Talk:Kosovo at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Status & Useless politics
Kosovo is going to compete as an equal independent nation at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Adding status 'issues' or political statements is useless and unnecessary. So let's just keep these sport-related pages away from politics, please! --PjeterPeter (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * do you have any info that Serbia no longer disputes kosovo independence? Link to where Serbia has recognized Kosovo independence. This is a wiki mandate on all Kosovo articles. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not about Serbia, it's about Kosovo. Go to the official Olympic page, and it clearly shows that Kosovo will participate as an independent country. We're on the Olympic page, and the IOC recognized Kosovo. We're not talking about Serbia or its politics. --PjeterPeter (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * prove with links Kosovo is no longer a disputed nation. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is about the "Republic of Kosovo", which is recognized by 108/193 UN countries - it's not about the disputed territory. It's going to be about the independent country. --PjeterPeter (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * prove republic of Kosovo is not disputed Qwerty786 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is to compete as a sovereign state at the Olympics, this isn't a dispute, it is a fact. The Kosovo note is non-binding as Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles is only a proposed Wikipedia Policy/ Guideline. The note isn't required as this isn't a political article and NPOV isn't being violated by referring to Kosovo as Kosovo, nor is NPOV being violated by saying that Kosovo will participate at the Olympics. The note violates WP:UNDUE as it gives undue weight to a political dispute on a sport article. We don't have a note on Taiwan or Palestine competing at the Olympics do we? Also please use the proper WP:RM process when wanting to move an article, I'll report next time a page is moved unilaterally. Also let me remind you both of WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. If I find out you've been edit warring again, I'll report you both. IJA (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * if you go to Chinese Taipei at the Olympics you will see that it is always explained why it is not called Taiwan. And how about all the other sports articles that have the note? Don't be ignorant. Qwerty786 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You sir are set for a lengthy ban for your disruptive actions. IJA (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you don't even know what you are talking about. Talking about "Taiwan" in the Olympics. That's ignorance of Wikipedia and Olympics. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "you don't even know what you are talking about" is a non-argument, good luck with your future edits on wikipedia. IJA (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Being an uninvolved party, I have edited the article to include the sentence agreed upon in the DRN case. Thanks, and happy holidays to all. -- Biblio worm  01:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * pjeterpeter removed a word that was important to the agreement. He can't rewrite it. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Qwerty786, I note that you've repeatedly added this to the article, most recently with the edit summary "there was an agreement via arbitration that that word must be used!". However, (a) your wording in the article is different to the wording in the DR case, and (b) the DR case didn't actually mandate that word. There are three possible explanations for this divergence:
 * 1. You are confused about what wording you are putting in the article.
 * 2. You are confused about what wording was in the DR case that you cite.
 * 3. You are deliberately misrepresenting the wording in the DR case.
 * I believe that you are literate, which makes explanations 1 and 2 less likely. Can you clarify? Alternatively, if you could just take your finger off the revert button, we could perhaps use the wording agreed in the DR case. bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you don't have the right to redo the arbitration agreement to be how you want it. Qwerty786 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you affiliated with some Serbian nationalist group. Every Kosovo article is filled with these notation that you have pushed so far. I agree with Peter, let politics out of the equation Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)