Talk:Kosovo/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Transitional

The president and the prime minister are not transitional. They were democratically and regularly elected under the UN observation. You did revert this, without bringing facts that determine that or prove the contrary.

Asterion, Lituani and others with extreme need to change the historical facts or anything that has to do with Kosova: Show a little respect and don’t use this article for any Serbian propaganda. I guess you have a problem to face the truth: for the first time in the last 5 or 6 years there are politicians in important positions in Prishtina, and they were not brought from Belgrade, but democratically elected by the ethnical people in Kosova.

My friends, you can not change that. This is just an internet encyclopaedia; it will never affect any political decision about Kosova or her future. I hope at least you are getting rich with your jobs for the Serbian government, I mean I hope for you guys, you are not doing this kind of propaganda for free! On the other side, I am really sorry for you guys, because as I said, this article will never ever change the reality in Kosova. You are just wasting time and money on it. Respect,--Mig11 11:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mig11, no use in explaining to them. :)) Of course the political decision is (already) taken somewhere else. More and more (mainly US and UK, which matters the most) officials say it openly, like did US envoy to Kosovo, Mr. Wisner, or Mr. Burns (he burns indeed, but selectively, the Serbian nationalists only). Long time ago I suspected that this bunch of reverters, who strong-headedly revert every edit that is not pro-Serbian, are paid somewhere by someone. Being quite familiar with the Serbian intelligence services, I know that they are even capable of that. This time they have no chances. Kosova is to be independent this year, not even later than that. And all enemies of the prosperity of Kosova will be forced to take an eternal break, as they won't be able to stop us from building our future ON OUR OWN in our OWN (formally recognized) independent and beloved country Kosova. Greetings to you my friend, Ilir pz 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Entire Government is transitional until the final status of Kosovo is resolved. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Transitional was the government which existed in Kosova from the moment Serbian troops left the territory of Kosova, until the first democratic and internationally recognized elections took place, HRE. Hashim Thaqi was the prime minister of the transitory government. Regards,Ilir pz 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right, my friend. However, you're not right about the latter. It isn't internationally recognized. The Serbian government in Bosnia and Herzegovina was transitional (unrecognized in 1992-1995). Same with the Croatian Herzeg-Bosnia government there in 1992-1994, or the Serbian Frontier government in Croatia in 1991-1995. Those were all transitional. Including the 1991-1992 governments in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kosovo's government will be transitional until this is finished in the same maner like in those cases (Dayton Accords...). Sincerely. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Those elections were organized by UN and OSCE?!? Rugova became the president. Am I missing something here? I am not talking about elections organized in the period 1990-1999, which were valid for Kosovar Albanians, (and the state of Albania) only. Ilir pz 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I suggested a compromise long ago and I post my talk here again:

I feel that I have to add something. Please note that the temporary solution defines Kosovo as a territory of Serbia and Montenegro under UN administration. Note that it's not defined as a part of Serbia, but the Union rather. This is mostly because they anticipated the future most probable status of Kosovo, a state within the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. However, you must realize that Serbia's (and the Union's) consitution defines Kosovo as an autonomous region, temporary under UN administration. The current borders of Serbia (and SCG) are internationally recognized and used everywhere (with Kosovo-Metohija). However, Kosovo is nowhere treated as an entity indistinct from Serbia (and most definatly not indistinct from the S-M), as no faction in the world sees it that way. I suggest that a possible compromise is that we should add that the Kosovar Albanian goverment refuses the Belgrade suzeiranity and considers it not a part of Serbia, and then the other side of the story (Serbia & the world), however, pointing it not an official part of Serbia and Montenegro is, francly, I apologize for the expression, but it is, really nonsensical. Hope that you will solve the case! --HolyRomanEmperor 23:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So, it should be present by all means that Kosovo is a part of SCG, but it should say that Serbia considers it its province, while it is recognized as the holder of Kosovo and Kosovo unrecognized as independent from the Republic of Serbia. And then the Albanian arguement that they refuse the Goverency of Serbia. However, outside Serbia and Montenegro is illogical fallacy. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Way? That is Out of the UN Law--Hipi Zhdripi 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The UN law was/is violated numerious times in Kosovo. The Kosovar government is not UN-implaced, nor does the UNMIK lead a god job on numerious Kosovan issues (50%> unemployment, 300,000 refugees living in exile, lack of energy, organized crime and sex traffiking of women on Kosovo, continued terrorism... etc.) However, let's follow what it says: a Province of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro... What ever do you mean?

The onl Law in Kosovo is UNMIK. Do you acecept that? And this Law is sayin that Kosovo is a provinc in Balka. See the UNMIK Dokumetacion. However you mean you hawe teaket from Serbian Governet 300, 000 Euro to say samtzhing like this --Hipi Zhdripi 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

HRE you seem to know the probable status of Kosovo? I think you should never think a status within the Union was ever imagined as the final status of Kosova. Your consensus suggestion is not neutral, You still seem to be biased on the Serbian side, and I understand your position, you can't let go. What you think is a fallacy, is YOUR opinion. Would someone care to find (non-Serbian and non-Albanian) sources on how many churches were torched during the 2004 unrest?? Dont play with numbers, that is not smart! Thank you, Ilir pz 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand you. You live on Kosovo, right? Well then, just go and see. Ofcourse 156 almost 1,000-year old (actually, some are new) Churches and monasteries were destroyed. Do you live in Prizren? Tell me, can you see the 14th century gigantic Monastery of Saint Archangel? Or can you see the 12th century Lady of Ljevis? I've been there. And seen the ruins. The fact that this is the greatest culturar destruction of modern Europe is a plain fact... Why don't you agree?

I do live in Kosova, yes. And yes, I see those torched churches, just like I see burnt houses of Albanians. I never said I agreed with those who did that. I despise them. I just wanted you to provide sources for the number of churches burnt. That would help me know as well. That is all. 165 seems to me to be a biased number. There aren't that many churches in total, including the Roman Catholic ones I think. Prove me wrong, I look forward to the facts (again, non-Serbian ones, please). Ilir pz 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo, I wish you luck, have fun being a republic! Albanians, take good care of Kosovo, take good care of our monestaries there! It's over, Kosovo's final status is obvious, Serbia already lost. Lets not fight anymore... --serbiana - talk 06:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, Boris. Unfortunately some people still don't see the reality, the way you did. Regulation of protection of all religious and cultural heritage must and will be secured by law. I guarantee you. Those who dared to burn churches in Kosova will not dare do that anymore. That hurt the image of Albanians most. One would wonder, who is the most interested in making Albanians look bad in the world? None is fighting here, Boris. We are just arguing over a certain and determined future of Kosova, which is independence. This argument will soon stop, by the end of this year. Then Kosova will be formally, or de jure recognized as independent, and that 1244 res, some people even dream of at sleep, will go down the drain. Ilir pz 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your optimism, Ilir. :) However, they said in 1999 that after it happenned that they will not do it again. They did it again in 2004. And they're saying that it won't happen again. (when it still is, from time-to-time) Please, the Kosovo War still lasts. There's not a month on Kosovo that something's not burned (recently, mostly by the Albanian paramilitary forces, since the Serbs are unarmed since 1999). --HolyRomanEmperor 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Optimism is what kept my nation from being exterminated, "my friend", that is innate. If it wasn't for that, we would be a minority of 10,000 in Kosova now, most of which collaborators of the (still existing) Serbian regime. Things have changed, no matter what you think. State institutions are being built from scratch, you cannot expect them to be as efficient in 7 years. Kosova's institutions are far more efficient than they should be with 7years of experience. Look at France, who could stop those vandals (exclusively students even) from burning all around Paris and France. And what? France is a state for centuries. Try to have a bit of understanding, and optimism. It is healthy! :)))))Ilir pz 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete disregard for other wikipedians' work and uncivil behaviour

User:Ilir pz, in your last edits, you have marked the changes as a minor edit and added the comment "Minor changes". This is not right. A minor edit generally implies trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it involves one word. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because you may decide to ignore minor edits when viewing recent changes; logged-in users can even set their preferences to not display them. No one wants to be fooled into ignoring a significant change to an article simply because it was marked "minor." So remember to consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. No need to say the article will be duely reverted to the last comprehensive version. Asterion 22:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(Ignoring the user completely for his uncivil attacks, and constant revert war in any page that deals with the people from my beloved country KosovA)Ilir pz 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As usual some mongerers keep reverting and not noing that this isen't a forum about personal opinions. This is Wikipedia. This an encyclopedia, please look it up. All of you who are fighting for an independant country or other political intensions I recommend forums or something like that. You make this a joke to everyone who are trying to keep a NPOV writting baised on NPOV facts. You disrespect us. Litany

That is what I am talking about. Ilir pz 10:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are who I am talking about. I am sick of your non-collaborative behaviour and your personal attacks. I am sick of your Wikistalking too. This is your last warning. Behave like a civilised person or else. Asterion 11:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Ignoring the user completely for his uncivil attacks, and constant revert war in any page that deals with the people from my beloved country KosovA)Ilir pz 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

teket from Hipi user seid:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardania

Thanks for invitation to participate in WikiProject Dardania. However, I will refuse that offer for now. The current unsolved status of Kosovo and the constant revert wars between Serbs and Albanians about Kosovo-related articles are not very good starting point for Wikipedia to have good articles related to Kosovo. Once the final status of Kosovo is solved in the end of this year, I will help you with this project because then we all will know correct definitions of Kosovo status, proper names that should be used for Kosovo articles, etc. Since we do not know these basic things at this moment, we cannot have good articles now. I know that the future status of Kosovo will define Kosovar Albanians as nation, not as a minority (whether that status is independence or third republic in Serbia-Montenegro), and Serbs and Albanians will have to learn to respect each other. However, it cannot come now. As I already told you, wait just few more months and the problems will be solved. PANONIAN (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is the problem (boycoting the Kosovo articel)- there are 2 documents that define current status of Kosovo:

• 1. 1244 UN resolution (which define Kosovo as part of FRY under UN administration).
• 2. Constitutional chapter of Serbia and Montenegro (which define Kosovo as province of Serbia).

I uderstand that first document is more important and that current status of Kosovo is only temporar solution, but regarding articles about Serbia-Montenegro and Serbia we should also to respect second document. I discuss only these two articles for now, because I will not work more on the Kosovo article until its final status is solved. So, in the articles about Serbia and Serbia-Montenegro, it is important to mention what is written in the constitutions of these states. So, tell me this: what exactly you object in the articles about Serbia and Serbia-Montenegro. Propose what exactly we should change, and we can discuss that. Ok? PANONIAN (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the saying in many international documents of UNMIK that Kosovo "is a territory under UN interim administration" and Constitutional Framework of Kosova. Are these of any value to you? Regards,Ilir pz 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Of course the 1244 is temporar solution but the S and M is temporar solution too (ony five year see the referendum in Montenegro). Because of that we must present in Wikpedia OR the Federal Republic of Yogoslavia OR we most seperet them. With Federal Law of Yoguslavia Serbia dont have legetimation to go in bund with sombady else withat asking the parliament in kosovo. With Federal Law the Presiden of the Soc. rep. of Serbia must be acceptyt from Prishtinas Parliament in another keys is "blocked" the procedur of the president selection. Because that is UNMIK to work in both seids. Is not in quesqen only Kosovo all the RS of Serbia Constuticion. Argument: the kosovars have the travel document wich is acceptit from 100 countries. All this countrys are helping to finde the soulution. Of course they (this countries) have differen interesis in the region but this it was recomendet from the UN. In the ather seid the Parliament inbelgrad have chanchied the Law and the name from RS of Serbia to Rep. Serbia beacouse that Kosovo is not a part of Rep. of Serbia. If Prishtnas Parliamnet want to stop this chanche from Belgrad Parliament with the Federal Law they have cann STOP. Because of that is UNMIK there to provide this "justice status quo"--Hipi Zhdripi 04:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have wrotit this with my broket english and I was thinking that you know the Yougoslavian Law. If you want Im going to finde argument about all wat I have sayed. But dont forget I must work in Albanian Wikipedia becaouse of my broked english und they need more help.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• Kosovo it was anexet from Serbia in year 1912 see berliner kongres
• Kosovo it was anexet from Serbia in year 1918 see Veraj konferenc
• Secend meating of AVNOJ (creating of komunist yugoslavia in Jajce) - Kosovo it was out seid of Yugoslawia (?)
• Meeting during the Komunist time in Belgrad betwen the Dusan Mugosa and Mehmet Shehu. (In the book is writning) Anti Fashist Nationl War Komite has meetit in Belgrad 7-9 aprill 1945 and they have disedied that Kosovo is going to be a part of the Federal Republik of Serbia the border betwen Kosovo and Serbia it must be samwer in the place callet in albanian "molla e kuqe". the Folk o f Kosovo diden accept that because that in Kosovo in year 1945 it was the military state it was war betwen Drenice clas (called from komunis als ballist) and the partizas. It was war for mor that 4 years. Military state at 1956-58. Military state at 1968-74. mailitary state at 1981-83. Military state at 1985-89.
• Rez. of Bujanovc
• Meating in prizren
• SFR of Yugoslavia Constituction

1. Paragraf 1. and 2 Kosovo it was a part of the Federation
2. Paragraf 5. Kosovo has terriori and his borders (gartiet from Federation like the border of Serbia or Kroatia)
3. Paragraf 244 al 2 Kosova eas legetimatet like others rep. in federal parliament, senat (Komite), Court, Constution Court,
4. Paragraf 398, 399, and 402 al 2 Kosovo (parliament) have the same rigt for the chanchen of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yougoslavia like other Republics.
5. Paragraf 147 Kosovos has owen ledaer who legetemat the inters of kosovo in federation

Key point for Wikipedia

1. Paragraf 150 Kosovo diset about the Administrat (District, municapitalit)
2. ....

Because of this (a=articel)

1. If Belgrad is a city in Serbia, then Prishtina is a city in Kosovo
2. If Belgrad is a city Yugoslavia then Prishtina is a city in Yugoslavia

acording to 1244 in wich is implemete at the same time the teknikal agreement and Ramboi agreement

They are going to be seperetit In Yugoslavia is going to be S. and M Law, in Kosovo UN Law for 5 year

However, Kosovo cann not be prasenty as of Serbia or S.and M. onl as part of RS Serbia and SFRY. And the Kosovos citys are not the serbiens citys (only becose the Republic name it was RS Serbia) they are kosovars city.--Hipi Zhdripi 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

---

I think Kosovo you cann put under the Military Serbian land--Hipi Zhdripi 06:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

And the translation from sebian-kroatian language or beter to say komunist language for the term "Provic" in english like a "Provinc" hase no seanc. You canne user that but that dont present the real meaning of the term in komunist launguage. It was uset only to quite the sebien nacionalist elements becaouse they dieden wonti to hear the word "Republic" --Hipi Zhdripi 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hipi Zhdripi, I still can't understand what you are trying to tell us. Well, at least you are trying to engage on the discussion. I will only answer to what I can actually understand:

• If Belgrad is a city in Serbia, then Prishtina is a city in Kosovo
• If Belgrad is a city Yugoslavia then Prishtina is a city in Yugoslavia

This is simply not correct, as Kosovo was never a republic in the old SFRY. In any case, this is irrelevant as the SFRY is dead and its successor state was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo is defined as a province of Serbia, which is one of the two contituent republic of the Federation. Once again, I refer you to UN SC Resolution 1244. The territorial integrity of the Union of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly known as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is not denied by any country member of the UN. --Asterion 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, you are itepreting samthing but that is not a argument. Every body know that all of this documet live two chois. One of them is going to be or Kosovo independent or the RS of Serbia is going to be de juro bloced. Ewerything els wat Kosovo UNMIK, S-M, is temporely. How yo ucan make the Constution with out knowing if this par is your or not? Serbian Constitution have putit Kosovo as part of rep. Serbia in one seid and in other seid maet with kosovar. They have in Serbian Constitucion the district of Kosovo wich are not legetimetet from nobody. The UN diden acceptyt the Rep. of Serbia als a state. They have lete more move place to finde better way for Kosovo. But they have not chanchet the Constitucion from the milosevic time and they must beacouse that Constitucion ist OUT of the Yugoslavian Law wich is acceptyt from UN. The M.-S is nothing els only to late the serbian to make minim of bisnes with other countrys. No bodoy in Word is going to make a bisnes with this state till the Parlament in Prishtina is Boycoting this state. this is for Kosovo too till they dont finde the status they dont thave rigt to make a bisnes ony for minimum (The humanatary act from UN ist to make place to diel this counries wih other states for they peopel, but not for normaly state bisnes). but how I hawe said to you befor, go nd give you contributon samwer els, and dont tall the World thet the Serbs wont only the traubel and War, the peopel in Serbia they wount to live a normal life. --Hipi Zhdripi 16:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro is the same country as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Only the name has changed. Therefore, I have no idea what you are saying here either: OUT of the Yugoslavian Law. You may have your opinion on whether Kosovo should be part of Serbia but this is irrelevant here as this is not a political forum —please note that I have never voiced mine on this matter as we are not here to change the world—. We have to stick to the current situation and describe it factually, that is: Kosovo is not independent and is indeed part of Serbia and this is recognised by whole of the International Community. If this changes in the future, Wikipedia would reflect it accordingly. Till then, this article should continue as it stands. Why is this so difficult to understand? Thanks, --Asterion 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That ist you oven intepretaion. Give my a UN document in wich is Serbia regotnaiset als State in UN. Give me a documet from UN Law that Kosovo is part of Serbia. I have prasent so the law of Yugoslavia in wich the Kosovo was the part of Yugoslavia. And this Law says that wen this Federation ist destroit then for Serbia, Kosovo is (malo morgen) gut bay sweet hard. I hawe givet the UN document in wich is standin Kosovo is in Balkan. To prepare the Kosovo State is UNMIK there. Kosovars are saying now well don UNMIK now GO HOME. Now you can anderstat the different betwen Yufoslavia and dhe S-M. --Hipi Zhdripi 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

For Hipi Zhdripi: I posted these comments on your talk page, not here. If I wanted to post them on this page, I would do that. But ok, if you like my comments and want to quote what I said, do it, but ask me first before you do that in the future, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) ---

History of Kosovo

History of Kosovo is more imporrten after the year 1944 for the Wikipedia. Ther are the fact to understand way it was War ther. The History about the year befor 1944 it is beter to be putit atthe articel History of Kosovo.Since 1944 In Kosovo it was more then 4 year War and mor then 5 times Military state. Serbia dieden have a cahnche to kontrol this Provice only to clean from albanias. See the Cubrolovic plan. This plan needit money wich serbia dont have and Sllovenia and Croatia the dieden wontit to pay for Serbian plan becose of this it was war in Yugoslavia. Milosevic have called this plan in life after he cammes to power.--Hipi Zhdripi 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is for you to decide. An encyclopaedia must contain information on all periods. Regards, --Asterion 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We mos select the period of hapends.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why include only after 1944? For what reason? It's very little compared to 3,000 years before. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In one seid the history of Kosovo it begins at the Ilyrien time, in the other seid the serbian users say that the history of Kosovo is to long (80% of the articel). In the part befor this time the history of Kosovo dont have arguments only some books and mytologie. You can present that hir but that is irelevant, beacouse that histori has nothing to do with this artiel or better to say the term Kosovo is meaning the Kosovo under the UNMIK. If you wount you can make a articel about Kosovo and Metohia and put that under the category History of Kosovo. However the history of Kosovo is going to be to log after the 1945. Ther are so many dokuments about this time. All this document in present make a image way the term Kosovo is knowit in the English Launguage. The term Kosovo is knowit in English about the war and the UN bombing not about the mytologie and history of Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 18:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See the coloniastion of Kosovo with serbs from Knin and Bosnja

See in S-M today are more the 300 000 chines peopel with Yugoslavien pass (travel document). For ech Passaport Milosevic has taket mony from the crime band with humane. The have now in ech courner of Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro and Vojvodina they 1Euro Shops.

