Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri/Archive 1

Original Research & Synthesis Issues
A quick yes/no question --- do you believe that there are still OR & SYNTH issues going on with this page as it currently stands? I have a proposal on how to resolve it if there is still conflict over this issue. TIA. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * yes many parts are OR and problematic to NPOV and reliable sourcesKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, this is what I'd like for you to do -- please note that it will be refactored.... below please list each statement you believe is OR / NPOV / SYNTH /etc...followed by one or more reliable sources to illustrate the problem with that statement... Please use  to list these, for example:

Please use this format and I'll reformulate it into a table elsewhere, and we'll take these one at a time... Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Quote number 1 that you think is a problem"
 * The problem with that statement
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * "Quote number 2 that you think is a problem"
 * The problem with that statement
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Lol.--Z oupan 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow..--Z oupan 22:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of article
This is a former Rfc post and remains as a review since no conclusions have been made. The new Rfc -post in section 'Regarding NPOV on alleged beheading footage' is based on the first part in this review, comments can be made on it under that section and reviews are both needed and appreciated. KewinRozz(talk) KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC) KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My attempt to close the discussion has failed, see subsection Comments about previous Rfc removal below. --T*U (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've opened a new Rfc below for the first part, taking one part at a time, beginning with the first part since there hasn't been any conclusions reached on the parts. This section is no longer Rfc tagged. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, the past two to three weeks the biography on Lavdrim Muhaxheri has undergone significant changes in statements and size and therefor I'm asking for review of the article on (1)natural point of view, non - judgemental language[oint_of_view] (2) recentism/bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Bias(3)defamation/libel Libel to reach consensus on the parts below. Version 1 is per 18 - 19 januari 2015.

Version 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&oldid=700078366#cite_note-KosovaPress-10 Version 2 - current

Version 1 has 70 articles per 19 january 2015 from a successive increase of articles from october 2014 with around 30 articles. Version 2 has 47 articles + 2 under references with 49. Some articles replaced from version 1,

version 1 has 7 sections: -	Early life -	From NATO to Islamic State (IS) -	The alleged beheading of a 19-year-old Iraqi soldier -	Public reactions and critique in media and social networks -	Muhaxheri's impact on the state of Kosovo -	The U.S blacklisting of Muhaxheri -	Media coverage of Muhaxheri in 2014 and beyond version 2 has 3 sections: -	Early life -	Joining Jihad -	Activities and media reports

Summary (see version 1 for further text and references)

Prosection Kosovo prosecution claims that Muhaxheri has traveled to Syria at two occasions between 2012- 2013 in a group of individuals from Kosovo, many of the members have been pointed out as students of imams at a mosque in Kosovo.The Kosovo prosecution have requested and been granted an international warrant for Muhaxheri’s arrest based on his affiliation with the group, which is affiliated with Islamic State based on textmessages between Muhaxheri, an imam and other indicted members. The textmessages that Muhaxheri has obtained from the imam and other members include instructions related to recruitment, such as escorting recruited members between Syria and Turkey. The Kosovo prosecution has said that Muhaxheri didn’t participate in the fighting with the other indicted members of the group. Muhaxheri was last reported to be in Syria on 5 Oktober 2013, based on textmessages

Media coverage There are media reports have claimed that Muhaxheri appears in the following videos and footage; IS –propagandafilm Clanging of the Swords IV, an RPG – video, on beheading footage from Syria, a video from Iraq. There are media reports that have claimed that Muhaxheri has been killed in Syria and Iraq at three different occasions between 2014-2015. These reports have been denounced in other media reports that have claimed that publicized images and comments at IS militant Facebook accounts disconfirm the reports of Muhaxheri’ s death. In 2015 there are several media reports about Muhaxheri’s whereabouts that have been denounced by authorities; in November - December 2015 Muhaxheri was reported to be in Macedonia. This was denounced by Macedonian police department. In November 2015 Muhaxheri was reported to be in Kacanik, Kosovo, the report was  denounced by Kosovo authorities. In December 2015 Muhaxheri was reported to be paralyzed in Syria, and later in December 2015 Muhaxheri was reported not to be paralyzed and to be in ar – Rutbah Iraq, on Muhaxheri was reported to be in Albania, this was denounced by an Albanian International Affairs analyst due to unverifiabillity.

Forensic and analyst opinions The forensic anlazysts of the published videos and footage alleged to be of Lavdrim Muhaxheri are not convinced that the footage is of the same individual and when and where the footage is taken.

