User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 2

List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav
You were the only one adamant about it being kept, so I certainly won't do that. As for the merging, which was split with the deletors as noted, they are essentially asking to merge a 35kb list article into a 1k biography, which makes about as much sense as it sounds. After reading through that I'm convinced my close was right now, so DRV if you feel otherwise. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Antid. 79. IP is one of the users who voted merge(and he didn't vote for the second time), you didn't state that you wanted a merge but a keep, the deletes were 9, the merges 5, so falsely attributing delete/merge/keep opinions to users is unwarranted. The consensus was to delete the article, not to mention the fact that the article was created after the links of the list were refuted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk06:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I deleted the article because there was consensus to. If those that keep have valid points, people have no problem jumping in and adding their opinion to keep. This did not happen here, and any links noted were refuted, as said above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

DelRev Template at User_talk:Wizardman
I have taken the liberty of fixing the deletion review notice you attempted to place on Wizardman's talk page. The error appeared to be a placement of two colons before a header tag. Headers cannot be extended out in this fashion; typically, headers and even sub-headers create new sections in the TOC and cannot be extended out as such. If you wish, you can make fake headers by using bold, but this will not appear in the TOC and also is not recommended in many cases as typically when you intend to make a header you intend to create a new section.

As for the deletion review itself, I've left a question for you there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Manual of Style (lists of works) covers lists of works by an individual. It says that lists of works should be included for authors, illustrators etc and that the list should be split off into a separate article if it gets too long. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline covering lists of articles about a subject rather than by a person, probably because we don't have very many of them, but there are some in Category:Bibliographies by subject and many have survived AfD discussions so there is some consensus that they can be appropriate. Again these all are sub-articles of articles on big general subjects such as South America or computer science. Come to think of it your article isn't really a bibliography, as it's a list of references for a single statement rather than a list of books about a subject. Hut 8.5 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above your article isn't really a bibliography (from the discussion, This is just a linkfarm masquerading as a bibliography.), it's a list of links or references to support a single statement. A bibliography on Vojsava Kastrioti would list all works and not just those that support a single statement (that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav). WP:NOT prohibits articles from being mere collections of external links, and this was cited by many people during the discussion. Though WP:NOT refers to links to online material rather than printed references the same principle applies. Sources for statements are an acceptable (and desirable) part of an article on another subject but aren't appropriate content for an article by themselves. The nominator in the discussion was clearly trying to cite WP:POVFORK (though he made a mistake and linked to WP:FORK instead). The key point here is that it consisted of content that should be covered in the main article but filtered by viewpoint. The fact that you created two such articles isn't relevant - both of them are POV forks. Hut 8.5 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Morića Han
Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Shkodra
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Republic which is Empire :)
Hi! This is indeed rather curious. I suppose Venice had some elements of an empire, but like you said, an empire ought to be ruled by a hereditary monarch, and the doges of Venice were elected by the aristocracy. In everything else, it was pretty much an empire, but I still believe the term to be inaccurate. ‘Republic’ is certainly the more correct appellation :) No worries and thanks for writing another great article!

By the way, I've started work on a piece about a very interesting church in eastern Serbia, almost certainy built by a Bulgarian noble when this region was part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Might want to check it out: User:TodorBozhinov/Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica. It's quite unlike any other medieval Balkan eastern Orthodox church I've ever seen, really. I'll appreciate your input on this one when I finish it! Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Subaşi
Unfortunately it's the first time I hear about this title. If there is additional material to check it would be helpfull.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No i am not that good to create maps, so i am sorry that i can't help you (and you didn't bothered me --Vinie007 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica
Hi! I've finished the article and moved it to mainspace. If you feel like reading it, do share your thoughts :) The source you came up with turned out to be extremely useful in analyzing the existing theories about the identity of the despot, thanks very much for that! Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! There are no lists in the article, so I assume you mean the bibliography in the Sources section? I'm not sure the method in Manual of Style (lists of works) is the best practice for bibliographies. In Citing sources you can see that alphabetical order is perfectly acceptable, and that was never a problem for me on GA/FA reviews. I do believe alphabetical sorting is the best idea for bibliographies :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can afford to disagree on formatting issues rather than political/historical when it comes to a Balkan topic :)
 * The Serbian website is cited as a footnote as " Споменици културе у Србији". I intend to purchase the Теодора Бърнард book and use it as a reference in the article, so I've placed it in the Sources section for now. I agree it would be more suitable in Further reading as it stands, though.
 * As for the naming conventions, take a look at today's FA: Battle of Khafji. The exact same convention (in terms of names and order) as used by Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica and my latest FA, Round Church, Preslav. It's clearly acceptable and I do believe 'references' and 'sources' to have a slightly different meaning.
 * I agree that Бърнард should be in Further reading, and I think I'll keep the alphabetical order.
 * I do realise there's a difference between Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica & the FAs I've listed on one hand, and the MoS on the other hand, and I'll certainly bring up your points when someone takes up the article's review on GAN. Just to have a third opinion :)