File:Sloba.JPG

The flyer of Prizren Party

--Hipi Zhdripi 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuot the Serb (Not it!!! is not the Serbs bout the Slavs) in balkan we hawe a articel. See the Serbian history and Slavs in Balkan history, history of Serbia. This must be linket, but we dont have to repat it--Hipi Zhdripi 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget if you two are going to make a troubel here you are going to make troubel to serbians. You dont have to forget this teritori it was autonomus territori During the Roman, Bisantin, Otomans, Yougoslavien Empire. The Histori of Rashka belong to history of Kosovo, but Im going to make a copromaise if the Orthosox Church wonte to be a history of Serbia I am going to acept that, but they are going to lose ol rigt in kosovo. Also The History of Rashka must belong OR to History of Kosovo OR Servia. Dont mix that. You can make the articel about Kosovo under the Serbial rull like about the Kosovo Vilajet unter the Otomans.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You two are doing the same mistek like the Milosevic has don. Pleaes stop with edit wars in Kosovo artikel. The Rugova has sait that to Milosevic for more than 15 years, and now you can see the kosovars are maen they oven State. Dont forget it Ivan Stambolic have said to Milosevic do you know wat you are doing? Im thik that you two, dont know wat you are doing. Please stop, and start thinkin how you want to presen the history of Serbia with Kosovo Church or with out the Kosovo Church, If you are going in this way you are losing the Church in Decani and the other Church in Kosovo. They are going to be merget with Church in Makedonia and Albania under the Constatinopel Church and they are going to be present in global Orthodox komunty unter the Skanderbeg flag. (see the arkive in the Orthodox Church)--Hipi Zhdripi 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

At the End of discusion you, you are saying Kosovo and Metohia.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP

Stop this shit Edit war because you are destroin the image of Serbia. I dont wont that in the future all the Word see the Balkan als "treachery". You are pushin me to brig more document about the Serbian and Milosevic treachery to the kristians and Europe . In God name stop this stupid war. And work in the articel in wich you can be more usefull or make a articel about the kosovo citys in Serbian Wikipedia (You have ther nothing about Kosovo),--Hipi Zhdripi 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Who want to stop this war

We prasent the Kosovo in Wikipedia as part of Yugoslavia (OK this state is death but the user of Wikipedia is going to understan that wen he is linken to the articel Yougoslavia) This is acordin to 1244.

We prasent Serbia and Montenegro as part of Yugoslavia. (OK this state is death but the user of Wikipedia is going to understan that wen he is linken to the articel Yougoslavia) This is acording to 1244

We prasent Serbia as part of Serbia and Montenegro this is acording to the UN-Law. We prasent Montenegro Serbia as part of Serbia and Montenegro this is acording to the UN-Law

All of templetears, Category, maps ect they are going to be like it like it is in 1244. In Yugoslavia. If sombody dont wont this he wan only Edit war because this is acording to all UN documents.

Its the true and all we know that in 1244 is saying that Kosovo is a part of Yougoslavia an is protectoria of the UN.

Its the true that Serba and Motenegro have chanched the name. Then let as make in this way too in the part f definition of the contrys, provinces or wat ever is that. They hawe maket #redirect than we are going to do the same thing.

All this is confius but with #redirect we can make the sam think.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice for Hipi

The basic knowledge of the standards of English language is a must-have for Wikipedia. Either try to write more clearly, or abandon your efforts. Sorry, but I have nothing else to say, because your edits are overflowing this talk page and are not understandable. Really sorry, but please, try to write more clearly, if you don't have time for a quick lesson. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- Take this together with the your other user names and fuck of. This is Edit war. You can call for help and juctice. And the must read the Hipis defencive war. Hipi has sayit to you in Gods name. But you didt wontit. You want to destroy the Wikipedia with your mytology and propaganda.--172.174.77.138 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - - - With Hipis defensive War, each user can see the remaken movie of War in Kosovo (Rugovas War). - - You stupied "patriot"--172.174.77.138 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This was delete from sombady

No Personal attacks, please! --HolyRomanEmperor 12:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia

English [1]

---

Panonia and Ilir must be 2 temporaly administrators for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia . The page of Ex-Yougoslavia, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo they must be protceted temporelly till the status of Kosovo is not decided. Each user can let his work at the discussion page. These two administrators are going to contol this, if that work is according to the rezolution 1244 and if that must be put to the articel. This is a compromise. This has to do with project, not with sciecne. With the science you can not make compromise. With compromise, you can make a human Law. With the human Law you have chance to make science. I know that this was not planed in this project called Wikipedia. But for the sciene we must do that. With that, we are doing nothing else, just protecting Wikipedia from Edit Wars. This is the Law in Balkan: to protect the Children at War time. Im a Kosovar I dont hate no body, the only thing, what I hate is mytology in science.--172.174.77.138 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

172.174.77.138 thanks for suggesting that, but not sure I have the time for this kind of responsibility for now. I will ask Panonian later what he thinks of this. Regards, Ilir pz 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Deutsch (German)[2]

---

Panonia und Ilir muessen zeitweilig die beiden verantwortlichen Adminstratoren fuer Ex Jugoslawien / Artikel in Wikipedia sein. Die Seiten von Ex Jugoslawien, Serbien, Serbien und Montenegro und Kosovo muessen zeitweilig geschuetzt werden, bis der Status von Kosovo sich entschieden hat. Jeder Benutzer kann seine Arbeit auf der Diskussionsseite lassen. Die beiden Administratoren kontrollieren dies und wenn dies inhaltlich mit der Resolution 1244 zu vereinbaren ist, koennen sie entscheiden, ob es in den Artikel uebertragen werden soll. Das ist ein Kompromiss. Das hat mit dem Projekt zu tun, aber nicht mit Wissenschaft. Mit der Wissenschaft kann man keine Kompromisse machen. Mit Kompromissen kann man ein zwischenmenschliches Gesetz machen. Dieses Gesetzt hilft der Wissenschaft. Ich weiss, das so etwas nicht in diesem Wikipediaprojekt geplant war, aber fuer die Wissenschaft, im Namen der Wissenschaft, muessen wir das tun. Damit machen wir nichts, wir schuetzen nur Wikipedia vorm Bearbeitungskrieg von Seiten. Das ist das Gesetz vom Balkan: Die Kinder in Kriegszeiten zu verteidigen. Ich bin ein Kosovar und hasse niemanden. Die einzige Sache, die ich hasse, ist die Mythologie in Wissenschaft.--172.174.77.138 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, but Ilir pz is too baised. We need someone more neutral and who is following the NPOV rule. Litany

Oh well, yeah, I am an Albanian, can't fit your picture, Litany. Sorry. For you neutral means what? saying Kosova is a part of SM? Not gonna come from my mouth ever, as it never did, even when it was occupied by that country. Sorry to disappoint your expectations. Ilir pz 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, simply because I dont care about your personal opinions, which do not belong here. Sorry if I make you upset now, but Kosovo is still apart of SM until the end of this year atleast.

...and, it is not called KosovA here. I think maybe people can find it offensive. I understood that this English Wikipedia is for English names. Therefor no Kosova or Kosovo and Metohija or Kosmet or whatever. I always refer my country as Sweden here, and not Sverige. Even do it is official that the town of Gothenburg is going to be called Göteborg even in english, they use it here on Wikipedia. And we respect that. So if something has an english name, then use it (here). Litany

Did I ever tell you to call your country in any way? I call mine the way I want. As long as its status is not resolved, even its name should not be speculated with. My country IS called KosovA for me. Curious, how about the Dukagjini Valley, should that be called "Metohia" in English? :)))) There is a long way to go, the naming of Kosova's cities and villages, which was imposed on by the occupatory regimes of the past will all be reverted. For me, during all my life (even under the terror of previous regime) Kosova was not, now it IS NOT, and will NEVER be a part of any country, or part of any country. Future is very clear, its people will decide for it. We have suffered enough. You cannot upset me. We are just discussing here. greetings, Kosova wiki "protector"Ilir pz 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes for you but not for other people? Revert alot of city names, good idea. The whole Wikipedia will be drowned in revert wars.

Good, that is what we are suppose to do here. We are both "protectors" of the same Kosovo article but have simply other POV Litany

---

How nice Hipi Zhdripi, you first proposed me for administrator, and then insulted me on my talk page (It is your signature there). It is obviously because I reverted your changes on several maps of Serbia and Serbia-Montenegro. However, what you done with these maps was clear vandalism. You proposed some of these maps for deletion with no proper reason (the only reason why you proposed them for deletion is because Kosovo is drawn as a part of Serbia there). You certainly cannot to deny that Kosovo was part of Serbia between 1945 and 1999 (even if we can argue is it still part of Serbia or only of Serbia-Montenegro), and even if Kosovo became independent, these maps that show Kosovo as part of Serbia should not be deleted because they will have historical purpose in that case since they will show borders of Serbia as they were in one historical period. And by the way, I do not want to be an administrator here, thanks for the offer and thanks again for insults on my talk page. PANONIAN (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

---

If I proposed you and Ilir for administrator that is not meaning that you have right. The only risen becose I proposed you and Ilir is that you two are traing to make a article with sence. Im watching the work of all the user names here, I have some eksperienc with Wikipedia (Not it!! I not only a member of the english Wikipedia), and every user hier hase more than one user name. I have someny problems not only in this Wikipedia, with many user names (AOL is a big problem). Is gut for some time that is Edit War but this Edit War at Kosovo articel in English Wikipedia is since this articel it was started. Since that time this page it was more under protection als free. This page was under atack from both seids. To stop this peopel and to protect the image of Wikipedia I have proposied that. I think is normal for Wikipedia to have dispputs but not for more than 4-5 years Edit Wars with some breacks. I diden wontit tha the Edit War go to the other pages (Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro) .But your peopel the dont wont to understand. You have creatit some historical maps, they are not so bad. But the problem is that other serbian user name prasent this map als argument for the present (for they your maps are the present sitution). Beacose of that in many maps I have writet that they are the historical maps. Sorry, but the eduction of the serbian peopel must be with the present data, in other way they are going to sleep and wayting wat the mytology is saying--Hipi Zhdripi 00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!![3] please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.

This was the text from Hipi.

I agree with HolyRomanEmperor. I have not been active on this article, but I should have at least some understanding of what you are talking about and I really don't. Perhaps you should become more involved in the Wikipedia of whatever your native language is, or some other language you know well. It is true that English Wikipedia is by far the largest, but the wikipedias of other langugages are also good to work on. Academic Challenger 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Becase of that we must have the administrators who know wat is here the point.--172.178.132.39 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This pages Kosovo, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro and Ex-Yugosllavia must be Full-protecty--172.183.73.212 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont remove (It was revomet from Administrator User talk:Katefan0- is not Neutral and dont know nothing about the articel./ The disscusion seite is the argument of this article

What in god's name are you talking about? This is really getting pointless! You're running around insulting everyone! --HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Move this talk page to archive

Someone please move this page to an archive. Too much talking here already. Hard to follow. And someone stop vandalizing my removing the external links, and pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian links that I added. First discuss why you do that, and then remove. Or if you have templates (which you seem to have, and have compiled according to your wishes) please update them with the links I suggested. If the links are not useful, let me know. I think they are, ICG, UNMIK, NATO-KFOR, and b92 are sites which one should look at, when talking about Kosovo. Thank you, Ilir pz 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ilir pz. - Litany

Me too, naturally. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. If you check the article history you will realise I did actually restore all your links, together with the sections your colleague Hipi insisted on deleting. Now is time for you to make a stand: Are you for dialogue and consensus or will you follow your compatriot's descent into madness? Regards, --Asterion 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The cursed infobox

By exluding the state of union of SCG is not good (not following UNMIK resolution or whatever some people here call it...). Either is too exclude the other map of the regions in Kosovo. I support the map of SCG but I also support not excluding the map of Kosovo regions. Why not have both in the article but keep the map of SCG in the infobox? Litany

Infobox with SCG map is inflammatory for 2 million Albanians, thus should not be as such. That also predicts whom Kosovo "belongs" to, which is also inflammatory. I suggested an alternate image, which none obviously commented neither looked at. [4]Regards,Ilir pz 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the infobox again. There has been some disagreement on several issues:

1. Whether the map should portray Kosovo alone, or within S-M
2. In what order the languages are put
3. In what order the ethnicities are put
4. In what order the different names of the capital should be put
5. Whether or not the government should be called Transitional

Most of the above issues are a matter of niceties, of portrayal. Most of the issues above are subject to a childish revertion. Whether or not Albanian or Serbian is mentioned as the first language may be technically important, but the information is still there. Same goes for ethnicities and capital names.

The map is almost the same, except that there should be no suggestion that Kosovo is already independent of S-M. If it were, then why are we having discussions about final status. They are still part of S-M - for now. Nonetheless, I find the addition of two maps a bit strange, but a decent compromise. Like above, it doesnt remove any critical information

The same can not be said about the fact that the kosovar government is transitional. It is, and such information should be contained within the infobox. Removing this is removing vital information about the Kosovar government. Like above, if they werent transitional, then how come final status talks are taking place. The answer is, of course, that the government does not yet have final status.

The infobox as it stands is a decent compromise. Although it doesnt reflect the national languages in the official order, this is largely inconsequential. However, the information about the transitional nature of the government is information which is vital and should definitely remain. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The map should portray Kosovo alone, as long as the final status is not resolved and it is not defined which country it "belongs" to.

2,3,4. the order of languages, ethnicities,and any other names must follow the order "Majority of population/Minority of population" of Kosovo. That is how it was always, except during Milosevic's installed terrorist occupatory regime, of course.

Kosovo government is elected democratically, and not installed for a period of time by any international administration, thus calling it "transitory" is not appropriate at all. As I said previously, transitory was the government headed by Hashim Thaqi, between the moment NATO troops entered Kosova and the first internationally recognized elections were held. Clearer??Ilir pz 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ilir,

Nothing was unclear for me in this regard. But we are talking about two different kinds of "transitional" here. The first government was transitional in the sense that it was to bridge the transition to elections. The current government is transitional as to bridge the time until a final status of Kosovo (and thus its government) is reached. As you rightly mention, the final status has not yet been resolved.

You also mention the maps. Indeed, in this regard the final status of Kosovo is also not yet resolved. That means, amongst others, that 1244 dictates the transitional state of Kosovo. This is clearly, as an autonomous, but not an independent area. As you say, the final status has not yet been resolved, therefore Kosovo is not yet independent, and not independent from S-M yet either.

You mention that you feel that data should be mentioned in an order which does justice in regard to the dominant population within Kosovo. This is not compatible with Wikipedia precedent, as Wikipedia lists official numbers, and not on the basis of the population. Thus I dont agree with the changing of the ordering. Nonetheless, I find it to be a worthwhile compromise; if you dont change the maps and the "transitional", then I dont change the languages, the ethnicities and the capital. Deal?