On IS –propagandafilm Clanging of the Swords IV; According to Ebi Spahiu, a researcher at the Albanian Institute of International Affairs(AIIS);"he [Muhaxheri] would have come out with a stronger message".[1]

On RGP video Researcher Ebi Spahiu stated that Muhaxheri was in the video but questioned whether it was new footage that proved he was still alive; "The media in Kosovo and Albania are treating it as a new video without considering that it may be old [footage]". Foreign policy analyst Adrian Shtuni stated that it was possible that the video was new footage, or at least newer than August 2014 but questioned whether Muhaxheri was in the video;"In a photograph of Muhaxheri taken around the summer of 2014, the militant appears to be heavier than he is in the video, although his outfit is the same", suggesting that the RPG video was taken at a different time than the two photographs. Foreign policy analyst Shtuni further claimed that it was possible that Muhaxheri was emulating other senior IS figures.

''The request for commenting and review in this case regards several points on neutral point of view (NPOV) in the two versions mentioned above, version 1 and version 2. There are 5 parts on which the article is primarily requested to be reviewed and commented on. Each part contains a relatively short description. Each description refers to 2-3 reference articles in the description from the versions. Each part contains parts of text from the versions wherein the statements occur, the statements are marked in bold. A reviewer is free to choose to only comment on one or a couple of the parts.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by KewinRozz (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC) KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments, discussion and questions about the parts of the review can be added under 'Comments' below. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The first part concerns text about alleged beheading footage. In version 1.1) has taken a neutral point of view,NPOV, by avoid stating opinions about Muhaxheri being in the beheading footage as fact and described the footage in a non-judgemental manner ". In version 1.2) it’s precluded that the footage is authentic and that Muhaxheri is in the footage.

1.1) On 29 July 2014, an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.[8][14] In the first photo, a man is seen standing over the young man, holding his left hand over the subject's jaw and holding a knife in his right hand. In the second photo a man is seen holding what has been assumed, by some, to portrait a young man's severed head. Thus the photo only shows parts of the head from the side and in absence of greater portions of the face, heavily covered in a substance that, by some, has been assumed to be blood. [14]

1.2) On 29 July 2014,[17] Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.[18] In an interview with the Albanian daily "Dita", posted on 2 August 2014, Muhaxheri said that he had acted according to the Quran, and had did only what the KLA did during the Kosovo War. The young man was described as a 19-year-old spy.[19] Muhaxheri's claim about the KLA's history was disputed by Kosovo's Minister of Justice, Xhavit Jashari.[20]

The neutral point of view (NPOV) [] stance in 1.1) is based on that the journalist of the reference article assumes that Muhaxheri has posted the footage based on that the Facebook account username is Lavdrim Muhaxheri. It’s also the journalists opinion that Lavdrim Muhaxheri is in the footage, it’s not excluded that the footage could be of someone other than Muhaxheri since the footage isn’t authenticized. By NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts and prefer a non-judgemental language.

The Kosovo authorities have stated that the alleged victim in the footage is unidentified (reference article 14 in version 1). Some articles claim that the footage is from Syria, others from Iraq. In the interview with Gazeta Dita, Muhaxheri (or whoever called in that interview) claimed that the victim was a 19 – year old Iraqi soldier. The footage is unverified to when and where it’s taken.

2. The second part concerns text about Muhaxheri allegedly being seen in IS - propagandafilm Clanging of the Sword IV.

In version 2.1) has taken a neutral point of view, NPOV,[] by avoid stating opinions about Muhaxheri being in the "Clanging of the Swords IV" – video as fact, in version 2) it’s presented as a fact.

2.1) In March 2014 it became publicly known [10][11][not in citation given] that Muhaxheri had joined the Islamic State (IS) when he was assumed, or possibly confused to appear in the IS-released propaganda film "Clanging of the Swords IV" in parallel with the emergence of an older video with Lavdrim Muhaxheri.[2] In the IS' propagandafilm, a man who's often pseudonymed as "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" in public is seen tearing and burning his Kosovo passport while proclaiming that there are no manmade borders between Muslims in the world.[6][7][12]

2.2) In March 2014[11] it was reported that Muhaxheri had joined the Islamic State (IS) based on his appearance in the IS-released propaganda film Clanging of the Swords IV in parallel with the emergence of an older video with Lavdrim Muhaxheri.[2] In the IS propaganda film, Muhaxheri is seen in public tearing and burning his Kosovo passport while proclaiming that there are no manmade borders between Muslims in the world.[9][10][13]

The NPOV [] stance in 2.1) is based on the that article 10 in version 1 claims that Muhaxheri is the man seen in  "Clanging of the Swords IV" while the claim is questioned by a researcher in article 11 in version 1. By NPOV; avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

3. The third part concerns claims about Muhaxheri's involvement and role in the Islamic Youth-Kaçanik, a part of Islamic Community of Kosova (ICK). Version 1 (3.1) has taken a neutral point of view, NPOV, by describing Muhaxheri’s role in Islamic Youth-Kaçanik in a nonjudgmental language while in version 2) (3.2) he is presented as a leader.