 * Thanks very much for your input!  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK of Sanjak of Prizren
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have had to refuse your nomination at Template talk:Did you know because it was not nominated within 5 days of the start of the 5x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * than rename the file so we can use it--Vinie007 05:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comment at DYK. I think it would be best for another editor with more DYK experience to decide. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Things are good to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry for any misunderstandings; that was my first time speaking Swahili. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Prizren
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Momčilo Spremić
Yep, I use this script all the time, it's a great time saver. It prompts you that the article is classified as a stub because of the project tag(s) on talk, which rate it as a stub class, or the stub tag on the article itself. I've changed the rating to start class and removed the Serbia-bio-stub tag, so everything's alright now. Just remember to do that in the future because stubs are not allowed at DYK :) My understanding is that if an article meets DYK length criteria, it can hardly be a stub, and Momčilo Spremić is at nearly 2,000 characters.  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

9th (Eastern and Home Counties) Parachute Battalion
Hi thanks for the DYK review of 9th (Eastern and Home Counties) Parachute Battalion. I have reworded the hook. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Momčilo Spremić
The DYK project (nominate) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Референце
Здравей, съседе :) I gather you're using citation instead of cite book and you're wondering whether that's OK, is that right? As far as I know, using citation is perfectly acceptable and no less corect than cite book and the like. I don't use citation myself because I prefer filling in the references form that appears from the editing interface, but I've always liked it for its versatility. So no worries with this one. Take care,  — Toдor Boжinov — 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bardhyl Ajeti
Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User page
Well thank you Antidiskriminator. I forget people do actually look at that article which I do update from time to time. I have to be honest, it is a very tongue-in-cheek presentation designed in some ways to parody the real pages and in others to poke fun at some political stupidities but this includes mocking sensitive things, e.g. the upside-down map not only a concept for how man perceives north at the top but also a fake source that Kosovo is not a country!!!! I need to be careful with stereotypes because it may look to some as if my actual editing is leaning in one direction when I try hard not to be biased. Thanks for noticing! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical Addition
What do you have to say about bricks? Please answer to my page --194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See my friend, in my country we call bricks the vandals so because you seem to be a good guy I want yo to say to me what you believe about vandals. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done
Congratulations on getting Marburg's Bloody Sunday to GA status. It's a very interesting article. All the best. --Mykleavens (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Хвала, I hope we'll collaborate on topics about Balkan history. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you help me a bit with Azem Hajdari, i think 95% is done for bringging it to GA (Review) --Vinie007 14:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok great idea! --Vinie007 14:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage
You know that I have no interaction ban with Alexikoua so given the latest message you left on my talkpage and the fact that while Aigest explained the issue and I added full quotes from Setton claiming the opposite (i.e use sources that specialize on the subject) I ask you not to edit my user pages and per the related project guidelines If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. From now on please use the articles' talkpages.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

e-mail
You've got mail :)


 * The book seems quite good, but it is a compilation of translated primary sources, without much in the way of commentary. I would certainly not rely on it as a principal source, and only use it in conjunction with secondary and tertiary sources. Constantine  ✍  09:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Turakhan Beg
I have reviewed your nomination for Turakhan Beg, and still have a question. Could you reply at its nomination? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like |this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where should he be? As a parent of Isa-Beg? Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the one on the furthest left is the oldest? I think that template is only for showing direct descendents and ancestors (no aunts, uncles, or whatnot), with the youngest on the left. If Ali is to be listed too, Template:Family tree may be more useful Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck! Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've finished a thorough overhaul of the article, I hope it meets with your approval. I had been intending to write an article on Turakhan for years, so I'm doubly pleased that it's finally been done. Keep up your excellent work! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Skanderbeg. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Turakhan Beg
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Vilayets and sanjaks
Hi. I noticed your edits and I really appreciate them. There is one thing I am confused about. I am not native speaker of English so please dont mind if my logic is wrong. But here it is:


 * Vilayet of Kosovo means vilayet that consists of Kosovo territory
 * Kosovo vilayet means vilayet which name is Kosovo

Taking in consideration that i.e. vilayet of Kosovo had much more territory than only Kosovo (part of Macedonia and so called Sandžak in Serbia and Montenegro) if we name it Vilayet of Kosovo someone could be lead to believe that it contained only Kosovo?