The Minister of War ^(Peace) 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoi MoW, transitional period is life itself, if we go on philosophizing too much. So let us keep away from that for now. Transitional is the international administration in Kosova, or as they formulate it "UN interim admin in Kosovo". If Kosova's govt was transitional then by the end of this year, when status is defined, this government should be discarded and a new one to be elected?!? that is not the situation in the ground, MoW. This government will be the one until the next elections, no matter what happens with the status talks. I am not sure what is so complicated here to understand it the way I explain?!

As far as ordering is concerned: If you dont like my explanation of the ordering then use the ordering that the OFFICIAL International admin in Kosova uses (again Albanian/Serbian order) or Alphabetical (again the same). I don't like the deals you are offering to me. This sounds to me more like a threat. "If you do that, I do this. deal?!" doei,Ilir pz 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

Btw, what happend to the gallery section? - Litany

Images were deleted as there was no copyright info for them? (see history) --Asterion 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why all images are deleted? Some of them had copyright on them, but they were deleted too. Why? PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't rightly now. It seems to be a Bot called User:OrphanBot. This is what I was able to find out:

Image:Slava2005 6.jpg is taken from SUC website (so it is not fair use unless granted)

Image:Skenderbeuinprishtina.jpg ws uploaded by Ilir pz but he did not list the copyright status

Image:Prishtina.jpg was uploaded by Ilir pz from www.kosova.de (so it is not fair use unless granted)

Is there any other missing? --Asterion 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kosovo_images

There are several images in this category with proper copyright that can be used in our gallery. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)::: How does it predict? It only shows what it's current, it doesn't affect the future. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi's recent activities

I think that I'm going to abandon the Kosovo article. Hipi has me totally repulsed now that I see with what sort of people we're dealing with. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what Hipi and the like always wanted. Best regards, --Asterion 17:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes

The name of the section The arrival of Slavs and other tribes is ridiculous. I agree that Medieval - The arrival of Serbs, the unified Serbian Lands and the Serb Kingdom was too long, but why not come up with another; that is actually correct (this one makes no sence, the Serbs were the only Slavic tribe that came and who're these other tribes?) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the Serbian Empire and Despotate was totally deleted; Lipljan was changed to Ulpiana (today's Lypjan) and strangely, Priština to Pristina (?). The section Restoration of Serbian rule was renamed to Serbian Ocupation and Moslem, especially Albanian incorrectly changed to Albaian.

For full scale, please see this part of the article's history. Mass removals of linking, external linking and Categories were conducted. Someone should take a look at this. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know. The problem is that someone down the line made a mistake reverting to an incomplete version after the last attacks of page blanking vandalism. After so many reverts, this was bound to happen... --Asterion 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored most -if not all- of the text and made some bold edits to the contemporary history section. I have also marked controversial facts, instead deleting them. I hope someone will take up the job and carry on improving the article. Regards, --Asterion 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping into your boiled discussion about yet-to-be-determined facts, but I think there's one current and obvious correction to make: Serbian Orthodox Church's official website on Kosovo has changed the url from kosovo.com to kosovo.net - the owner of the domain kosovo.com, Željko Boškoviċ decided to stop consigning it to Serbian Orthodox Church. In the External links section it's been mentioned twice: "Hugo Roth, Kosovo Origins" and "Serbian Orthodox Church's official website on Kosovo". Tmilos 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Excess Medieval History

I think the part on medeival Serb history is far too long. Would someone, preferably a Serb, take the task of cutting to a third the article and make reference to History of Serbia for interested to read. I think if we keep it here it's politics. If none is willing, I could do it. I think we need to cut all other parts in history as well and we should maybe make a new entry History of Kosovo. dardanv

Pristina accepts division of Mitrovica 11:26 April 19 | Beta

Importen material to destroy the mytology wich is saying that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. In this page you can read a articel from Serbian radio is sayin Pristina (Not it!!! is not Belgrade, no body cares about Belgrad beacose that is mytologie) in wich has accepting that in Mitrovi to be two Municapitaly.

For artikel about news about the two Ex-Yugoslav countries Serbia and Kosovo see: http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?&nav_category=21&nav_id=34548&order=priority&style=headlines

Bad interpretation, Hipi, President Sejdiu said (cite)"organising two, united communities within the framework of one municipality." I think the title on top of that article was badly (or purposefully) translated in that way it is in the link you provided. Regards, Ilir pz 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You must see that this is the only Serbian station wich is traing to be democratic. In other said we must this "serbian patriots" give the argumets (even if they are wrong intepreted) witch they logic is saying that was not a dream. Kosovo is a State and that withat asking us.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They are so stupid they are destroing [5]the image of Serbia and the Balkan. Balkan is paying that with ekonomy. The peopel in Belgrad dont have enogth to eat. --Hipi Zhdripi 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hipi zhdirpi is going too far

Hipi, would you like to apologize for the 100,000 PAs that you made against the Wikipedia Community? Personally, I think that you've went too far. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

At firs, I dont understand wat you are saying or talking about. I dont know to write gut english but I am not stupied. Even if I dont know so gut english I have a argument about the Kosovo. Since you have stardet to be "interestit" for the Kosovo you are putin everywere only "Kosovo i Metohia", "Kos-Met" ... Kosovo part of Serbia, Kosovo history, Kosovo, Serbia, Serbia, Kosovo [6]. You are not interestng to make a articel and to finde a sulution for maken a work atmospher to the aricel about Kosovo. You interes only to make a Edit Wars about the Kosovo articels. Finde a argumet and bring it hier. No more intepretations, no more propaganda and mytology in the articels about the Kosovo. I have a respect a bout serbian mytology but we must let the user to know that is mytology and hase nothing to do with history and politic of Kosovo . You dont know eyxactly in wich time it was uset this name "Kosovo" for this province and you want to intepret a argumet about this provinc. This is not mytology encyclopedi but Wikipedia --Hipi Zhdripi 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Hipizhdripi wants to make a point about being neutral, I believe that he means that we need to stop all together referring to Kosova as Kosovo i Metohia or Kosmet because there the article already establishes at the beginning that the Serbs have their version of the name. We need to call Kosova by the name that the people of Kosova refer to and recoginse, also in addition the international community refers to Kosova as simply as Kosovo. Beharprishtina 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the neverending story of throwaway used-once-only accounts. Anyone for checking Beharprishtina's contributions? Someone should semi-protect the talk pages too, considering the trolling does not decrease with time, unfortunately... --Asterion 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Behar, welcome to Kosova wiki. Of course you have the right to edit, and express your opinion here, it is the right of any person. That is what Wikipedia is about. One has to start somewhere, and with an edit in some article. With all due respect to your opinions, I have to warn you in advance that there is a pretty hostile environment waiting for you around here. As I am somewhat experienced, I can tell you that first phase of your editing here will be followed by accusations of the sort "You are a sockpuppet of someone" that means "you are someone else and using this address as a fake". Later you will be threatened that you are violating wikipedia rules, and you will be reported to admins. Later some will harrass you in your personal talk page. Please bear with them in a civilized way. I am sure if you are older than 7 years old, you have experienced such harrassment in Kosova during the previous occupatory regime. You will have my backing any time you need information on how to proceed. Tung,Ilir pz 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done... sigh

I think that Kosovo deserves a speedy-delete tag. Goodbye, and sorry, but I do not intend to spend ours arguing for nothingness with people that have no respect of neither their companions nore themselves. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, what we will do about this revert war?

Kosovo article is under constant revert war; that is not good and Kosovo is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia because of that. Can we find some compromise here at all? What i suggest here is that all users involved in revert war try to find a solution for disputes to make this article NEUTRAL (not pro-Serb or pro-Albanian). Is that possible? So, let start with the infobox:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=49532416&oldid=49520657

So, according to this, maps in infobox are first disputed thing here. First (blue) map show districts of Kosovo (not municipalities), thus, Asterion, I am afraid that name of your map is less accurate than of that uploaded by Hipi Zhdripi. The correct title of the map should be "Districts of Kosovo" because it is what is shown on the map (municipalities are lower level administrative units). Also I do not see why map of Serbia-Montenegro should be here because I understand why Albanians from Kosovo do not want that map posted in the article. However, there are some similar examples, see this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

These two political entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina do not have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina in its infobox, thus I do not see why Kosovo infobox should have map of Serbia-Montenegro. What I propose here is to post only blue map but with the title "Districts of Kosovo". So, can we have compromise here or not? PANONIAN (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PANONIAN, feel free to edit the map description and changing this to Districts. Regarding the Map of Serbia and Montenegro, this is not a matter for personal preferences. It is simply not negotiable, whatever their feelings are (what next? Conveniently deleting all history pre-1945?). Also, you must not it is impossible to work with people who prefer to edit-war to a version shining for its primary school English level (this on top of relying on hearsay and avoiding citation of verifiable sources). As far as I am concerned, Litany, HRE and me (aside other wikipedians I cannot recall at this point) are the only people who have actually made an effort to improve the article. If Ilir, his "friends" and his heteronyms are so interested on the subject (as for "I WOULD GIVE MY LIFE FOR MY BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY, KOSOVA :))))"), they could well start for getting a grip on themselves and contribute to the article constructively for once (i.e. they/he could well start for finding proper sources to quote from, instead reverting to Hipi Zhdripi's broken English "article"). Sorry to sound harsh, but you simply need to pay attention to their edit summaries to realise their only goal is some juvenile thrill of "fighting a war" --Asterion 15:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ok I am dying to get in the Asterion's list of constructive editors. In order to be liked by him, let me say that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, KLA is a bunch of terrorists, mafia leads Kosovo institutions, 1 million serbian churches were burnt by Albanians, I support SPS right now, and soon I will put some flowers in Milosevic's grave, Milosevic was a hero....huh, wasn't that about 10000 kg of irony from my side? I am not sure what should one go through to think this narrowly. Definitely not me, who has suffered 20 years of his life under a regime that blackened everything good in my country, KOSOVA. And yes, again, anytime, should there be Seselj-like activists in my hometown, I will show them the way.Ilir pz 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Asterion, if people want to reach compromise then both sides should to give up something. You give that map of serbia-Montenegro, they will give up something else, it is the only way how these things can work. It is ok that you made effort to improve this article, but the value of an article which is under constant revert war is not very large. Therefor, my idea is to discuss one by one problem. Let start from the beginning and discuss the infobox first. It is small step to have one good infobox that will be accepted from both sides, but it is a start to better article which will not be under constant revert war. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what PANONIAN is saying and under normal circumstances I would also agree. The problem I see is that there seem to be a couple of people constantly resorting to sockpuppetry and straw men to do their dirty work. I agree with ASTERION on the lack of contributions on the part of the last two "contributors": Beharprishtina and LuneburgerHeide. Checking the past discussions on this page, anyone could spot them as being the same person as Dardanv/IlirPz. Quite symptomatic too is their attempt to depict anyone who does not share their extremist views as "workers from the serbian government". We had the same problem in the French wikipedia. They will not stop till they get the article their way. They are not interested in dialogue and their dirty games are a simple proof of what I am trying to tell --83.44.36.92 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

83.44.36.92 from Spain, thanks for dropping a line. Yes, me and Dardanv have common opinions. As a matter of fact, it is a reality that, at least 2 million Albanians in Kosova have the same opinion as I do when it comes to the future of Kosova. I indeed have 2 million heteronyms, good observation. You don't need to agree with Asterion,(yourself?!? IP from Spain?!? hehe), as he is one of the hard-core-revert-warriors here, who likes to call a sockpuppet whomever disagrees with him, and calls them "juvenile" and threatens them with "being reported" :)))). Ooops, I wasted my time commenting Asterion's content. Bad for me. Will never do this again. Ilir pz 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feed trolls. Best answer to inflamatory comments is to ignore them. Ilir pz, you have shown no respect for other wikipedians. Making false accusations will ultimately get you banned. Greetings from sunny Lincolnshire. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

You are agree with me. Evryebody with AOL can do that, you to. Beacose of that I have proposed for two administrators. I can do the same, but I dont wont, and if I do that I will do only to tale the burocrats that has no seance to go in this way anymore. Each AOL user can do that. Some no importen edits hier, some there and everybody can make 3000 edit. But every old user know that. I have watchit the activety in English Wikipedia in Kosovo problem some user have mor then 4-10 acconts, the minimum is 2. --Hipi Zhdripi 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Upsss!!! Thanks that you diden uset a new user name--Hipi Zhdripi 00:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

My english is brocen so much how your mytology-image about Kosovo wich you wount to prasent hier.

Panonia till you cann not STOP your peopel wich are living in the past, and thinking that with mytology they cann presant the albanians als "turci" and Kosovo as "Hard of Serbia" you can do nothing. Since they have sartit this articel, they have startit with mytologie. The first thing wat you must do is to prasent the realyty perhaps then they are going do see that we dont live in year 1800 but 2006. I have sayet to you in my discussion page the serbian politcans they must make a hard work to select the mitology from history and that to prasent they volk. Is no he time n wich the church acsplene the history to the folk.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse we have a souch peopel in Kosovo to. But they have taket the lesion in Shcool abot history now and they are quite and they don make souch troubel in Kosovo (in Wikipedia to). They select himself wat is Mitology and wat is history. I think the serbian shcool mus do the same think if they wont to live in peace in Balkan. Otherways they are going to be praperett for a new War. But this time theay ae going to lose becos they dont have a teachet soldiers.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I guess that the smarter side will always subside, so that everyone can see the aggressivness of the other side. :))) However, the both articles in their article. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr HolyRomanEmperor, True I’m a new member, but I'm here to contribute to this article, I only started writing after reading the article very carefully with the discussion page included, don’t accuse me of making a throw away account with out even knowing who I am. The reason why I did not enter the discussion immediately is because I wanted to see what people were writing first. I think that all articles need to be neutral and factual what ever the topic is. I don’t see why you have a problem with me?Beharprishtina

Për të gjithë shqiptarët

Nëse dëshirojmë ta formojmë një lidhje të fortë shqiptare këtu në Wikipedia, të gjithë ne duhet të bëhemi së bashku. Këtë mund ta bëjmë vetëm nëpërmjet kësaj kategorie, [[7]]. Pra të gjithë, si anëtarët e vjetër, ashtu edhe të rinjtë duhet ta regjistrojnë veten këtu. --Aeternus 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing for you Aeternus, write what you said in English not Shqip. OK!!! CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor, if you don't know what you wrote about me, than I have nothing to say, but I would like your cooperation, I’m only trying to contribute in a constructive way to the Kosovo article. Now in my opinion I believe that from now on we should only talk about the article and nothing else, how to make the article neutral. Let’s not digress from the topic. Thank you,Beharprishtina 18:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let start again

People: please do not discuss here about sockpupets and politics but lets try to discuss only about infobox. Can we find some agreement about infobox maps and transitional (or not transitional) president and prime minister? PANONIAN (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Panonian. I think the compromise we (the Albanian editors) reached was shown a long time ago, we let the irritating part which identifies Kosovo as still a de-jure part of ex-Yug. That is too much, but we thought that could improve things. Seems like some insist on emphasizing it as a part of Serbia, and thus ignite revert warriors. Reverting is a natural reaction from Albanians in this case. Asterion is going toooooo far. He/she only fuels up the tensions here. As far as the map is concerned, let us not feed them from pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian sites. I (as always) suggested respecting what international admin in Kosova has in their official documents. The map can be found in EU in Kosovo. Remember, it is a map by the EU institutions in Kosovo. We could easily ask them for the copyright, and I am sure they would provide us with it. Greetings from Norwegian fjords,Ilir pz 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

PANONIAN, I changed the introductory text to this:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a UN-administered province in Serbia. As for the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is defined as an autonomous province within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro) under UN interim administration. Kosovo is presently run by the transitional Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment, civil servants from the UN and the European Union, while the security tasks are taken care of by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). The talks on the status of Kosovo started in Vienna, on 20th February 2006, with the future of the province to be determined by the end of the year.

from this:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a UN-administered province. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is defined as autonomous province within former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under UN administration. Kosovo is presently run by the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment and the UN and the EU, while the security is maintained by the NATO-led KFOR. The talks on the future status of Kosovo have started in Vienna, on February 20, 2006, with the likelihood of the province becoming an independent country by the end of the year.

As you can see, this is as NPOV as it gets. Nevertheless, Dardan V. insists on reverting even this (saying my last rv to a neutral point of view. Someone please prepare an article from the Albanian point of view). That's the spirit! --Asterion ^{talk to me} 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dardan V., removing sections of an article is considered a form of page blanking vandalism. You have been invited to express your opinion. Please refrain from similar actions or I shall feel forced to report you. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, I have no opinion which of the two paragraphs should be here. I only proposed that sides involved in revert war should discuss this and to find compromise which would be perhaps something between these two variants. PANONIAN (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, let's have a look at Ilir's last edit:

17:19, 24 April 2006 Ilir pz (cleaned a bit of nationalistic content, fixed and added some links.)