3.1) Muhaxheri served with NATO in Afghanistan from 2010–2012. Thereafter, he returned to Kosovo and joined a newly founded group within the Islamic Community of Kosova (ICK) organization called Islamic Youth-Kaçanik.[10]

3.2) Muhaxheri served with NATO at a training camp in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2012, then returned to Kosovo. In late 2012, he became associated with extremist Islamist associations, first with a local organization, "Parimi", which then established the Islamic Youth-Kaçanik organization, in which he was appointed emir, leader of the military organization.[12] The organization was formed within the Islamic Community of Kosova (ICK).[11]

There’s differing information between articles on Muhaxheri’s involvement in the organization Islamic Youth-Kaçanik, some, ref 12 in version 2, claim that he was a leader and some claim that he joined as a member, ref 8 in version 1. Further, noting that version 2 describes the religious organization Islamic Youth-Kaçanik as a military organization according to ref 12 in version2, might be due to recentism; ‘articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens’ and/or ‘articles created on flimsy, transient merits.’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

4. The fourth part concerns claims about Muhaxheri’s involvement and role in Islamic State 4.1 Muhaxheri's declaration of joining IS [2] shed a new light on the ongoing revolution against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria; that the revolutionary forces, or militias, were far from as cohesive and synchronized in the battles against the Syrian Armed Forces and other revolutionary groups in Syria as was commonly believed in the West.[13] In the IS propaganda film, "Muhaxheri" and his followers, a group of 100–150 Albanians from Albania, Macedonia and across Europe swore allegiance to IS commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Husseini al-Qurashi for battling not only Assad's forces but also pro-democracy groups,[7] revolutionary groups such as Free Syrian Army[13] and groups opposing the Sunni/Husseini Muslims in Syria. Muhaxheri's faction was described as one that sees Syria as a country to be ruled by the Sharia law by adherence to Shahada, and in coalition with groups close to Al-Qaeda.[7]

4.2 Muhaxheri joined the Syrian War as a mujahideen in 2012, and then returned to Kosovo in 2013.[12] Muhaxheri was present at the 2013 Ramadan festival, as part of the Islamic Community of Kosova, in Kačanik, as evidenced by photographs.[12] He then returned to Syria, becoming a mujahideen leader.[12] He reports directly to IS caliph Abu al-Baghdadi, leading a platoon of ethnic Albanian fighters.[12] Muhaxheri is a link between the IS and ethnic Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia.[16] Some 500 ethnic Albanians from the Western Balkans fight for the IS, out of whom 232 are from Kosovo (May 2015).[16] Muhaxheri has been described as "intelligent and an experienced military strategist".[16]

Both 4.1 and 4. 2 become problematic due to NVOP Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts due to recentism []https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias. While article 10 states Muhaxheri as a leader article 7 and 70 doesn’t, it appoints another individual as a leader. In this case that other imams are prosecuted reported to be responsible and leaders for the group Muhaxheri was in, and that some of the indicted individuals ordered Muhaxheri through textmessages. The textmessages are taken as evidence that he’s been involved in recruitment and administration. In version 2 it’s a controversial claim about Muhaxheri reporting directly to IS caliph Abu al-Baghdadi based on ref 12’ from 2014 might be due to recentism; ‘articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens’ and/or  ‘articles created on flimsy, transient merits.’

5. The fifth part concerns claims of events in contrast to potential libel/defamation This part concern the case of potential libel/defamation if Muhaxheri is claimed or accused of alleged crimes on footage which turns out to be of a militant with similar appearance. One also has to keep in mind that alleged beheading footage doesn’t show the entire picture of events. There’s a youtube – clip containing these two images, that is as close to a video that has been published, but the reason why one thinks that the photos are from a video could be based on the fact of reflection of a camera in one of the two images. The photo itself, is taken as a photo by someone standing next to a videocamera based on a shade of a figure of a videocamera (or  something that looks like a videocamera ) a bit further to the right (left if mirrored) the individual holding a videocamera, and not from a videocamera.