Is my logic correct?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm non-native speaker too. Vilayet of Kosovo and Kosovo Vilayet are same. As long as I know, Scholars prefer the style such as "Vilayet of X" to "X Vilayet". Maybe someone could be lead to believe that it contained only Kosovo, it's possible, but I think there is no problem because we can show maps in articles. Anyway we can use both of them "Vilayet of X" to "X Vilayet". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the peoples
I assume you are interested in such topics. Could you follow this up? Book link .Ivo Banac book also.Aigest (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci
Thank you for you presenting Ottoman Barnstar. It's too good for me. Now I cannot find the term "Peace Treaty" in the book added with this edit. I've asked same question to Constantine before. Can you control it again ? Takabeg (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Niš
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Niš
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea that may solve the issue
I started something that i never done before, but i like it already very, very much. As explained here, i started new draft on Vojsava Tripalda‎‎, with idea to create article, sentence by sentence. As article is quite small, we will easily add part by part, and create one good version that will be the best. Please, say to the talk page will you participate, as i would really give my best to help, compromise and do what ever is needed to finally, after one year of discussion, end this on the best way, friendly and calmly. I will do my best, and i hope that you will do that also. :) All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I invited you to discussion and agreement. I hope that you will participate, as we MUST agree somehow, and that will be only trough discussion. Please, respond to my questions and proposal. Thanks. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation. Following your agreement, please, write your comment regarding template here. Your knowledge of sources will be priceless. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail
UOJComm (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign languages
Antid. as your native language is Serbian and except for English you're using google translate for every other language, please limit yourself to Slavic/English sources as during our discussions today as well as in the past you have used non-English/Slavic language sources, the content of which you didn't understand. In these cases I had to explain to you the meaning of the sources you were quoting and revert one of your edits that were led by the language issue, so please limit yourself to only Slavic/English sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Adsum

 * Marin Barleti is still the primary source on Skanderbeg and is used by nearly all historians who study Skanderbeg. Primary sources oftentimes contain forgery and that is why we leave it to historians to interpret it and thus we avoid WP:OR. Furthermore, if we have to exclude any work which partly or fully relies on Barleti, then we also have to exclude nearly every work written on Skanderbeg, including Setton who, despite qualifying Barleti, still makes use of his works. To further substantiate my argument, Setton says: ''For the career of Scanderbeg, Barletius is a valuable source, but he should also be used with extreme caution.
 * Fan Noli is the main work on Skanderbeg and Franz Babinger, despite disputing Biemmi's reliability, says: ''The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli ....
 * Gegaj's work is a PhD thesis for the University of Paris, and according to WP:RS, Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community[.] The same goes for Noli who wrote his thesis for the Boston University. For Athanas Gegaj (and for Fan Noli) you use Biemmi's disputed status to say that they are unreliable. Rinaldina Russell who holds a PhD in Italian Literature conferred with distinction from Columbia University says A chronicle more reliable than Barletius's was authored by the so-called Anonymous of Antivari... We know of its contents thanks to G. M. Biemmi. Südost Forschungen, Volume 43, explains Noli's argument: But Noli thinks that Babinger is wrong because Luccari, the Ragusan annalist, knew of a "History of Scanderbeg" by the Archbishop of Durres who was from Antivari.
 * I have explained before that Francione's work has been checked by Dr. Hasan Luçi and Prof. Dr. Ago Nezha for accuracy before being published. His work is only used for noncontroversial passages and he cites his work throughout. Either way, I use him sparingly.
 * Hodgkinson's work has been vetted by David Abulafia. Furthermore, you are using Wikipedia policy to try and qualify a non-Wikipedia editor. Malcolm does not speak disapprovingly of Destani, but he approves his efforts. But if you wish to hold on to your argument, you must also apply it to Oliver Jens Schmitt, whose work was first published by Ardian Klosi (his family owns the K&B publishing company) and is a noted pro-Serb.. Kristo Frashëri notes:  Siç e pohon vetë autori, merita e botimit më parë shqip se në origjinalin gjermanisht u takon përpjekjeve të përkthyesit, Ardian Klosit.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Command responsibility"
In response to your comment on my talk page:

The concept of command responsibility is not one which applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a government or a military. We do not have a formal structure, and we are all volunteers. No one on Wikipedia can be ordered to commit a given action, and -- except for "stop committing (action X)" -- no one ever is. The most extreme sanctions we can impose are "your edits have been reverted" and "you are not allowed to participate in one particular online activity".