This is in fact a complete revert to Hipi Zhdripi's months old version and it is described as "cleaned a bit". Can you see what I mean? --Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad someone likes my edits. Indeed I try to be as neutral as possible, and fuel up the edit war be that from those who oppose my view, be that from my compatriots. Sure thing never my edits were a revert to anyone's version. Instead I always edit parts which seem unrealistic, and most of the times I try to enrich the text with some material I find, usually external links. Always hoping that those additions help some brainwashed people (Serbian Socialist and Radical party members mainly) to broaden their views. Hope it works. Will keep my fingers crossed. Panonian, not sure your words will be heard by some here. It did not work, I tried several times to propose compromise. Ilir pz 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Luneburger Heide, Germany

All the things here are mythologie. Here, I m finding the same things, problems, like they had been in other wikipedia before. For luck, we ve founded the workers from the serbian government [8], which just wrote lies and propaganda. We ve spent a lot of time to found them out. During that time, we ve needed to block the Kosovo page. We ve founded two people, which where looking to the facts. At the end they ve created new Kosovo article. Not perfect, but without lies, personal interesse, propaganda and mythologie. When I ve readed the things here , I ve got crazy, so many extreme people . I think the main way is to find the best way in the name of wikipedia. For my opinion one step in the right way is, what Hipi said, to find two temporally administrators. I just cn say, that, with that, we had success in the other wikipeia. And I know, that it can work and here. We should give that idea a chance. A chance in the name of wikipedia. greetings, --LuneburgerHeide 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello LuneburgerHeide, welcome to Wikipedia. This is a sensitive topic, and as often as good-intended initiatives were started, rarely anyone cared to listen. Your idea sounds interesting. I invite you to contribute further with your neutral and factual edits. Regards,Ilir pz 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi LuneburgerHeide! I absolutely agree with you! I think that the English versions of Kosova related articles should take an example from the German versions, which are in these cases really very NPOV. Liebe Grüsse, --Mig11 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove tag

One should think better before deciding to keep the {{sprotected}} tag in this article. There are other than wikipedia addicts who might know something we don't and might help improve the article. I propose we remove that tag. Any suggestions? (rational ones, please)Ilir pz 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I say remove the Tag and Protection. I been busy in tha last couple of months with school and work, but I am ready to add my two cents. Looks like you guys have been having "fun".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.26.96 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 April 2006

I disagree. No serious admin can take seriously a call to remove semiprotection coming from an unsigned IP. Obviously more sockpuppets. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see Ilir pz has unilaterally asked to unprotect the article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

why am I not surprised?!:))))Ilir pz 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilir pz

Hi Ilir, Why are you reverting the whole article now? This is not constructive. I thought you changed when you started adding {{cite-needed}} marks for other wikipedians to substantiate the current text. Your reverts to an obsoleter, heavily biased, version are not productive. Both Panonian and me have invited you to discuss point by point the current article, which have been put together by a multitude of users. Reverting this is a sign of disrespect for all. I will start again:

1. Map. Please state your reasons for not wanting the location map. Kosovo is still part of S&M and this is recognised internationally.
2. Introductory text (see my comments a few paragraphs up). Please explain your reasons.
3. Removal of pre-1945 history from the article. Please explain your reasons.

Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, you have changed the whole content and made it totally baised and your personal opinions is showing very well.

1. Why have you deleted essential history?

The part of history wich is essential for you is not essencial for he Kosovo geographicel articel. -- Hipi Zhdripi

1. Why have you deleted the part about SS Division Skanderbeg?
2. Why have you deleted "It is also estimted that 200.000 - 400.000 Serbs were cleansed from the Vilayet of Kossovo, especially during the Grecco-Turkish War 1890"? You know have many sources about this information.
3. You wrote without citation: "The small number of Albanians that were left behind, were forced to become Serbs." Show me an NPOV source for this information. This is just a few question marks I find.

Let me give you a reminder that wikipedia is not for personal opinions. Litany 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

shortly: Map with SM in it is inflammatory. It is just inappropriate. I did not remove parts that you are accusing me of. Give me the sources for 200000-400000 Serbs cleansed, but not Serbian sources please. 400000 Serbs were never in total in Kosovo, let alone in 1890, come on...Seems unrealistic. The citation you are giving me, Litany, does not seem like my kind of English. Not sure I added that. I absolutely agree that wikipedia is not for personal opinions, the least those inspired by the terrorist Serbian Socialist Party, who could instruct soldiers to even do this [9]...in short "U zločinu je ubijeno 48 članova porodice Beriša, među njima šestoro dece od jedne do četiri godine, sedmoro dece od sedam do 13 godina, jedna starica od 100 godina i žena u osmom mesecu trudnoće. Policijske snage, navodi se u optužnici, opkolile su kuće porodice Beriša u Suvoj Reci, uključujući tenkove. Muškarci su odvojeni od žena i dece i neki su ubijeni. Policija je ostale članove porodice povela do jednog kafića i naterala ih da uđu u njega. Zatim su policajci ušli i otvorili vatru, a u kafić je potom ubačen i eksploziv." Call your reason before you edit here. The topic is very sensitive, and you guys who like to judge my irritation on the Serbian map including Kosovo, have no idea what brought to this situation. Ilir pz 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, this is the English language wikipedia. Aside this, we are still awaiting for your explanations on the points raised. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not using English in this case. [10] is the link, but I can translate shortly the part in quotes "in the massacre 48 members of Berisha family were killed, among them 6 kids of age 1-4, 7 kids of 7-13, a 100yr old woman, and a pregnant woman (on her 8th month). In the accusation it is said that (Serbian) police forces surrounded the house of Berisha family in Suhareka, using tanks. Men were separated from women and children, and some were killed. Police sent the rest of the family members to a cafe and forced them to enter there. Afterwards, the policemen entered the cafe and opened fire, and later threw explosives inside the cafeteria" Interesting, isn't it? I answered about the points raised. Ilir pz 09:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Request to unprotect

Concerning the recent request to lift semi-protection. The article has been protected for exactly eight days now, and although it continues to be somewhat unstable, this is already a lenghty protection. How about this: I can lift protection, but I will add the article to my watchlist. If it is vandalized by IPs immediately following the lift of protection, I will, likewise immediately (I may not be online at the moment, but as soon as I return, which is not usually that long), protect it again. Is that an acceptable compromise? Regards, Redux 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Adendum: in making this assessment, should you accept my proposal, I will consider any revert warring with IPs as sufficient reason to semi-protect the article again. Redux 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds fair enough. Thanks, Redux. Ilir pz 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the controverted nature of the article, I would prefer to get consensus for this beforehand. However, if no one will post here, except for Ilir pz, I will go ahead with the suggestion. Redux 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I appreciate it Redux. Ilir pz 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no opposition was raised and the article had been protected for over nine days, I have lifted the semi-protection. I have also added the article to my watchlist, as I said I would. So please, so that we don't need to protect this again: discuss the issues on the talk page first, there is no need to revert the article immediately; remember civility, assume good faith whenever possible and be mindful of the three revert rule. Thank you. Redux 02:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

yo

I think you should refrain from adding the inflammatory map in the infobox, Litany, Asterion, HRE, whoever. You cannot expect any of the Albanian editors to agree with that. You will just ignite another revert war. Stop before it is late. And as of labelling it as a "part of Serbia", please,you are going too far. Let your beloved 1244 resolution say the rest below that formulation. And soon when that 1244 res is outdated, then you won't even have that to "fight" with. Refrain from your nationalism. This is wikipedia, not a place where with your edits you attempt to irritate further the Kosovo editors. Hope you understand.Ilir pz 21:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I also agree that map of Serbia-Montenegro should not be posted here. I already showed example of Republika Srpska article where you do not have any map in infobox. If this map is a reason for revert war, then it is better not to have it here. When final status of Kosovo is solved, we can post the proper location map for Kosovo. But until then, it is better not to fight revert war about one map. PANONIAN (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally some positive approach. Touché..Ilir pz 09:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, note on your edit, "Slavs and Serbs" in the history part. Don't you think you are repeating something? Serbs are Slavs, thus should not be "and"-ed??! Correct me if I am wrong. Additionally, adding "it is likely" to the Illyrian part of history: Don't you think that all history part should be started with "It is likely" then?? as none of the historical facts have video shootings to prove that what is written is true?! If you add the "it is likely" to the Illyrian history, add it to the rest of history, as it is the same, history. We have to keep the document consistent, not doubt the Illyrian history, and say that the Serbian one is factual, without likelihood. Ilir pz 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Panonian, seems like the "facts" [11] say that Slavs did not settle in present day Kosovo until late 12th century, and were not in the south-western part of Kosovo from 7th century like you wrote. Ilir pz 09:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Ilir, thanks for stopping the massive reverts. Regarding your last additions, you cannot simply copy and past text that way, at it is a Wikipedia:copyright violation. Feel free to rephrase the text and remember to use the <ref></ref> reference style, as for the rest of the article. Thanks a lot! --Asterion ^{talk to me} 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(never thought I would thank you but) thank you for the remark. I wasn't sure about that. Now I put the rephrased part, with the citation in the end of it. Feeling some optimism that we can find a compromise after all. Refraining from nationalism is healthyIlir pz 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

My changes

I am extremely pleased to see constructivism on the Serbian side. Out of context, but I am extremely pleased to see the start of the war crimes trial in Belgrade, which hopefully will be the first, but not the last step, taken on the side of Serbia to open way for Albanian/Serbian reconciliation. Albanians, Greeks and Serbs (equally in numbers between 7-8 million on the Balkans) need to be in peace with each other for the region to move forward. 1. I removed parts of the Serbian History, (the least important) due to space. I think we need to shorten it even further because it is too long. I think somebody needs to shorten it, by retaining the most important elements. 2. I addedd Albanian versions of toponyms as well as Serbian wherever appropriate. 3. I deleted the figure about massive Serb migration as I think it is a fabrication. There was a very small migration northwards at this time. 4. I didn't touch the statement about SS Skanderbeg, who was an irregular formation in process of being established by the fascists, who was a joke. They were disorganized, not well equipped and in process of being established by the time war ended. Their role in the war was insignificant. Their existance was used by Serb nationalists to justify expulsion of ALbanians, as Greece did with it's Northern Albanian population. As a sign of compromise, I have left it there. 5. I appreciate the compromise on your side to leave Kosovo on a blue (UN color) map, separated from the world. This map says that Kosovo is under UN administration, it doesn't say whether Kosovo is independent or part of any other country. Albanians don't want it to be portrayed as part of Serbia, Serbs don't want it to be presented as independent, so this should be an acceptable compromise. Regards, Dardanv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanv (talk • contribs)

Hi DardanV, you cannot simply decide that the Serbian history is "not important", and removing whatever facts you dislike. Sources were provided and are verifiable. I would appreciate if you take a second to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia style guide, as you are over-linking. Also, remember to do a preview first to ensure you are neither having an edit conflict nor making spelling mistakes/typos. I have also left both names, as for Istrian names (generally listed with Croatian - Italian versions). However, please remember not to OVERLINK both names! Thanks, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

how about the "important" part of Serbian history you include in "serbian history" wiki or something? this article needs shortening of parts history parts. It sounds as if the life of some "medieval serbian kings" is the topic of this page. I agree with Dardanv. Furthermore, I cited the source I found the information from. If you were that kind, you would have put the quotes, instead of removing the whole content. Don't you like the content? typical of you, to just remove factual data. I am not sure about your enthusiasm Dardan, I know a few here who are sworn to vandalize and not compromise. Hope I am wrong about this. Ilir pz 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I reformulated some words like, after Conference of Bujan, it was decided that Kosovo remains a part of Albania, once the WW2 is over, not remains "Albanian". It sounds as if in the conference it was agreed to kill all Serbs, which is not true. Also, let us not use derrogatives in the main text, like "terrorist" "horrible" when referring to crimes. All crimes are horrible and terrorist in nature. Ilir pz 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Asterion[12] pleace taket eazy and dont use the situation in Kosovo for your propaganda. --Ejte 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (suspected sockpuppet of Hipi Zhdripi)

---

Hi Ilir and anyone willing to listen, I do not condone anonymous IP edits or reverts, in the same way I cannot stand sockpuppetry by Hipi Zhdripi (sorry but no one can write such a bad English). I am very tired of all this trolling. Can we please continue to discuss as civilised people, instead letting ourselves carried out by all this cr*p? Thanks, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, I agree with you, we should take a rather different approach. Discuss more, not revert, and agree on changes after a thorough discussion. I don't have admin privileges to check whether a certain username originated from a particular IP to know who is a sockpuppet or not. Let us not judge others' language abilities, either. Instead, let us invite them to discuss, and we (who claim to know English better) change main text for them, if their claims are legitimate. Optimistic, 11:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

History

Someone messed up the History section a little. I'll try to fix it. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

HRE, how about you discuss before "fixing" stuff? Read Asterion's suggestion. thank you, Ilir pz 11:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I looked through it, and someone has made changes without discussing - numerious removals, removals and removals - and I saw no justification on this talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[13] This source says that Slavs moved to todays Kosovo ONLY after the Byzantium Emperor Comneni died. What source did you have when saying that that happened in the 7th Century? I am waiting for an answer. Until then, I think the source I gave you above (and it is in a Serbian site, by the way) will remain in that part of history. Ilir pz 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that you Ilir? Yes, I changed that long ago. :) It now only says that Slavs moved in in the 630s. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, something went wrong with the signature. Sorry. Do you think my reformulation is better now? the article I cited above said that until 1014 or so Serbs did not invade the "proper" Kosovo, that occurred only after the Byzantium King died. ~Comments appreciated, I would like to know this with (some) certainty as well, from non-Serbian and non-Albanian sourcesIlir pz 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

(from my (Manojlo) talk page)

No matter who you really are, Manojlo, with all due respect, read the discussion board before adding your opinion in Kosovo related pages. Otherwise you damage the neutrality of the article. Who was a paramilitary or terrorist organization, that is a subjective matter. What is for you, does not mean it is the neutral point of view. Please contribute in a constructive way if you can, else do not disturb the already hot topic. Thank you in advance, Ilir pz 14:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My Manojlo gentle answer:

I don't care either, who you really are, Ilirpz. With all due respect, read the oppinion of USA State Department of KLA, before adding your opinion in Manojlo or Kosovro related pages. Otherwise you damage the neutrality of the articles. KLA was terroristic organization, according of USA State Department, and it is not subjective matter. I am still hoping that you will contribute in a constructive way this article, as well as my talk page. Do not hesitate to talk with me again. Thank you in advance. --Manojlo 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome. For some Serbs all Albanians were terrorists, even children and elderly [14], so let us not get in that discussion, dear Manojlo. We are trying to get a neutral article here, and quite many have struggled to come to this point, so don't give us more trouble putting labels on sides. I am sure you understand. I am not aware of USA bombing that terrorist organization you are talking about. Ooops, it bombed Serbian troops?!?! Ilir pz 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One quote from http://www.cfr.org/publication/10159/terrorist_groups_and_political_legitimacy.html#4

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)

The group was founded in the early 1990s during a backlash against Serbian efforts to eliminate ethnic Albanian political influence inside the former Yugoslavia. President Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, described the KLA as, "without any questions, a terrorist group." The KLA engaged in tit-for-tat attacks with Serbian nationalists in Kosovo, reprisals against ethnic Albanians who "collaborated" with the Serbian government, and bombed police stations and cafes known to be frequented by Serb officials, killing innocent civilians in the process. Most of its activities were funded by drug running, though its ties to community groups and Albanian exiles gave it local popularity. By 1999, however, the United States had embraced the KLA's cause, if not the group itself, working instead through the ethnic Albanian nationalist politician Ibrahim Rugova. Clinton spearheaded a NATO air war and subsequent invasion of Kosovo aimed at stopping Serbian ethnic cleansing there in 1999. After the war, the KLA was transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps, which now works alongside NATO forces patrolling the province. Talks aimed at determining Kosovo's final status continue, and in March, the KLA's former leader, Agim Ceku, was elected prime minister of the province.

As everyone can see, KLA is, terroristic organization, without any questions, according to Robert Gelbard, Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans.

So, as I can see, it is quite OK to say, as already said, that KLA is terroristic organization. I am sure you understand, if I may quote Ilirpz.

--Manojlo 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I mention source, I mean not a "nonpartizan" whatever source. I can fill you up with those. Source means a credible and neutral source. Since you mention Gelbard, find me the source from the US Dept. of State, please. if I may quote myself, I am sure you understandIlir pz 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This reference will do the job. If you are want to dispute, do feel invited to show me that this source is partisan or subjective, or proSerbian. Till then, if I may quote yourself, I am sure you already understood, --Manojlo 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This reference will not do the job. Not any source is a source. That does not bring neutrality in place. Iam sure that you understood, too. 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Metohija

is Greek word and means church land, or church property. Some parts of Kosovo are in fact Metohija, so it is desirable to note that in article. --Manojlo 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is noted, even in the first line of the main text. You use the word "fact" too often. Try to be more rational when doing so. The part you say "are in fact" Metohija, for albanians is Dukagjini Valley, or Rrafshi i Dukagjinit. 18:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Metochia is far better from NPOV point of view: it is Greek word, not Serbian, not Albanian. It denotes church land. And it is mentioned only three times in the article. Which is not much for +100 of Kosovo alone. --Manojlo 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

the name Kosovo is not in Albanian, thus if we measure, the name KosovA was mentioned only ONCE. How about that? 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New revert warrior, Manojlo

Citing Asterion "Excuse the uninvited response, KLA was listed as a terrorist organisation up to 1998 by the US Department of State. However, as this is a general article about Kosovo, I think that should be reflected only in the KLA article instead. We reached an agreement on this over a month ago. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)"

This article is not for KLA. Then I remove it from the main article, and expect whomever is interested to add a (sourced from US State Dept) citation in KLA article. Thank you.Ilir pz 09:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I invite the rest to take their time to explain to this new revert warrior, that this is not a place to express your nationalism, but instead find sources to back your edits. This is going too far. ilir_pz 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I alredady found and cited my sources for claiming that KLA is also terror organization. But, it is not a problem to do that once again:

Source no. 1.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm Accessed 27 April 1999 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee - Larry E. Craig, Chairman - Jade West, Staff Director March 31, 1999

The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does Clinton Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug Ties? From 'Terrorists' to 'Partners'

One option includes forging a closer relationship between the United States and a controversial group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a group which has been cited in unofficial reports for alleged ties to drug cartels and Islamic terrorist organizations. This paper will examine those allegations in the context of the currently unfolding air campaign.