The second image only shows part of a head. In compare to other beheading footage, where the entire head is visualized, the intention of not showing the entire head leaves a question- mark.

Based on such remarks, it’s journalists opinions that are being presented about the footage; Articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective.

Aspects to review the article from wiki - guidelines; (1)natural point of view, non - judgemental language[] (2) recentism/bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Bias(3)defamation/libel Libel

Regards, KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Comment. Beside being far, far too long (as in WP:TL;DR), this RfC is completely unsuitable for commenting. The guideline says "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". The "statement" in this case is a complex and confusing mass of quotes from different versions of the article and pointers to a jungle of references (only indicated by numbers), mixed with arguments, synthesis and original research. I pass! --T*U (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @KewinRozz: Do not change your postings after they have been answered. That makes the answers look out of context. I have reinserted your original posting and moved my answer in order to make it possible to understand what I was answering to. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the editing of my latest comment below to 'On WP:TL;DR, the parts might seem long due to the cited texts from the articles in each section but the descriptions are relatively short. It's up to you if you want to review one or more of the 5 parts.'?
 * 'the article and pointers to a jungle of references' - there are part of text/blockquotes of text, one from each version (version 1 and 2) with the statements to be reviewed. They are cited directly from the versions with the reference numbers in the versions preserved. Then there are 2 - 3 articles in each description. The reviewer can compare the articles in the description and also compare reference articles of each cited part of text by reviewing the versions KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the original message I answered to:
 * Hi, the request for review in this case regards several points on NPOV in two versions, version 1 and 2. Do you have any concrete comments on any of the points ? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (I outdented my first comment to ease readability.) As I said, I find this RfC absolutely unsuitable for commenting. --T*U (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * this NPOV review isn't a brief review, it takes time and consideration since there's a bit to go through about NPOV.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the message as it was changed after I had answered:
 * Hi, the request for commenting and review in this case regards several points on NPOV in two versions, version 1 and 2. Each part states 2-3 reference articles in the description. A reviewer is free to choose to only comment on one or a couple of the parts.  KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On WP:TL;DR, the parts might seem long due to the cited texts from the articles in each section but the descriptions are relatively short. It's up to you if you want to review one or more of the 5 parts. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * this RfC is not properly formatted. You have been given several guidelines to read, please do. The OR, SYNTH issues were not resolved by you, in fact, you reverted those until you got temporary blocked. Your preferred version is, apart from being vague and confusing, as already pointed out, OR and SYNTH stricken. This does not help building of this article. You could begin by listing references (links to sources, sites) and not copy-paste hard text from older revisions to prove your point (which, I must say, is very confusing).--Z oupan 09:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * on the 3RR revert I've been told that it's not uncommon for users to do such an error, especially since I've never been involved in an editing - conflict like this before or reverted that many edits. I don't see what me being blocked for 3RR has to do with the above review. The version 2 in the review is edited by you and two other editor. I've invited the community to participate in reviewing the matters since the reformulation or rewriting of statements need such on NPOV. I refer to the same answers as I gave to TU about the lenght, number of articles and so on. Regards KewinRozz

KewinRozz (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) removed Rfc bottom tagKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My attempt to close the discussion has failed, see subsection Comments about previous Rfc removal below. --T*U (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * there's no conclusion reached on the parts below, the Rfc below is to take one part at a time, beginning with the first part KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments about previous Rfc removal

 * I opened this subsection with the title My apologies, which has been changed by User:KewinRozz, claiming my title to be "unconstructive". I resent the implications of that statement, but I do not find it important enough to fight over. Please leave the title as it is now, since there are Wikilinks to the heading. --T*U (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This section "Review of article" was opened as a RfC by User:KewinRozz 1 February. It was withdrawn by the proposer 17 February in order to open a new, more specific RfC below. In order to avoid further discussion in the present thread, I closed the discussion with standard templates.

For some reason I have not been able to understand, this was resented by the proposer, who removed the opening template (but not the closing template). I have painstakingly tried to explain here, but User:KewinRozz has kept on edit warring to remove the opening template.

One result is that the RfC-bot is treating the closure template as a RfC template and confusingly listing the comment after the closing template as a separate RfC...