To paraphrase Gene Spafford, Wikipedia is not the real world. Wikipedia sometimes does not even resemble the real world.

It's not real life, it's just ones and zeroes. DS (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've glanced at your proposal. It won't work. For starters, there's no way to tell who has a given article watchlisted. What if they un-watchlisted it in the minutes, or seconds, before  was committed? Another point is, held responsible by who? With what consequences? To repeat what I said above: we're all volunteers. We do what we feel we should, what we feel obligated to do. We are not paid employees, we are not elected officials, we are not conscripted soldiers. DS (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Izvoli
Hvala lijepo!! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanjak of Niš in Ottoman Empire
Hello Antidiskriminator! Unfortunately, I'm not familiar in detail with the changes in Ottoman administrative division, so I don't think I can be helpful here. I do have a book which may be of use, I'll see if I can find anything when I'm at home. I don't believe the bulgarisation of the Sanjak of Niš hypothesis has any basis, though... I don't think the Ottomans really cared so much about the specific national consciousness of their Slavic subjects so as to attempt to shift the balance in favour of one ethnic group instead of another.

The best way to deal with these contradictions would be to consult a solid recent English-language monographic work on the administrative division of the Ottoman Empire which should be authoritative enough to solve the issue. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

About your messages
I will respond to them today but I won't get to see your responses till next week since I won't have any access to the Internet by Saturday.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Moved category
I assume you refer to the Ottoman Macedonia thing. I hadn't seen it else I would have opposed it. The difference between the region and the nation-state is not artificial. But I think that first we ought to clear up what the Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire is about. So far it reflects its origins in covering mostly the RoM, with some later attempts to introduce elements from the wider region of Macedonia. The result is a plain mess. Constantine  ✍  08:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concern. Personally, I find it absurd to back-project modern entities to a historical era, especially when these modern entities have no historical analogue or predecessor, unlike Egypt, Syria, Greece, Albania etc which are more or less well-defined geographical areas. To me, "Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire" should be about the region, which was too polyglot, multi-national and multi-confessional to be confined in the straitjacket of modern national historiography. In the same way, "Ottoman Greece" could in some respects be perceived as far larger than modern Greece (Greek communities in western Asia Minor and the northern Balkans) or narrower ("Greece proper" being essentially the pre-1881 Greek state, where the Greeks were the overwhelmingly predominant population and which is the scene of most purely "Greek" historical events during Ottoman times). "Ottoman Albania" could for instance also include parts of modern Greek Epirus, just as "Ottoman Bulgaria" would include parts of Macedonia and Thrace, etc. Constantine  ✍  09:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your questions
Predictably, you accused me of ignoring your questions and you -- again very predictably -- accused me of a repeated offense and -- yet again very predictably -- tacitly called my edits tendentious editing. But you never tried to understand why I didn't answer your questions. The fact that my reply states I never meant to dispute Schmitt's reliability [...] I was disputing your logic means that there is no point in continuing the discussion, especially in a talk page which others have watchlisted. So I am redirecting this to your talk page.


 * I never stated that Schmitt is not reliable because he worked with Klosi. As I explained, Frashëri states: Siç e pohon vetë autori, merita e botimit më parë shqip se në origjinalin gjermanisht u takon përpjekjeve të përkthyesit, Ardian Klosit . This translates to:
 * As the author himself asserts, the credit for the publication [of the work] in Albanian before the original German goes to the efforts of the translator, Ardian Klosi.
 * You misinterpreted the article and what I said. I probably wasn't very clear but now is the time to clarify. The article suggests that Klosi is anti-Albanian. Pse pikërisht Ardian Klosi vihet në qendër të përhapjes së tezave antishqiptare dhe prej kujt i merr këto “direktiva”? This translates to: Why exactly does Klosi places himself in the center of the dissemination of anti-Albanian theses and from whom does he get these "directives?"--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hi Antidiskriminator. This user's behavior is not understandable. Yesterday, user requested the speedy deletion of the artilce Chepni. And then, user changed and continued to change the title persistently to Chepni Turks. If this name were common name, any problem wouldn't have occurred. But this is not common name. I recommend user to read Article titles and use Requested moves. Now how can we stop　his strange behaviors ? Takabeg (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg
-- Red rose64 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply
-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't be insulted, but I don't think Austrians destroying mosques or Turks destroying churches is exactly "ethnic cleansing", but again, thats not my decision to make: if you have sources whereby you can show that ethnic cleansing did actually take place in 17th century Croatia - by all means lets have it in.
 * As for "liberate", well, I can see how that was a poor choice of words. Not very politically correct of me, however: the Ottomans did abolish whatever independence South Slavic kingdoms might have had, so, if a territory, populated by South Slavs and governed by South Slavs, were to be conquered and placed under foreign rule, well then it seems logical to use the word "liberate" to refer to events that removed the foreign rule. Bear in mind that the Kingdom of Croatia had voluntarily chosen the Habsburgs as their rulers primarily for assistance against the Turkish invasion (i.e. they weren't forcibly conquered), and that that South Slavic kingdom (which received the conquests) did have a serious measure of autonomy and self-rule with the Habsburgs.
 * You're right, its not about me deciding where something was "religious prosecution" or "ethnic cleansing". If you can show that the events the Vijenac documents were indeed ethnic cleansing, we may have something to talk about.