Please, check this at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-controversies31.html.

Source no. 2.

'The violence we have seen growing is incredibly dangerous,' Gelbard said. He criticized violence 'promulgated by the (Serb) police' and condemned the actions of an ethnic Albanian underground group Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) which has claimed responsibility for a series of attacks on Serb targets. 'We condemn very strongly terrorist actions in Kosovo. The UCK is, without any questions, a terrorist group,' Gelbard said." [Agence France Presse, 2/23/98]

And please discuss point of over disagrements, Ilirpz, and avoid personal attacks.

--Manojlo 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gelbard was one person, who seems like said that. How relevant is it now to label KLA as terrorist, when it IS not in the list of terrorist groups of US dept of State.?We are talking about TODAY! There was no personal attack here. You are prone to reverting, and "Metohija"nizing the article for some reason. Give us some facts instead.

First source, excuse me but in the Senate there are pro-Serbian groups, as are pro-Albanian ones. Ilir pz 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another source. I include this one from Australia. http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990412kladruglinks.php --Manojlo 18:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we go another (oops Russian professor's opinion) 'credible' source. Ilir pz 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he is Rusian? That makes his oppinion irrelevant. You must be right.

Relevant is only oppinion of the Americans. Specially Americans who are working at Federal Goverment. That's why I cited Gelbard opinion, who was Bill Clinton's special envoy for Balcan.--Manojlo 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevant is the opinion of the Russian govt, not a single (and personal) article of a Russian professor of Economy (by the way). And the Russian govt in Contact Group meetings clearly stated that "Any solution to the status of Kosovo should not be against the will of Kosovo's (majority) population" So, indeed it matters. I know who Gelbard is, and I know what he is doing now even. What I asked you was, to find a US Dept document where KLA IS listed as terrorist. Clearly you speculated.Ilir pz 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So, everything is irrelevant: oppinion of US goverment official, oppinion of Russian (it seems to me that Ilirpz have problem with Russians) professor, opinion of many others. Google will give another examples. I provided three relevant links, and I do not plan to meet another demands of Ilirpz before he meets the fact that the oppinion of KLA as terror organization, close to same islamistic fundamental groups are very common. --Manojlo 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

)))) Terrorists are those individuals that terrorized civillians. You can NEVER have me say that whole KLA was terrorist. NEVER. I know many of them who fought with KLA and protected civillians from Serbian paramilitary, police, and military terrorist groups. Ilir pz 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not trying to say anything to you. Your oppinion is also relevant, but here, at discussion page. For article we must concetrate on opinions of Robert Gelbard, Russian professor, US Congress comitee (three references I cited). I will be glad to read any other your opinion, Ilirpz. --Manojlo 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

)))) Thanks for showing me the place where I can express my opinion, and where not, GOD. Welcome to my ignore list. I will never reply to you anymore. Get cured of nationalism first then come here. 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not enjoying the privilege being on your ignore list. You are still vandalizing my discussion page. Have a nice day, all three in one, --Manojlo 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's being discussed here, but Manojlo's edits are inappropriate, inserting deficient spellings, insisting on using the POV term "Kosovo and Metochia/Metohia" and making a claim I cannot understand. Telex 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Telex, I did my best to report the abovementioned revert warrior. Hope he/she gets blocked soon. Ilir pz 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Ilir, Putin said that the solution to Kosovo problem should be accepted by Belgrade as well as Pristina. And another thing, why is it so hard for you to admit that KLA is a terrorist organization?

Gianni ita 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Gianni. Here is what Putin's representative in Contact Group meeting in January 2006 said, in one of their conclusions:

"Ministers look to Belgrade to bear in mind that the settlement needs, inter alia, to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo. The disastrous policies of the past lie at the heart of the current problems. "

I cannot claim that all Serbian troops are terrorists either. There were people who committed crimes amongst them, those are terrorists. KLA members who did crimes I am not protecting here. I despise them even more than the Serbian terrorists. It cannot be expressed clearer from my side, I said this thousands of times. Not sure why I am answering to you, who called me "ridiculous Albanian"Ilir pz 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you say that the KLA is terrorist army then you can say (In Serbian articel to) that the Serbian army, police are terroris and they was finenced from crime, prostitucion and human transport (see the chines peopel in Serbia), tabak (cigaretts) crime in Europe. About that you can see many TV Documentation from BBC, ZDF, arte

Antike

Les start with Antike, Ilir and PANONIA please make that this source comes to the secend part of the history beacose for the first part we mos late a place for the time befor the Antice (iron age). With a litel time I am going to bring you arkelogie documentatition.

---

It is likely that the region of Kosovo has been inhabited by Illyrian tribes since the Bronze Age ¹. In ancient times the area has been known as Dardania and was settled by a tribe with the same name. The south of Kosovo ² was ruled by Macedonia since Alexander the Great's reign in the 4th century BC. The local Dardani were of Illyrian or Thracian stock. Illyrians organised resistance against the Greeks and Romans for centuries but after the long wars of Illyrian tribes against intruders, the region was later occupied by the Roman Empire under Emperor Augustus. When the Roman Empire split in A.D. 395, the area of Kosovo came under the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. Dardania gave numerous leaders to both Rome and Constantinopolis. Justinian the Great was among them.

---

1. .before that time for the moment is good to say from time we know and no sice the Broze Age
2. .it must be the south of Dardania See the Dardano-Makedonian or Bardyllis-Filip Wars near to the today borden of Macedonia and Greece

• Polybii Historiae ed L.Dindorfio, vol I-V. Lipsiae in aedibus B.G.Teubneri, 1882-1924

• Historiarum Philippicarum from Pompei Trogi boock VII, VIII, IX,

boock XXVIII (prolog) See: How after the death of the King of Epir, Alexander the epirots kill Laodama and how the King of Macedonia, Demetri was betet from the dardans.

boock XXVIII (prolog) See: The war of Filip agains the dardans and etolians. Filip has maked war agains the dardans, iliriens and again etoliens wich was supportit from romaks.

• Q. Curti Rufi Historiarum Alesandri magni Macedonis, boock qui supersunt iteru recensuit Edmundus Heidicke, editio maior. Lipsie in aedibus B.G.Teubneri 1908

Boock I:/12 ...This king was death, after hi has livedt more than 90 years; his son, Klit thinking that Aexander was bisy with wars with folks away from river Istrie and thinkin that the time is gut to atack him, in year 335 b.c hase maked a aliance with Glaukus (Ilirien King of the taulati folk) and with his folk has startit atacing Alexsander.

from Hipi

I can hardly understand this. But, Daco/Thracians should be mentioned as early inhabitants of Kosovo. The distinction (if any) between them is hard or imposible to find.

User:Asterion Tell me in wich document you have findet that dakian have be lived in Dardania area? I remember from a document wich is sayin that from here (dardania) was createt the Dakian volk. Also my view from here and the ather "Pela" area was createt the dakian folk wich from language and the cultur was more influentit from dardanians and paionen. Dardanen and Paions together have maked wars agains the makdonian and the arrivet barbars from the east-north.

For Constantinopolis should stay Byzantium. And, what is the purpose of wrong citing Curtius Rufus and Polybios? Hipi can not speak nor read Latin or Greek. How he is citing text he does not understand?--Manojlo 09:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Scordisci, as ancient inhabitants of modern Kosovo are totaly missed. I also added that tribes from Kosovo were waging war against Roman province of Macedonia. --Manojlo 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In Midle Age section of our aritcle I made few points concerning Byzantine rule and Serbian advance. --Manojlo 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How you see I don speac so gud english, and samtimes I use tha latain name, but you are useng the wrong names and term. Scordisci has never wrot samthing about Kosovo oe Serbs. Lern to se the things withaout influence of this time.

Who mentioned Serbs? Relax. I am just claiming that Scordisci were inhabitants of Kosovo and they were from Kosova attacking Roman province of Macedonia. For the purpose, article from wikipedia, Scordisci will be enough. Two citations from that article:

1. Their (Scordisci) tribal name may be connected to the name of the Scordus mountain (Šar mountain) which was located between Illyria and Paionia. 2. Nevertheless (Scordisci), they still from time to time gave trouble to the Roman governors of Macedonia, whose territory they invaded in combination with the Maedi and Dardani.

--Manojlo 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe or not maybe, you have Barthylis without maybe. He has maked war agains the Filip. The troubel wich you are sayin has come after the roman aristroaci dieden give the dardanian aristrokraci the promisses wich they have maket. It can be that this part of aristrokaci was called in this name but we dont have a document about that. After the romaks army destroit the power of the macedonien army they have disedit that this area is gonin to be seperetet in four administrative areas wich have some ekonomikel rights After the romans govermant in this part (Dardania) diden maket reallity they promisses it was some troubels ther. You can say that troubel makers was somthing else but that was the risen of the troubels. How they have called the troubel makers I dont know, but they was the Dardanian. Dont forget to take a land from sombody is not mean thet you are going to keep that. It cost more energy to keep that to take the land from sombody. -- Hipi Zhdripi

Pleace watch out, and dont mix one part with the folk. Beacose the triebers is comming and going but the folk is going to be ther all the time. Our we are going to have a document wich is saying that this folk it was removit from this place to anothe place -- Hipi Zhdripi

Watch this map and you are going to see that somthing is wrong hier [15] (Watch the serbs who speek alnanian L. hahaha that is crasy how cane I acspleyn you, beter the asimilation politik, think a litel, during the ottomans ther was no albanian school, in moshe was no anlbanian L. how they speek a abanian L, How?). This is coming from propaganda in past and now the world hase problem and complicedet situation beacose of such propaganda. I have saide to you the peopel down there, they have oven cultur and now is the time in wich for the word is more importen wat is saying the folk, not wat is saying the triebers or church. In kosovo are liven since generations this folk, mostly of them say that they fiel Albanians. Arond Kosovo in Dardania region in nord-east the folk it was deportit to Kosovo (See Toplica after the war agains the Ottoman) and now the mix folk of the area arond Toplica is saying thet they are a Gorani folk. But the serbian propaganda triebers are saying that they are serbs. They are traing to create a nation and asimelete the old folk in Balkan. This has a name, and this name about this peopel is "NATIONALIST". And wat is more unbelevebel they are saying that this NATION is coming only from one folk "SERBIANS" . The solution of that time from the main powers it was [16] but the problem now is that the Serbs are saying that the folk in this area it was serbian folk??? Even that they diden have a power to asimilet this folk. And now in year 2006 they are traing to make the same politik.

Serbian Kosovo and Montenegrin Metohija

Serbian captured Kosovo and Montenegrin annexed Metohija

Can anyone explain why the "captured" and "annexed" were repeated once more? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Telex 16:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Capture and annexation are not neutral terms. They should be avoided, i.e. they are serving here for political purpose of underlaying Serbs as invadors. The historical truth is quite different. Instead of word "capture" a sentence like "Serbian advance" would be much proper.--Manojlo 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is taht the two words should be entirely left out. It has already been mentioned in 1912 that the Serbians conquered Kosovo and the Montenegrins Metohija, so why repeat it here again (and creaty a rather falty grammaticly sentence)? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So Serbs were invaders. What is wrong with words "annexed" and "capture" to characterize an "advance" of some external forces on some territory? from Merriem-Webster dictionary annexed means "to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state" and capture means "an act of catching, winning, or gaining control by force" These two words best describe that move in that particular year. Those parts were captured, taken by force from a ruling force previously in Kosovo, and annexation means that territory was added to what was Yugoslav Empire. What IS really the problem? Ilir pz 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree. But what to put instead? --Manojlo 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Atenchen if you use the term serbs than you are saing the serbs als folk. That is meaning that this area was atactic from the serbian folk. Example Iraq was atactik from the USA arm that is not meaning that Irak is atactik from USA folk. The secend user of term is meaning that now the Iraq is full populetit with US folk. Even if this area is going to be under the US control for more than 200 years the peopel ther are going to be Iraqiens. Is not so easy to asimiet this folk beacose they are arounnd with the other cultur and not with US cultur. Today is that perhaps more easy (with TV and media). If you user in wrong place the term then you are going to make the confusion. - Hipi Zhdripi

Brankovic's territory

From my user page discussion: Brankovic's territory in kosovo articel wat is that. Give us a document wich is accepti als soch area from both sides. I mean fro the serba an the ottomans. I can say thet the teritory in Afganistan is HIPIs teritory but that no body is going to accept. How do you think only beacose is no document about the war area in afanistan I have the right to say that --Hipi Zhdripi My answer: Brankovic territory: it is easy to explain. In the 14th centuary, the territory of modern Kosovo and Metohija was not an entity. On the other hand, Brankovic's territory was situated in Metohija, which is only one part of modern Kosovo and Metohija. --Manojlo 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean that from serbian propaganda this territory it was namet Brankovic territory? - Hipi Zhdripi

Uhh, what are you talking about regarding the Brankovics? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you, Zhdripi, re-formulate your question? I can't understand.

This Brankovic terrior it can be only the inter term in serbian propaganda. Like the term of Metohia. Can you give use the document in wich sambady else (not basid in serbian documents) says that this teritory is called Brankovic. I wery sorry but you are maken only propaganda even if you are readen somthing abot this territory. You can put tausen of term how this area was called from the peopel there but you are saying nothing. Hipi hase called this area Hipis territory, Manojlo has called this area Manjolo... at the End you are doing nothing only you are traing in every way to say that this teritory it was everytime full of Serbian (todays) peopel. If the Brankovic has maked wars there you can not say that this territory it has ben called Brankovic teritory for the res of the World. The Rusian has maked a war at Afganistan and now we must say that this teritory it was called with a rusian oficer name? The peopel who leaves, work and eat in Kosovo was not asimiletet and this peopel they are saying that they are dardanians even if this territory it was ataced from many Kings (during this time the not asimiledit peopel has lived in hight regions). Asimileden with religion hase fauled, asimeden with schools hase faled. Now is the time in wich this folk is diseding his future. - Hipi Zhdripi

I got it. Zhipi thinks that calling one part of today Kosovo Brankovic's territory is Serbian propaganda, and he is, therefore, against that. Well, Brankovics family had a feudal, ancestral domain in one part of what is today Kosovo, to be more precise, Metohija. Therefore their feudal domain is comonly called Brankovic's territory. --Manojlo 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You can say that this folk is dardians, celts , dako, serbs, albanians or wat ever. That it was about your propaganda. We are traing to presant the histori of this geografical region with some words. The part of the history artikel it most be not so long. The Kosovo artikel now is the History of Kosovo. Way? sombody answer this quesqen? I can say only one word : propaganda from the peopel who wont to talle the rest of the Word this geograficel region it belong to my "nation". -- Hipi Zhdripi

---

---

This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians (Muslims) moved to Kosovo. During the Islamisation many Churches and Holy

You dot have a document that all the population of the Orthodox in this territory it was a Serb population. Till today you have peopel in Kosoo that are Orthodox and are not the Serbs. you dont have that right. You can say only that the Orthodox Church hase lost hese population (consumators). from the Orthodox they has taket a muslim religion, Sombody with force, sombody didnt wont to e a part of this Church beacose this Church hase startit to say hat is a part of the Serbian Church, sombody for economicel problems and sombady was a way of all this hapend and hase startitit to leve in tradicional way and art als Dardanians without bean a part of religion. This was not the firs religion conflict in this area. They have it this religion colflict beor betwen the west and ost Church. The best argument for this is a family in Kosovo in wich one brother is belong to the catolic and the ather to muslim and they live together in one residenc-- Hipi Zhdripi

At the End in this time it was no natio, it was only religion orthodox and islam (see the kosovars islam they have they oven way in Islam they drink alkohol)

Kosovo at the year 2006

You with your user account has presanting here the Kosovo 1000, but:

1. The term Kosovo in english it Kosovo 1999-2006
2. For the term Kosovo - Metohija you can make a article and put als History of the Kosovo.
3. The normal user in year 2006 (not nationalist user) is more interesing wat is happen after the bombing not wat was hapen after Brankovic marsh or wat ever he has don.
4. The user in year 2006 can read the history of Kosovo in this aricel and make a Image about the history of this region, and if the user wont more information he can link to the History of Kosovo. In this rticel the user is going to create a image about Kosovo: Prehistory, Dardanias,Iliryen,Rom,Bizant,Raska,Ottoman,Serbia,Albania,Yugoslavia,Kosovo today You dont have for each of this period to write the section wich is so details that is going to far to the private persons. -- Hipi Zhdripi

My new edits

Some of them were discussed. For instance, case of KLA labeling as terror organization: there are several references, cited in article, as well as in discussion page. Another example: case of Scordisci, or Daco/Thracian amalgam at Kosovo territory. Yet another: case of Brankovic's territory.

Of course, there are some items I haven't discussed, such as Leon Trotsky as communist, and Soviet propaganda attempts against Serbia (many czarist families (White Russians) were refugees in Serbia, so Soviet Russia regarded Serbia as enemy). Regardless of that, _Pravda_ was a official propaganda newspaper of Communist Regime in 1919, as well as 1979.

