edit-warring which triggered this arbitration hearing. And for someone to change it now, disregarding the compromise reached (see kosovo talk pages archive) would be a blatant political POV. Sanmint 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Kosovo is a part of Serbia? --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominally yes, in reality it isn't. It is expected to be independent and as such it is already regarded as a separate entity in the western world. Even Tourist guides are being published about it separately, not under Serbia. http://www.inyourpocket.com/

With regards to your edits, they are political, because there is a mention of Serbian sovereignty in the article already. Replacing a clearer kosovo map with the one in Serbia that does not help clarity. Sanmint 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I know that Kosovo will most likely be fully independent. I ask you to accept the international recognition of Kosovo as a part of Serbia for now (according to Resolution 1244 accepted in the UN, I don't care about Tourist Guides, please don't list them), and when the status talks are over and when Kosovo is independent, you can remove my map. Deal? --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on Kosovo's current political status. With regards to the map, it sucks. Noone really cares about what current political status is. The fact is Kosovo is recognised as an independent entity and the tourist guides (one amongst many other publications) prove that. When people travel to or talk about Pristina they don't say a city in Serbia, they say the capital of Kosovo, right?

I am not your friend, I am here to make this article better, not to be lectured at something I already know. Now lets get back to the map: It is cluttered and unclear. The previous map was there for a very long time and it bothered nobody until you decided to introduce your map, which I can only describe as controversial. So, no deal, try suggesting something better!Sanmint 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a travel agency. "the tourist guides (one amongst many other publications) prove that" - tourist guides and publications prove nothing, the UN does - the UN thinks that Kosovo is NOT independent, and I trust the UN, and NOT tourist guides and other publications. The map is not controversial, unless you don't trust the UN. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

What are You talking about? What bad did I say? --PaxEquilibrium 19:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely do You not like with what I said on Talk:Kosovo in 19:46. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't say I disliked anything you said. I just said that you were embarrassing yourself with all the emotional outpours as if you're going to convince anyone about anything.

...so You mostly agree with what I said or not (plus, I wasn't trying to present a POV). --PaxEquilibrium 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments about KLA

I moved it to the article talk page and responded there. Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army // Laughing Man 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Nigger

Hi. Actually 'peoples' is perfectly acceptable English and not bad grammar. One would distinguish, for example (as Wikipedia does), between European people (i.e. individual people of Europe, a list of whom might begin with someone called Alberto Aardvark) and European peoples (i.e. the 'nations' of Europe, a list of whom might begin with Albanians). In the case of the Nigger article, though, it's not absolutely clear which would be preferable. A racist may say that John, Jill and Joseph are niggers, but might also say that Nigerians, Kenyans and even Indians are. garik 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. University of Prishtina

I did not ignore your comments. I gave plenty of reasons for speedy closing the move proposal. On Wikipedia, moves that are proposed to counter the result of a previous recent move proposal are fruitless, disruptive and are to be speedy closed. The community has clearly spoken towards moving the article to its current name. Your claim that the article has been hijacked by Serbian users lacks evidence. Please do not attempt to move this article to a location that you would consider NPOV. Moving this article would be highly controversial and cannot be done unilaterally. Only proposals properly placed on WP:RM would be acceptable. And only after some time has past after a recent discussion on the matter. Regards, Hús ö nd 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find such evidence. Still, even if all the users voting to move the article were Serbian, on Wikipedia that is no valid reason to void a poll. Regards, Hús ö nd 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]