I hereby give up. For the record I have nowiki-marked my attempt of closing. My apologies to everyone for not being able to explain this rather simple matter in a satisfactory way. --T*U (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * to close an Rfc is to remove the Rfc tag and it specifically states that it's closed as an Rfc, but the review text hasn't reached any conclusion, an Rfc for the first part has been added as an Rfc with a much shorter description to take it one part at a time. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the Rfc - tag was removed in this edit; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=705514037

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read the guidelines and since I'd already removed the Rfc, the tag you added stated that a conclusion had been reached, you also claimed that a review had been done.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not make comments inside my comment. I have moved your last comment after your former comment.
 * 2) You have twice changed my original subsection heading My apologies, claiming it to be "unconstructive". Can you please explain why it is unconstructive to apologize to the WP community for my shortcomings?
 * 3) I also entered pointers to the subsection heading "My apologies" in my "small"-marked text in two different places further up. If you insist on changing the heading, can you please change those pointers too?
 * 4) Your last comment: "the tag you added stated that a conclusion had been reached, you also claimed that a review had been done" is false. My first closing statement here was "Withdrawn by proposer." That does not state that a conclusion had been reached, nor does it state that a review had been done. I revised the closing statement here in the hope of meeting your objections to "This RfC has been withdrawn by proposer in order to open a new RfC, see section below. No conclusions have been made in this section." That does not state that a conclusion had been reached, nor does it state that a review had been done. Please do not make untrue accusations. --T*U (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already answered the comments above.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you have not. Please answer the questions I ask in 2) and 3), and please comment on my last sentence in 4) about untrue accusations. --T*U (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * your tag; 'The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=705569788 KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you see here, you will see that I did not write that. That is the standard text that the template creates in order to prevent people from disussing a topic that is closed. --T*U (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the Rfc is and was closed, but it's not prevented to discuss the review, just not in the commentary of that section,the text also implies that there would be a summary of conclusions. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to find a solution to this, so I will suggest a possible compromise. If I understand you right, your main objection is this text of the template: "The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.", and especially the last part. Would it be acceptable to use another template that has this text: "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." Is that OK? --T*U (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC):
 * I added the Rfc bottom tag as you suggested after the last comment in the commentary KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I did not suggest to use the RfC bottom template. That tag cannot be used alone. The result is that the bot registers it as a new RfC. I suggested another template set with similar text, but without any mention of conclusions. I am busy now, but will fix it later today. Removing the RfC bottom template. --T*U (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the ended Rfc link/edit is above as already replied. 'To end an RfC that is on the active RfC list, remove the RfC template, rfc, from the talk page. The RfC bot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run. '
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why I bother, but I will try one last time to explain this:
 * 1) The templates "Rfc top" and "Rfc bottom" are a pair of templates meant to be used together. You can see the documentation at Template:Rfc bottom. It is not suitable to use just one of them.
 * 2) When you use the "Rfc bottom" alone, this is what happens:
 * An automatic program (a bot) called Legobot comes round and gives the "Rfc bottom" template a number, like in this edit. Reason: Without the "Rfc top" template, the bot assumes that this is a new RfC.
 * Then this "false" RfC is automatically listed on Requests for comment/Unsorted. It has now become a new RfC. It looks something like this:
 * It will stay like that for 30 days, and then the "Rfc bottom" template will be removed.
 * It will stay like that for 30 days, and then the "Rfc bottom" template will be removed.

Are you sure that this is what you want? --T*U (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Many informal discussions do not need closing.' I see that removing the Rfc tag for the previous Rfc is and has been sufficient for opening the new one below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One comment: A RfC is not an informal discussion.
 * One question: What was wrong with my last attempt to close, here? --T*U (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * T*U The archive top and archive bottom work with the text,descriptionKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why did you revert when I tried to close the discussion with "Archive top" and "Archive bottom", here? --T*U (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * because I had already added an Rfc bottom tag as discussed above (one could likewise have added a Rfc top to that edit)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ?! --T*U (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and link to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=705928646 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=705930506 KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say. For clarification: My amazed disbelief was due to the fact that you now say "one could likewise have added a Rfc top to that edit". You started an edit war to avoid using the "Rfc top" template. --T*U (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'You started an edit war to avoid using the "Rfc top"' - hmm..I thought the discussion was about me only adding an "Rfc bottom" - template tag. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to close the RfC with the templates "Rfc top" and "Rfc bottom" here. You started en edit war here to get rid of the "Rfc top" template (and only use "Rfc bottom"). Then I tried to close it with "Archive top" and "Archive bottom" here. You immediately reverted here and insisted on using "Rfc bottom" alone. Then you finally here found it OK to use "Archive top" and "Archive bottom" (which you had reverted when I used). And now you say that it could be closed with "Rfc top" like I originally did. How inconsistent is it possible to be? --T*U (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already replied to the edit you link to above, which you agreed on contains the text 'A summary of the conclusions reached follows' whereby it was removed KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)