So, as a conclusion, if this version of Ilirpz is regarded as a compromise, Kosovo aricle should be protected. If not, I feel that I have right to revert my already discussed edits.

--Manojlo 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about KLA, go ahead try to defend your claims there. You discussed your edits with yourself only, so it does not give you any right to just revert. The article as it is currently (including the grammar mistakes I corrected now) is a result of lengthy discussion, that took several months. See archives for that. You cannot just pop up one day, and revert all the several months of work. Ilir pz 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Manojlo here is the History of Kosovo go there and discusse and do wat do you want. The aricel Kosovo is a geographiel articel. Good by. Talk and discusse with Ilir and disade the capter from articel History of Kosovo wich are more importen for Kosovo articel. -- Hipi Zhdripi

I am still waiting for somebody to seriously addres my edits.

They are mainly about:

1. Soviet propaganda in daily Pravda in 1919. (I have no reference for that, taking that as not deniable fact) 2. Robert Gelbard remark about KLA as terror group (3 refernces cited here, on talk page, as well as 1 reference in the article) 3. Scordisci in Kosovo in ancient period (reference, Wiki article about Scordisci, cited here, and link provided, too).

There are others edits of mine, and I am ready to discuss them as well.

--Manojlo 12:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also edited "See also" for a different historical periods: Kingdom of Yugoslavia, History of Medieval Serbia, etc.

SS Division Skenderbeg

I have to stress that user Ilirpz changed "henious crimes" of SS Albanian Division Skenderbeg to "crimes". Please, check his edits here:

19:58, 28 April 2006 Ilir pz (grammar and spelling mistakes fixed) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=50633676

It wouldn't be very big problem, but in the comment of his edit he wrote that he is correcting grammar and speling errors. Under "grammar corrections" I am not expecting to see some what could be minimization of attrocities of one SS Division. That is wrong way, Ilirpz, to defend your couse: one could suppose that you are reaedy to cheat, and to defend every Albanian cause in Kosovo, even when it is crimes of SS division in stake.

--Manojlo 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no nice crime. Thus derrogatives are not necessary here. ~If we continue so, then we should use 1000 derrogatives for Serbian crimes, and then the article will sound full of hatred, what you are intending to make it sound like, but I will not let you. Thanks for understanding. Ilir pz 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Manjolo I am Hipi, I dont know wich are you now but I know that you are the socerpupper and you are usen this account only to re-start the last Edit War. -- Hipi Zhdripi you know me well who I am.

One further reference for KLA as terror group

Following citation comes from KLA article from Wikipedia:

"The KLA's indiscriminate tactics led to the U.S. State Department adding it to its list of terrorist organisations."

And link, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army

--Manojlo 15:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia a link for wikipedia. That is what I call wisdom. 15:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If your claim is true, find THE source, US Dept release saying "KLA on this date was declared terrorist" I have nothing against adding THAT source in the text. Ilir pz 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, need for that: I have no reference that Kosovo battle was 1389. for instance. It is common knowledge that USDep. of State treated KLA as terror group. You can use Google, or click to any link I already cited (more than once)

--Manojlo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There IS need for that. Common knowledge does not work in Wiki. That is forum-way of thinking. Wikipedia is about backing your claims with real facts and credible sources. If you have no reference that Kosovo battle was in 1389 don't insert that information here then. Simple. Ilir pz 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help - the US indeed put KLA under the list of the terrorist organizations after that grave Pogrome - but contrarily, after bringing many leaders to the Hague War Criminal (regardless of them being released/sentenced), and transforming it to the Kosovo Protection Corps - it's just not the same thing. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can help with improving the text and have will and patience for moderating, HRE, please join the party. But I must stress another thing: the KLA is just one point of discussion here. My edits concerning Scordisci, Daco/Thracians in Kosovo, Brnakovic's domain, Leo Trocky, SS Division Skenderbeg, etc. have been reverted, without meeting any point explained here in discussion. --Manojlo 18:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the KLA was liberal or terrorist organisation here is ot importen. Every user can see that at KLA article. And now stop with souch thinks a start workin to short the historical part of this article. This is the geographicel article how we know and not the historical or wat ever else. Please start discussin who is interesting how to short the pat of the history. The presen ist more importen for this articel. In this article is nothing aout the geography butyis in Kosovo. Wat a but the Mirusha, Brezovica the River Black and Wite Drin. I think like PANONIA this article is going to be a geographicel articel. If you dont finde a sulusion Im going to do that with my broken english. Im going to let in this article only Kosovo at ... link to the History of Kosovo. Kosovo at ... lik History of Kosovo. For-fife sentens and god by, that is inof. Please discusse like a Wikipedian wich importen sentesn do you wont to present in this articel. Im loseng my control I taiert with you all. THIS IS THE GEOGRAPHICEL ARTICLE FOR THIS ARTICLE IMPORTEN IS THE GEOGRAPHI. Tung -- Hipi Zhdripi

The map

The map it must be in right seid. I diden see one articel in Wiki wich is more caos als this. I dont know wat has that to do with politic. -- Hipi Zhdripi

Demographic history of Kosovo

Demographic history of Kosovo. I dont know, and I m not interesting, but ther is not e place for that. You ca put that wen that so importen for all of you is, in the articel demgrafic of Kosovo. -- Hipi

Kosovo War

Hallo we have a article abot the Kosovo War. See : Kosovo War. Perhaps you want to make another articel from tis section.???? That section mus be delete and be short only to inform the user that it was the war ther and the intereting user can see there in Kosovo War wat you wat to say. -- Hipi Zhdripi

1. Ancient make one sentence and put in this article for the rest you must drop it to the History of Kosovo

1. Medieval make one sentence and put in this article for the rest you must drop it to the History of Kosovo

1. Serbian takeover make a articel or section in History of Kosovo but pleace go a way from here with that. And Albania takeover make a articel or section in History of Kosovo but pleace go a way from here with that.

1. Kingdom of the Serbs make a articel Kingdom of the Serbs, but pleace go a way from here with that
2. Kingdom of the Albanians make a articel Kingdom of the Albanians, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Serbian Empire and Despotate make a articel Serbian Empire and Despotate, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Albanian Empire and Despotate make a articel Albanian Empire and Despotate, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Viyalet of Kosovo make a articel Viyalet of Kosovo, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Viyalet of Kosova make a articel Viyalet of Kosova, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Modern make one sentence and put in this article for the rest you must drop it to the History of Kosovo

1. Kingdom of Yugoslavia and WWII make a articel Kingdom of Yugoslavia and WWII, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Kosovo in the Second Yugoslavia make a articel Kosovo in the Second Yugoslavia, but pleace go a way from here with that

1. Recent developments this is the History wich it must be hier. After a UN it was there.

Here it is more than 80% history, but you have forgetit it is a geograficel article. Good by. All of you wich thinks that in this page you cane dromp you nationalist idea and history.

And all this sections has to do with the part of the presend day of Kosovo. The history of this teritory how it is now is short history. During the Antice and Medvia Time in serbian literatur Kosovo it was only the feeld around Prishtina called now Fushë Kosova. Pleace dont mix that with presend day of this territory.

A short history of Kosovo Present-day Kosovo becomes part of the Ottoman Empire in 1389. The Ottomon Empire establishes in 1877 a separate vilayet (province) of Kosovo. In 1912 Kosovo is incorporated into Serbia, and follows its history. In 1941 Kosovo is occupied by Italy, that annexes it to Albania. In 1944 the area is re-incorporated into Yugoslavia, that forms in 1945 the Autonomous Kosovo-Metohija District and in 1963 Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and in 1968 the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. Serbia strongly acts against autonomy in Kosovo and revokes autonomy in 1989. The province is renamed Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija in 1990. The Albanian community in Kosovo proclaims Kosovo in 1990 as a federal unit within Yugoslavia, but outside Serbia. In 1991 it declares itself independent as the Republic of Kosovo. This is not recognized by Yugoslavia. Ibrahim Rugova of the Lidhja Demokratike e Kosovoës (Democratic League of Kosova, LDK) becomes the first president of Kosovo in the underground in 1991. The repression of the Albanese leads in 1999 to a foreign occupation and the establishment of an international administration of Kosovo in 2000. Serbia still claims Kosovo as part of Serbia. The United Nations appoint UN Administrators since 1999, who act since 2000 as Chairmen of the Interim Administrative Council. Kosovo becomes a parliamentary democratic entity in 2001. Since 2002 Rugova becomes president of the entity of Kosovo.

This is a short history wich is teling the history of the present terytory. The history is starting at 1877 after this teritor has taket his borders under this name.

The serb user

The serb user mus dised wich sentens they wont to let for Rashka time and Bisant. Not to long short please. I m going to wayt sam days. If you dont do Im going to do myself. -- Hipi Zhdripi

It is likely that the region of Kosovo in antike, has been inhabited by Illyrian tribes, Dacians and Thracians since the Bronze Age. In ancient times the area has been known as Dardania and was settled by a tribe with the same name. Around the first 100 years this region was a part of the Roman Empear. After thet it was a part of the east empear. +

till in year ? in wich the slaves have maket a indenpendent teritory from Bisant called Rashka and Zeta. After that this region it was under the ruol of the slavish folk till all this region was part of Ottoman Empire in 1389.

this sentens it muste beter formulirt but dont use the names of the folk wich was not uset that time.

A bunch of children!

I really can't believe how childish the behaviour is of people working on this article. Last night I made some minor changes to one section, seeking to improve the flow of text and the standard of English, whilst being watchful of a balanced viewpoint. But that's all been reverted a dozen times since, in only a few hours, by a bunch of children more interested in squabbling and scoring points off each other, than collaborating in producing a carefully considered, well-written encyclopedia article. This is just the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name, and quite rightly so. I see that some of you are even so juvenile as to remove any reference in the introductory paragraph to the province being considered, in law, part of Serbia. Is it really beyond the wit of you all to write something that clearly states the two main viewpoints, without having to "admit" that the viewpoint that is opposed to yours is "right"?

Supposedly this website is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda ministry. I only stumbled by accident upon the article section that I attempted to edit, and I would be quite happy to help work on the rest of the article as a disinterested party prepared to question arguments and asserted facts from either viewpoint, but there's clearly no interest here in your working together for the common good, for the benefit of all, and the attitudes on display here are extremely unwelcoming and non-inclusive. This article doesn't "belong" to the Serbs, it doesn't "belong" to the Kosovar Albanians; no ethnic Albanian or Serb will be brought back from the dead, no-one will have their property restored to them, no-one will have their homeland un-invaded or un-terrorised by dint of arguing over ill-written edits to this website.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the whole business. You all need to grow up, the lot of you!
Silverhelm 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

juvenile ay?? I heard this once....hmmmm Someone liked this word...Ilir pz 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, why are you arguing about the history? And what's that Albanian Empire you mentioned? This time, I have absolutly no idea what you're talking about. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor you are my best argument. You have lost the realyti. This article is not a place in wich sombady wont to present the view of history or his propaganda. This article is about the Kosovo and all this history wich is put it here friom both sides it hase nothing to do with Kosovo articel but the Hoistry of Kosovo or History of Serbia. You have maked this aticle to 80%history. What the you want to say with this large histor. Wat are you traing to say with that? Thet Kosovo it was a part of Serbia? I cant understand in wich artikel in Wikipedia is the teritorial (geographicel) articel to 80% history and 15 % links. And you wont to tale me that you dont have a nacionalist interes. Watch the PANONIA work and lern haow is belong to a Wikipedian to work here. Im not saying that you must dromp your point of view, but please dont forget the realty that this is Wikipedia and not a Kosovo batel at Wikipedia. In this aricel is more about the History of Serbia als in the articel History of Serbia???? Wat shod I think about you than. That you are a wikipedian???? Sorry, but I can not think in this way beacose your work dont let me to think in this way. And the answer of your quesqen what's that Albanian Empire you mentioned? This time, I have absolutly no idea what you're talking about. When the peopel go a way from reality the start to dream. I dont know wat is that and wrilli I dont wont to know. Bacose of that make wat you wont in the articel wich you thing that they must be presantit in Wikipedia, but pleace dont trai to make from this articel a "War area", this is a Kosovo article and here must be a short history.

During the ottoman Kosovo it was under Serbia

[17] Manjolo weck up. It can be that Serbia was under the Kosovars triebers perhaps? hhahahah. Weck up my son, only weck up, dont dream so much. Alittel quesqen in this coinsident Wat was hapend during the arriveal of the slaves in Balkan with the Bisantin Church in Kosovo? Our perhaps was ther NO Church after the 600 years under this Religion? In same articel you are presanting the serbs als Great Serbs wich destroidt the Bisantin and Poore Serbs wich have lost the winit land: Wer do you wont to go today with this PALAVRA (You have forgotit to do like your grend father Orthodox Serb wich speek albanian lanuage.. hahhah)?

NEW PALLAVRA

1. Alexander the Great was in Prishtia and has let ther to make a Statu.
2. The borer betwen Kosovo and Grecce it was full of soldiars (ther are 1000 km betwen kosovo and grece wich live atere the errytory of Macedonians or in Epir )
3. After the slaves crose Danub in the 6th-7th century, Serbs have maked a state in the 6th century in Pizren
4. The albanian langeage is coming from the Serbien langueage , and the stupied albanianes from old grecee language the term Vukan (serbien L. Vuk=Wolf) have meaked Uku (albanian L (gege dialect). Uk=Wolf). How I said the old langueage in Balkan has taket a term from new commers. And the old balkaners they dident wontit to be a old inabeters but they disedet to be a New Commers Servians (Servis).
5. Vojislavljević/Vojislavljeviq also Voja (albanian (gege dialect) Voji=Oil) has disdit to be a servis of the slavs and for that he take the name vić (albanian viq= veal Buffalo)
6. John (Jon old tradicional grecce) Jon in albanish is mining "Ouers" jem (mein), joti (yours), joni (ouers) See the See Jon at the Albanian and Greece
7. For more pallavras we most make a new articel becose the list of pallavras is goig to by to long.

---

Sorry, Voja in albanian L, Gege dialect it means "Egg" and the Oil it seams so like a substanc of the Egge and from Voja (feminin) have maked Voji (maskulin). How I say Pallavra can do ever body. And till today the Kosovars use the world for oil "voji i zi" itt means "black oil" or to understen better the Black Egg.

Dont forget the Dardanians/Kosovars was headet from Bisant beacose they have givet so many right to the Slavien peopel or how they called at that time the "Servis peopel" wich was a group from "shkau-folk" the tradicional grecce L. or now in new albanian L "shkije". Shkau it was the folk wich the rest of the Word know with the name Balkanian Slavs. Justian has startit to let the peopel from this folk to "serve" in army. After his daeth the rest of Bisant has stopit this proces but in the place from wich Justian commes the peopel from "shkau"-folk has servet till they have startit to dominait after Stefan Dushan. After Dushan they have startit to say for the Dardanians that they are servers who speek albanian. And now please go to your pope and give him a quesqen "I am Serb, who I am ,Pope" he is going to tell you the truth.

Hipi User

Hipi, Ich bitte Sie der englischen Sprache nicht so viel Schaden zu tun. Wenn Sie Probleme mit Rechtschreibung haben, versuchen Sie bitte sie zu lōsen, sonst kōnnen wir Sie nicht verstehen. Danke.

Hipi, please don't harm the English language any further. If you have problems with grammar and spelling, please try to solve them because we cannot understand you. Pleasant regards. --- C-c-c-c 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi ignore inflammatory comments. Try to make your point, with whatever level of English you have. Ilir pz 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir Pz, stop speaking for other people, and let Hipi speak for himself. The comments were not inflammatory but a kind suggestion. If you did understand the German above (maybe you did) I was being extremely polite, something that is much more difficult to do in the English language.

Also, if you really personally want to know why I did get offensive in your talk page, was because of you're ignorance. I'm sorry for being rude, so don't take every comment I write from now on as being one. I don't care what the US State department says, whether they say the KLA is an extremist organization or not is not the issue. Since when has confirmation of the US government on a matter been the entire world's opinion? Personally, I think the Americans should on they're side of the ocean. You obviously see things first hand living in Kosovo, and if the KLA is indeed what it says it is (an army) that isn't federally funded, but a collection of people who want to induce harm, then obviously are not dealing with professional soldiers who get paid to do their job, but extremists.

I don't have a problem living with an Albanian/Bosnian/Croat and anything else. I've had Bosnian and Croat classmates, a Slovene teacher, ( currently residing nowhere near a huge ex-Yugo population, and I'm 16). The problem I have is KLA extremists and others burning down and destroying 12th, 13th, and 14th, century churches that are supposed to be protected under UNESCO. Why should a people be given independence and have their land if they're just going to go destroy anything they don't like it, because now it's "theirs"? It is sacred to Serbs and should also be for Albanians and everyone else who lives in Kosovo. Obviously the minority populations will suffer, and not vice versa, if Kosovo should become independent. Every non-Albanian home, place of worship, business will be ripped to shreds or taken over. As it is obvious in this video of a [| Church burning], it is Albanians who are doing it, and just not radical members, but the entire place came out to see this spectical. You are already in power of everything, what else would you like, if minority members have to be escorted to go shopping for fear of some KLA attack, they will have to leave in fear. If you can tone that down to just extrememists, and a small minority of the population, then people will take you serious. C-c-c-c 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

C-c-c-c, I am Hipi for some minuts, I am goig to be your "ECHO" c-c-c-C (We all know wat is meaning CCCC), thanks that you presant again your point of view. For the English user CCCC the 4-C in serbian L. stand for the motto Only the Union Save the Serbs witch was used from serbian nacionalist and war crimes during the first, secend World War and first, secend and therd Balkan War.