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

English
In almost all of your articles you've used Slavic-language sources instead of English-language ones, so per WP:NOENG try to replaced them whenever possible.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

re: Antemurale myth
The modification you note on the DYK page shows that the five day rule should be enforced if there's a big backlog. The current 15-day backlog is one of the worst I've seen, so that definitely applies. As such, I can't in good conscience allow that hook to be added back in, especially with how late it was added. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, Antidiskriminator. When you have time, could you control Talk:Yenice Meeting, Talk:Treaty of Shkodër etc. ? See you. Takabeg (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Antidiskriminator, again :) Do you have any sources about Talk:Deir ez-Zor Vilayet ? Was this administrative unit sanjak or vilayet ? Takabeg (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

S. Delvina
No complex at all. I've added some info..Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Niš
Well, I do not think that topic of these articles is same. If there are separate articles about Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (1945-1963) and Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina then I do not see why there should not be separate articles about "Sanjak of Niš" (focused on period when this territorial unit was sanjak) and "Niš Eyalet" focused on period when this administrative unit was eyalet. Besides, "Sanjak of Niš" article does not even mention that there was "Niš Eyalet" from 1846 to 1864. How exactly you think that these two articles could be merged? I see a problem with that because it wold be logical that if we merge aticles, new merged article should go under name of the more important administrative unit (which would be eyalet), but seems that sanjak existed for little longer period than eyalet, so that would be argument to use name "Sanjak of Niš" in the merged article. Also, how we would merge infoboxes from two articles? Can we just leave things as they are? PANONIAN 10:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. You want to say that Niš Eyalet maybe was not eyalet, but only sanjak that was named "eyalet" in some sources, right? Anyway, here is original look of that article that I created. It was entirely based on this map that I listed as source. Later, an anonymous user added list of sanjaks in the eyalet and other users added other things. Anyway, term Niš Eyalet could be also found in some google books, so I do not think that it is just another name for Niš Sanjak:  PANONIAN  15:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you do not have to ask me for creation of category. You can create it if you wish and you can expand Bunjevci article (and any other article that I edited) if you wish and if I do not agree with something in your edits then I will tell you that after I see your changes. Also, you can examine sources about Niš by yourself and if you conclude that Niš Sanjak and Niš Eyalet are one same thing you can merge these articles. I think that these two administrative units are not same, but I am not sure about that anyway. I am currently too busy with some other things and I do not have time to work more on these subjects. PANONIAN  10:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyalet
Hi, Antidiskriminator. Shall we change all titles of eyalets from "X Eyalet" to "Eyalet of X" ? What do you think about this idea ? And could you control whether the title of these eyalets are in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH ? Takabeg (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * And again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Elbasan
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi, Antidiskriminator. I'm sorry but I forgot "Kararname 413", "Kararname of 1296" (1880), because some affairs (related with vilayets) took place yesterday. I researched "Kararname 413" and "Kararname of 1296" (1880) adn understand the word "decree" is commonly used for modern KHKs (Kanun Hükmünde Kararname) such as "Kararname 413". I hope I will create Kararname of 1296 by next monday. See you. Takabeg (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Sanjak of Dukagjin
Hi Antidiskriminator, I have reviewed your nomination of Sanjak of Dukagjin at Template talk:Did you know/Sanjak of Dukagjin and there are a couple issues. Could you read my comments at the nominations page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ivan Ivanić
Hello! Your submission of Ivan Ivanić at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Dukagjin
Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)