"ECHO"

• The problem I have is C-C-C-C extremists and others burning down and destroying (killing) 12th (baby 12th old), 13th (baby 13th old), and 14th (baby 14th months old), century monuments that are supposed to be protected under UNESCO (OSCE). Why should a people be given independence and have their land if they're just going to go destroy (killing) anything they don't like it, because now it's "theirs"?

• [Church burning](Moshe in Belgrad was not Albanian Moshe), it is Albanians (Serbians) who are doing it, and just not radical members, but the entire place came out to see this spectical.

• then people will take you serious *C-c-c-c (after they know wich massaker under the C-C-C-C name was maked)

Sorry, you are usen for exampel the user name Coca-Cola and traing to say the peopel: dont dring Watter becose I have a video in witch from that watter it was maked Pepsi. Nice propaganda, wery nice, but not succesfull. I am not a Pepsi, Im Hipi

The 11 Reasons

Seriously, I'm not being rude, but what are you trying to say? What I understand from that is:

1. I'm a nationalist. (I'm 16, haven't been there since..I was two. I worshipped Germany; the soccer team albeit; when I was young. I lived there, came here (Canada), became Canadian, got pissed off when the Canadians lost to the Russians in world junior hockey, started reading the Internet, then based my opinions( On world War II mainly, obviously reverted my views of Germany and began supporting my fellow Slavs).

2. That the video is actually Serbs burning an Albanian mosque?

Confused, since obviously it's a church, and it's obviously Albanians (note the red flags with the eagle everywhere).

3. That Pepsi is water. (it is mostly, so I agree)

4. That you obviously prefer Coca-Cola *(Rock On!) I've changed my mind, Pepsi has less caffeine, or so I think. Caffeine promotes irresponsible behaviour and rapid nationalism, avoid Coca-Cola Hipi, for all of us.

5. That the video is somehow propaganda for Serbs (filmed by an Albanian news station, because I couldn't understand them, and no non-Albanian would live two seconds there without being hung).

6. That it was me who posted your post. (Please refrain from using my signature or use a compatible word document processor with spell check, please show sources when locating this software to calm readers down)

7. That Serbs were large perpetrators in World War I, World War II, creating mass murders right under the noses of: Germans, Hungarians, Austrians, Croatians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Bosnians, and Italians while fighting back the invadors with one hand and killing helpless puppies with the other as the Greeks kept their trousers up.

8. Choosing the CCCC as a user name should make me ashamed and spill over with crocodile tears, ship them to Israel, in hopes of refilling the Dead Sea.

9. That CCCC has one, and only one defined meaning. ( I beg to differ, I support THE CCCC!!!. Thank you, dear professors at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, for making my minimum four years of college in the ugly future a certain living hell. I'm sure spending 10 grand a year will make me swell up with pride only to realize my job got outsourced, to the "other"' CCCC group, formally known as the Cheap Chinese Computing Company.

10. That CCCC, in Latin letters are SSSS. True, but not in this case. Refer to here, the real meaning.

I like it, do you agree? Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileusin. Sounds way more macho, "King of kings, ruling over kings". Wouldn't you pick the second, duh? I would, so I did!

11. That "CCCC extremists", who are outnumbered 20-1 perform child snatchings in the dead of night in Kosovo for "CCCC experiments". Yes I agree, the "CCCC", or formally known as the Culinary Cooks Confederation of Churches", experiment. Apparently Albanian children are world-renowned in the art of creating delicacies, we Serbs are just too jealous, lazy, damn hungry and cook like Britons, I guess.

Or is it because all our utensils were stolen....and they can cook without them? I personally think we should go with China in the future. Utensils or no utensils, chopsticks are made easily and readily available, now how do you use them? Hmhm no idea.

However, with regards to chopsticks: CONVERT THE MASSES! Like with the Bosnians just religion in their case. I'm sure King Lazar wouldn't turn over in his grave for this one after what happend with the Bosnians. You know, the "Golden Fork King"? No? Shucks.

I will meet up with my Balkan government buddies and ratify a new border, between the utensil communities and the chop stick communities to hinder any chance of warfare, because of the great, ethnic, and cultural differences which have previously caused great disturbances. Eating methods are just to damn diverse to keep peace! Ah It's 1:00am central time, homework time. C-c-c-c 06:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wat I'm trying to say? I'm tired with propagand (and PALLAVRA) from both sides. From my propaganda and PALLAVRA too. But I'm wait if sombody from the sys/burocrats give PANONIA and Ilir right to make the Kosovo project. -- Hipi zhdripi

What, don't find any of this remotely funny? Also you are blocked, shouldn't you not be here? C-c-c-c 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New articles

I just started 2 new articles:

• Serbs in Kosovo
• Albanians in Kosovo

You all are welcome to improve these articles. My idea is that these two articles could be solution for this revert war about Kosovo article. Article "Serbs in Kosovo" should be about history of Serbs in Kosovo and should be based on Serbian POV, article "Albanians in Kosovo" should be about history of Albanians in Kosovo and should be based on Albanian POV, while "Kosovo" article should be neutral and not based on any POV. What you think about this? PANONIAN (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, we will have two POV-ised articles and besides, there is nothing there that should not be put here. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, POV or NPOV, these two articles should exist, should be improved by who ever want to improve them, and should be focused on culture and history of these two ethnic groups. When I said that these articles should be based on Serb and Albanian POV, I meant that they should deal only with history and culture of one of these two ethnic groups, and therefor, the question whether to write more about Serbian or Albanian history in the "Kosovo" article would be solved by writting these histories into two separate articles. PANONIAN (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but we should keep it mixed. Culture should be in one article (preferably this if Culture of Kosovo doesn't get created). If the History's too big, just create seperate articles on Kosovo's history.

My fear is that both articles would be too POV and actually create two more Edit War Battlegrounds (next to this one) rather than anything else - is that really what you want? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, revert wars will last with this intensity only until the final status of Kosovo is solved. I believe that we will have good articles related to Kosovo after that and these 2 new articles are place where some things from Serb and Albanian history will have to be moved from "Kosovo" or "History of Kosovo" articles if we want them NPOV. So, I created these articles as a place where some parts of the other articles could be moved instead to be simply deleted. You will see what about I talk when the time come. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your initiative Panonian. I think plenty of parts from the main page here should be moved to history. I already proposed that to HRE. There is more history here than anything else. I was going to propose something that would definitely stop the revert war: make two separate articles, Kosovo(the Serbian point of view) and Kosovo(the Albanian point of view) and let people express whatever they want to add there. All will be aware that those articles are not neutral. In the meantime the main article will only include basic information, and has links to redirect to those two articles? How about this? This would still be of temporary nature, until the status is resolved, and we enrich the main text after that.

I cannot agree more with you that all this propaganda and revert war will be stopped once the final status of Kosovo is solved. Not only because of this war, but many other reasons, I am one of those that cannot wait for that to happen. I hope that HRE, with the "we should keep it mixed" doesn't mean that Manojlos and similar will edit the "Albanians in Kosovo" big time. Greetings, Ilir pz 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Churches

Here is, a [| full list] of 74 Serbian Orthodox churches, with name, location, severity of damage, method of destruction, and photos destroyed in a 5 months period throughout Kosovo (as of 2000). Please don't try to challenge this unless you go to these 74 locations, take pictures, and come back with something else.

Funny, in this same article we find the "highly debated" quote that Robert Gelbard made....

"In 1998 Robert Gelbard, the State Department's Special Envoy to the Balkans, said, speaking for his government:

'The UCK is, without any questions, a terrorist group.' (Agence France Presse, 23 Feb. 1998)"

I will see if I can contact Agence France Presse, and confirm this just for you naysayers. I don't know how successful I may be, or I may ask someone else, since I do not have the required resources at hand due to my age, or time as exams are coming up for me. Obviously, I admit, this is not a very neutral article, the link up there is not pro Albanian, but the those facts cannot be denied. The list is there, and so is the quote. The comment was quoted a French newspaper, which Albanians may say have a pro-Serbian view on the matter. But these are the facts, and as I've said before, I don't care what Robert Gelbard says, but here it is just to show you that Manojlo and others; have not just made up this quote out of thin air. Whether he says they are an extremist organization, or not, I don't care, as I've said before, because I can obviously see what the | UCK does (as is see in the religious icon at the top). C-c-c-c 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hipi Zhdripi is a user account wich is traing to finde the soulution for the articels about west Balkan. Beacose of his work agains the persons wich are puting the oil in fire, he is blocked. If you are going to be a Serb nacionalist, he is going to be a Kosovo nacionalis. That is going to the infinit of time. Beacose of that please dont dromp the oil in fire. Trai to understend the peopel down there. Image the situation. You have a wife, she has a baby in her stomak, 8th month, one day came at your home serbian paramilitary with the simbol CCCC, they kill your wife, take a baby from her stomak and play fotball with the baby in your garthen and you must see that game. The paramilitars dot kill you, they let you a live to go to the religion haus (nothin, nothing is going to help souch peopel, you can not stop this peopel with nothing, you must kill they. Do you wont that?). If you diden taket same drog or you have drinkit full of Raki evend if you are Serbian you are going to do samthing agains this paramilitars and you are going to be shame to youse the simbol of CCCC.

If the Kosovars are terroris, then UÇK is terroris folk movemend. In Serbian propaganda UÇK is a terrorist organistion but in Kosovo UÇK is a folk movmend. No one politice is craise to say that a folk movmed is a terroris movmend. You dont have to forget that.

Now you wont that Kosovo to be under this simbol CCCC. Wat are you dreaming. Weck up. we are living in year 2006. Is not the time in wich souch massaker was maked in the name of the kristianty from the masked CCCC. This massakers are make in the name of CCCC (Only union can save the serbans).

Every Church is Gods home. Way the serbian Church diden protect the peopel from souch massaker? The humal Logic, Church is protecting the peopel and the peopel protecing the Church it was not in Kosovo. Today of course the peopel don wont to protect this Church, is easy this Church has don nothig for this peopel all the time this Church has supportyt the Milosevic. The peopel who works in this Church was not the religon peopel but military peopel.

How many pristers are killed from serbian govermant?

---

Actually, yes it is the year 2006, in Christianity. I believe the Islamic calendar starts counting at AD 622, so technically, we're in the year, 1384. So Kosovo wasn't attacked, Columbus didn't make his voyage, and some of us still think the word is flat.

Today, the conflicts in the Balkans are not the same as in the time of Scanderbeg, nor as in the time of Holberg. The Albanians do not fight the Turks, on the contrary they cooperate in the military field. Furthermore, Albania is not involved in a religious or ideological strife between Muslims and Christians. And now, the agenda is to unite the European nations in the European Union for their common good - not to separate them.

Shouldn't you adhere to this calendar? Once again, I stress that CCCC as "Only union saves the Serbs", if I may quote HolyRomanEmperor, "newly and poorly thought out". C-c-c-c 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"ECHO\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Actually, yes it is the year 2006, in Christianity. I believe the CCCC calendar starts counting at AD 1912 and is not moving. In that time your grand father called the albanians \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"turkish\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and you are traing the same thing. You wont to user the kristianity names to make masaker? I m proud to be Albanian and I dont have to be a shame, I dont have to user no religion for maske. Here is my face [18] [19] . Wat do you want to do with Montenegros? They don wont to live anymore with your shame? You wount to calle they hindus in the name of CCCC?

---

Yes, and the list of those destroyed since the 1970s is 165.

I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve also found the list of all Serbian Orthodox Churches that existed ever on Kosovo - 1,667 of them. I will upload it one day.

---

Now you wont that Kosovo to be under this simbol CCCC. Wat are you dreaming. Weck up. we are living in year 2006. Is not the time in wich souch massaker was maked in the name of the kristianty from the masked CCCC. This massakers are make in the name of CCCC (Only union can save the serbans).

---

Buddy, find a source, then talk. Also I find Albanians are stuck in 1939 hoping for victory in the Balkans with the Fuehrer, Hitler made a puppet state in Croatia, and then Albania was made into a puppet state by Italians. The only reason it ever existed was to block of acesss by the Greeks to the Adriatic. Today the KLA is running about like the Albanian fascists of 1939, with their SS division killing off others. I don't care what you say, if you're country participated on the "WRONG" side in World War II, and let me clarify what the wrong side is, the wrong side is the murdering side that wiped out Serbs, Jews, Romas, other Slavs, and people of disability (the Albanian, German, Croatian, Bosnian and Italian sides for instance) Right, if you're on this side I have about as much respect for you're country as I do for murderers, because that's what you're people are in the end, crazed fanatics who murder. You participate in the greatest massacre of all time and then you have the courage to call us fanatics.

Echo time, my turn Hipi.

If the Albanians are terrorists, then KLA is a terrorist movement. In worldwide propaganda KLA is a terrorist organistion but in Kosovo they're our plumbers, electricians, teachers, nurses, who just happen to have AK-47's and rocket launchers lying around the home. No one is crazy to say that say KLA is a terrorist movement, they are our Serb-cleaning force, and sometimes we need more detergent to get rid of large dark smudges like this user. C-c-c-c 12:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If the Albanians are terrorists, then KLA is a terrorist movement.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Just read the words and logic of cccc. A perfect example that small Slobodan Milosevic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s are still alive in Serbia. No further comment. Ilir pz 13:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ahh, the power of the Internet. Right now I'm at school, getting past their filters hahaha, php proxies do great jobs, I wonder where my IP adress will be coming from. First Ilir pz, stop accusing me of being a little Slobo (I hate him, he did more bad then good even for Serbs), maybe I should emphasize the fact that what I said above was an ECHO of what your pal Hipi said, and the sentence you use to accuse of being such, is exactly the same as Hipi without the blatant disregard for spelling."If the Kosovars are terroris, then UÇK is terroris folk movemend." Maybe you're suffering from Hipiphobia, the phobia of understanding Serbs and the rest of the civilized world, or maybe you're just near-sighted, or maybe, and most likely, ignorant. Also, I am not little, and I am also not in Serbia, never even lived there for that matter. Maybe you do have hipiphobia, maybe should get that checked out. Pleasant Regards C-C-C-C 72.232.182.114 16:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, I am discussing with User:Ilir pz regarding the huge History section. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

CCCC?

Ah, Hippi, what do you mean by "AD 1912"??? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't know what he means, he takes my posts and switches words around because I guess it's easier that way, then to start from scratch. C-c-c-c 12:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you rather write history of Kosovo Serbs here: Serbs in Kosovo instead to fight revert war in the Kosovo article? I am sure that Albanian editors would not object that history of Kosovo Serbs is written in that new article, and we would have one nice article about Kosovo Serbs which will not be the subject of constant revert wars. PANONIAN (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Panonian. I hope that that article will not gather one-sided information, though, but will still be a neutral one, even if it deals with Kosovo Serbs only. Hope I mistakenly understood, but do you suggest Kosovo Serbs article is edited by non-Albanians only? And Kosovo Albanians article by Albanians only? a comment would be appreciated. Just to be on the safe side. Thank you,Ilir pz 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir pz, you are welcome to edit article about Kosovo Serbs if you want to improve it, but I only hope that you will not have reason to delete history of the Serbian people from that article. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The same I hope for the Kosovo Albanian site :). Regards, Ilir pz 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, knowledge knows no ethnicity :o) --Asterion ^{talk to me} 23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear I was wrong :) Ilir pz 23:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Panonian and Asterion, but I however, haven't changed anything in the article, (I'm not crazy enough, who knows who might want to stab me or something) but I've enjoyed myself and expressed my opinions on here and lots of evidence that no one seems to deny. Mhm, everything I've ever wanted in life. I hope you found the "11 Reasons" humerous to some extent. C-c-c-c 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to ask yourself what you want to achieve with those opinions, and whether they are relevant or not. The relevancy and credibility of sources is above all. I want to believe that you will change, just like did all of us. We all used to be arrogant and pushy of our opinions. Good luck in that, hope to see you in our "wikipedianized family" soon.Ilir pz 23:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure relevancy and credibility are important, so I've linked many things to prove that I wasn't lying, where as others, (mainly Hipi) talk about facts and figures without any sources. I've only been on Wikipedia a while, and it was mainly to use the Reference Desk for tricky physics problems I've been getting recently. I stumbled upon this, actually I've read a lot of discussion on many issues before but have never commented. I know that whatever I may say here will no where be close to making "inaccurate" changes in the article, so this way I can't really piss people off because I'm not ruining some work of theirs. Most of what I say is supposed to be a suggestion to take things easy, have some fun, and try to make your point. Remember many of you are old bearded men who have had their greyish hair turn into bright white because of late night fact checking episodes (just kidding). I have found imformation that nobody has yet refuted in this discussion, which is seemingly impossible I think, and so I hope that someone either finds something to disprove, or stop saying I am just trying to push my point of view. Thanks C-c-c-c 00:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not all gray haired, we are just (not a little) more experienced with the issue. Some (like me) had to live through most of the recent history of Kosovo. But nevertheless, I am impressed with your (non-grayish haired) 16yr old/new wisdom. Your changes are appreciated, as long as they have a point, and do not offend anybody, and are relevant. Again, not only for physics problems, but come back when you have useful information. I do remember you to have been pushy towards me personally, until I disregarded your comments completely. But I see some progress in you. Keep up with good work. Ilir pz 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Extreme right position as new item of Greater/Albanian propaganda?

There are some reasons to believe that certain users, defending their Greater/Albanian cause, went to far. I hope they will not continiously delete adjective "henious" concerning crimes of Nazi/Albanian SS Division Skenderbeg during the WWII. I hope that that users will see that it is tiny ice.

--Manojlo 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Manojlo, Kosovo is an geographical article and reference to any war crimes does not belong here. The one who want to write about any war crimes here obviously want to impose bad faith edits into article. I suggest that you write new article with name Kosovo in World War II where you can write about that, but this does not belong here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

fully agree, Panonian, I tried to explain several times. No need to accuse people who think the wikipedia way, i.e.with almost no nationalism, as defenders of Greater Albanian cause. Remember, that Great Albania cause is supported by very few in the world, let alone here, nobody. Ilir pz 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo Population Chart

The chart added by Ilir pz has some flaws which may be statistical, but I would like to point it out nontheless. In 1991 82% of the population was Albanian, 7% Serb, 5% other. This adds up to 94%. In 2000, it was 88% Albanian, 7% Serb, 5%. I know many times that most graphs add up to 95% or more, but generally don't go up 100 because of possible statistical errors. I don't believe however, that Serb percentage in 2000 was the same as it was in 1991. Also Ilir pz, I was wondering if you had any stats before World War II, as Tito forbade Serbs who left Kosovo during the war, to return. It would be interesting to see. C-c-c-c 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The chart was added by someone else, I just put it back when someone removed it without explanation. It seems to have quite a credible source (World Bank, if it is enough for you). I am not sure you are more an expert than World Bank statisticians, but nevertheless. Not sure about the stats before WW2. I am more curious to know where you got that info, that Tito forbade Serbs to do anything in Kosovo (until death of Rankovic, and later 1974, when Albanians got more rights).Ilir pz 11:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

CCCC, this tabel is speeken everything, it was maked from the must famos experts in the World. All the speculations with numbers from both sides was pull it down. To understen the tabel you dont need to know the history of Kosovo. Pehaps in Kosovo was commen peopel from Serbia, Albania but the number of this peopel is small.

From 1912 to 1991 the static of Kosovo it was used for propaganda. Each time sombody was using statistic to say that this is my folk (land). After 1991, Kosovo was under the eyes of UN. At this time all the statistics was watchit not only from one agensy but from UN.

Ethnic groups in Kosovo
Year	Albanians	Serbs(1.)	Others
1948	68 %	24 %	8 %
1971	74 %	18 %	8 %
1981	77 %	13 %	9 %
1991	82 %	7 %	5 %
2000(2.)	88 %	7 %	5 %
2005(2.)	92 %	4 %	4 %
(1.) including Montenegrins (2.) estimated data Ref: Statistical Office of Kosovo, World Bank (2000), OSCE (2005)

Wiht Drin

A litet brack from militay history of Kosovo.

Wiht Drin is (quelle) in the High Land Rusolisë. The Drin river gets sam smallers rivers like Lumbardhi (Peja and Prizren) and Ereniku in Gjakova and together with the Blac Drin they go to the in Adriatic see near Lezha. In Kosovo the Wihte Drin has 122 km and 340 m³/sek watter. [20]

I know I dont know o write in english but this is importen. You must take the data: Withe Drin, Black Drin, quelle High Land Rusolisë near Peja, in Kosovo 122 km with 340 m³/sek watter. -- Hipi

Demographics

I think that the estimates are a little unbelievable. The Albanian population more than doubled in the past few actions:

In 1948 there were 498,242 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija, forming 68.46% of the population, 171,911 Serbs forming 23.6% and 28,050 Montenegrins or 3.9%.

In 1953 there were in Kosovo and Metohija 524,559 Albanians (65%); 189,869 Serbs (23.5%) and 31,343 Montenegrins (3.9%).

And in 1961 there were in Kosovo and Metohija 646,604 Albanians (67.1%); 227,016 Serbs (23.5%); 37,588 Montenegrins (3.9%) and 5,206 Yugoslavs (0,1%)

It seems that in the moment of fall of the Axis forces by the end of World War II in 1944-1946 there were around 190,000 Serbs in Kosmet.

According to the 1971 census for Kosovo and Metohija, there were:

• 916,168 Albanians (73.7%)
• 228,264 Serbs (18.4%)
• 31,555 Montenegrins (2.5%)
• 26,000 Muslims (2.1%)
• 14,593 Romas (1.2%)
• 12,244 Turks (1%)
• 8,000 Croats (0.7%)
• 920 Yugoslavs (0.1%)

According to the 1981 census for Kosovo:

• 1,226,736 Albanians (77.42%)
• 209,498 Serbs (13.2%)
• 27,028 Montenegrins (1.7%)
• 2,676 Yugoslavs (0.2%)

As you can see, neither the "Serbs" include the Montenegrins as said, nor are the censi on picture correct. Please remove the picture (also, it's missing several censi). --HolyRomanEmperor 11:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The 1991 census in Kosovo was slightly incorrect, since many (Albanians mostly) boycotted it:

• 194,190 Serbs
• 57,758 Muslims
• 44,307 Romas
• 20,365 Montenegrins
• 10,445 Turks
• 9,091 Albanians
• 8,062 Croats (Janjevci, Letnicani)
• 3,457 Yugoslavs

Here's the corrected:

• 1,596,072 Albanians (81,6%)
• 194,190 Serbs (10%)
• 66,189 Muslims
• 45,745 Romas
• 20,365 Montenegrins (1%)
• 10,445 Turks
• 8,062 Croats (Janjevci, Letnicani)
• 3,457 Yugoslavs

So - in 1995, when there were first major escalations of conflict accross Kosovo, Dr Huizi Islami of the Prishtina Demographic Department for Kosova calculated a wonderous 2,200,000 Kosovar citizens (compared to 1,956,196 in 1991; 1,584,558 in 1981; 1,243,693 in 1971; almost 900,000 in 1961; almost 750,000 in 1953 and some 725,000 in 1948).

This is Ismaili's 1995 estimate:

• Albanians - around 1,960,000 (89.9%)
• Serbs - around 140,000 (6.3%)
• Muslims - around 40,000 (1.9%)
• Romas - around 40,000 (1.9%)
• Turks - around 8,000 (0.3%)
• Montenegrins - around 7,000 (0.3%)
• others - around 5,000 (0.2%)

Although, Ismaili defined that here hiperinflated the number of Albanians listing ther all Albanians with Yugoslav citizenship - no matter their place of residing. So, the corrected census is that the population of Kosova couldn't've exceeded 1,700,000 inhabitants:

• Albanians - around 1,360,000
• Serbs - around 140,000
• Muslims - around 40,000
• Romas - around 40,000
• Turks - around 8,000
• Montenegrins - around 7,000
• others - around 5,000

In the heat of the ethnic clashes of Kosovo's War, the Federal Secretariat listed the population of Kosovo and Metohija in 1998:

• 917,000 Albanians
• 221,000 Serbs
• 97,000 Romas
• 72,500 Muslims
• 23,000 Montenegrins
• 21,000 Turks
• 3,500 Yugoslavs
• 980 Macedonians
• 23,000 others

And after the war, in 2000, the UN conducted a census in Kosovo - stating that the population's between 1,800,000 and 2,000,000; it was boycotted largely by non-Albanians:

• 88% Albanians (1,584,000 - 1,733,600)
• 7% Serbs (126,000 - 140,000)
• 3% Muslims (54,000 - 60,000)
• 2% Romas (36,000 - 40,000)
• 1% Turks (18,000 - 20,000)

The modern estimates are now 2,000,000 - 2,200,000. Although, the Albanian estimate is that there are 2,400,000 ethnic Albanians ofn Kosovo and the total population's ranging in 2,500,000 - 2,600,000.

I think that "boost morale by overwhealming numbers" has more influence here rather than truth. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing with numbers is not good, thus I disapprove it. To have an accurate estimation we should wait for the census that will be held soon in Kosovo. As of estimates, it is good to cite some credible source instead, not insert data speculated by some magazine, or data collected by an installed regime of Milosevic, or similar. 23:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my point. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Municipalities of Kosovo

I like the table that someone created but I have two concerns:

1. It does not really belong to the main Kosovo article as this is not common practice. It would be better placed on its own article and a link placed: "For administrative divisions see Municipalities of Kosovo"
2. It should list the place names in both official languages.

Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

last revert

Removing factual data is not a good thing, thus I restored it back. Predicting what the sides in the talks want is not a part of the intro, try to find a place elsewhere. What does the sentence "want it returned" mean? Thanks. Ilir pz 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answers:

• The version of intro that you prefer is both misleading (FRY does not even exist any more) and confusing (suddenly, government of Serbia appears as a factor, without Serbia ever being mentioned before).
• Detailed data can be in lower sections. There's no requirement for everything to be in the intro.
• We're not "predicting" what both sides want. Their position is well known and publicized.
• "Want it returned" means "it was once under their control, now it's not, they want it back". Perfectly plain English.

Zocky | picture popups 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answers to your answers:

• As we like to mention resolution 1244 too much in this article, then we should cite it as it is. In it there is no Serbia mentioned. What is confusing about the part I added? the govt of Serbia has a team in the negotiations. No need to ironize.
• What is detailed data for you? I think most information that one needs to know is in intro, apart from redundant mentioning and pushing about whom does de jure or historically Kosovo "belong(ed) to" (ironically, since it in fact belongs to its citizens).
• I don't mind the prediction, it just does not fit the intro. It could go in the politics part. Or is it there already?
• Thanks for the perfectly plain English, but "Want it returned" sounds as if you are talking about eggs someone stole from you, and not about a much more serious topic.

Best regards, Ilir pz 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article can "cite the resolution as it is" in the appropriate section.
• The rather long name of the resolution and a lengthy definition from it are "detailed data", which definitely does not belong in the lead paragraph, if at all in the intro.
• There is absolutely no mention of who Kosovo historically belonged to in my version of the intro. It just accurately and fully describes the current status of the territory.
• There is no prediction. Autonomy within Serbia/independence are publically stated official positions of both sides. If you have any source that has different information, please provide it.
• If you don't like the particular wording of Serbian governments position, simply fix it.

Zocky | picture popups 11:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• That IS the appropriate section, and any section should cite IT, as "it is".
• I do not like the name of the resolution, as well as its content, but will have to remain until a new resolution is approved. The length should not be a big deal.
• That is your point of view.
• Again the predictions on the status, and political wishes should not be a part of the intro.
• I am quite familiar with the wording of the position of the Serbian governments in history, one of them was even "Albanci preko prokletija". But still, it does not belong in the intro.

Learn to discuss first, in articles that are sensitive like this one, and then with consensus change it. You should not decided what is "better" and simply decidd to revert it to that. Regards, Ilir pz 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Can we please stop this? It's rather boring. You seem to be implying that I'm pushing Serbian POV or something, which is absurd given the content of both versions.

The intro you are prefering is still uninformative and confusing. It simply doesn't tell anything useful to somebody who isn't already familiar with the situation. It doesn't mention that it's mostly populated by Albanians, doesn't tell why it is administered by UN, and talks about negotiations without telling the reader that there is a disagreement. It's simply a bad introduction, and I don't see why I should need prior permission to make it better.

The appropriate section for detailed information about the current status of Kosovo, including UN resolutions, would be "Politics". The resolution could also be mentioned in the introduction, if mentioning it is so crucial, but in the first paragraph, indeed in the definition of what Kosovo is, it breaks the flow of text and is distracting and misleading. Kosovo existed before the UN resolution, right?

And please, let's stop with the charade about political wishes and predictions. We indeed can not and should not predict what the final status will be, or even when it will be determined. But we can and should report what the position of both sides is, indeed what the disagreement that makes negotiations necessary is.

I'm not sure, but it seems that for some reason saying that Kosovo is formally a part of Serbia seems to be the real problem. If that is so, say so, and we can discuss what, if anything, needs to be done about it. Zocky | picture popups 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

SANU memorandum

Ilir, if you read the memorandum, it does definitely not "call for the revival of Serb nationalism" or the like. On the other hand, it does criticise nationalisms as having a detrimental effect on Yugoslavia as a whole, because they divert the attention of the real economic problems of the time (IMF loans, lost of exports, reform needs,etc). The only "victimising" (and this is highly arguable too) is about the criticism of Slovenia and Croatia for their lack of solidarity regarding the poorer areas of Yugoslavia (specifically SR Macedonia and SAP Kosovo). It does indeed criticise the 1972 constitution for having given Kosovo an unclear position: Basically, it was a de-facto 7th republic but it was considered part of Serbia, with the consequence that the Socialist Republic of Serbia was left with the burden of developing the economy of Kosovo on her own (i.e. all companies in Serbia were required to take 10% of their wage fund and put it in a Kosovo Development fund), with little help from the two richer republics. A sort of half-cooked solution by Tito, which satisfied no one. Nevertheless, there were no calls for nationalism of any kind but criticism of this for its divisive nature. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

None in the Balkans ever admits that their memorandums inspire nationalism, or its revival. What is lacking from the sentence is the word "indirectly". That was indeed the memorandum that inspired nationalism among Serbs, if not directly, then indirectly. As at that point started the dissatisfaction of Serbs in ex-Yug level, and they began to request "more fair treatment of Serbs", which for Albanians later meant abolishion of the 1974 (not 1972) constitution. De-facto Vojvodina had the same rights as Kosovo did. That Kosovo was not de-jure a republic that is a well known injust that was done to Kosovars. I cannot confirm the "10% of their fund in the Development fund" story. What I know is that the mines and factories of Kosovo were exploited to the maximum, and there are facts for that. In the end before the Serbian military and police forces being retreated, even the last most valuable tools were taken (or is the term stolen?). Tito indeed satisfied none, as he discriminated against several nations, and Albanians were the worst case of how discrimination should be: being larger in number than Montenegrins or even Macedonians, and not being given a republic, attaching "Presevo valley" to Serbia, and adding Zvecan region to Kosovo, to create population "balance". Hope my comments gave any useful hints to you. Ilir pz 10:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ilir, thanks for your reply. Sorry but I do not have too much time right now. Well, I will be brief: Neither directly nor indirectly did the SANU memorandum call for a revival of Serbian nationalism (or even worse for the expelling of Albanians from Kosovo, as I heard saaying some ignorant journalist in ITN!), as you wrote in the article. Other thing is that, given the fact that there was an imbalance in the level of economic and social solidarity in the federation, many Serbs and some Serbian politicians saw this as an injustice against Serbia (you may well disagree with this or simply agree but still think that in your opinion Albanians were also victims of a bigger injustice, in any case the memorandum is well referenced and data provided was verifiable). At the end it was only Milosevic who spoke out and this populist move of his paid out big deal indeed. "Some think that by this memorandum SANU portrayed the Serbian people as a victim and called for the revival of Serb nationalism" sounds like weasel words to me, as there was no call for revival of any sort of nationalism anywhere in the memorandum. The idea I believe you are trying to transmit is already expressed more neutrally in another of the sentences I added myself too: "Milošević used the discontent reflected in the SANU memorandum for his political goals". Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Im Hipi. Kosovo and Sebia was a part of SR Serbia. If you presante hier Kosovo as part of Serbia is Wrong. Way? beacose Kosovo was not part of Serbia but togedher with Serbia and Vojvodina makes RS Serbia and Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia too. See Yugos. Cos.1974. This SR Serbia is deth after the Milosheviq has maked his putsh. So, we have three element here. Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodia. This element was part of Yugoslavia. Serbia and Vojvodina together maked a new Republic called Rep. Serbia. Kosovo hase disedet for Rep. Kosovo in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is death. Rep. Serbia and Monteegro maked the new state Serbia and Montenegro. Kosovo is waiting to be regotnaiset from UN. The talks in Vien are about the serbians minoritie in Kosovo, borders (is not eny more) and the Kosovo to be regotnaiset from Serbia (Dont forget the Rep. of Serbia is not going to be regotnaised fro UN if Kosovo is not regotneisen this new Rep. this is both seids. If the Montenegro is going be seperedet and Kosovo to be rego. Serbia is going to be Non-status area).

For somebody is unbelievebel but Serbia don t have right to choice the Presiden of Serbia without askend Kosovo and Vojvodina. With the Yog. Cuns. 1974 Serbia is only a territory. They are not the member of the Yugoslavia. This is "de juro" situation. The members of the Yugoslavia are Vojvodina, Kosovo and RS Serbia but not Serbia. "de juro" Kosovo and Vojvodina has more right that Serbia. Till SR Serbia was existing this territory it was called officell SR Serbia and not Serbia. Aftrer SR Serbia was death this territory it has thre names Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo. The part of Serbia and Vojvodina has maed the Rep. Serbia (is not regotneised from UN) the part of Kosovo made Rep. Kosovo (is not regotneised from UN). Today this two seperated territory are presantet in en:Wiki als one terrytorie under the name Serbia (Please the terminology of the territors is importen beacose you are maken the same misteack like the komunist party in Yugoslavia). I know that New York City is not in New York State and after 1974 Kosovo it was not in Serbia. Kosovo it was a Yugoslavian constitucional (not politikel or somthink els) Distrikt like the RS Serbia and together with the Serbia and Vojvodina has maked a federation called RS Serbia. This federatinon is death. The Yugoslav federatio is death. You can intepred and dont belew thate like the Sovjet Unions peopel dont beleve that Soviet Union dont exist enymore but this two federations are history. Now you have one politicel union of Serbia and Montenegro, and Kosovo under he UN administraton. This is "de juro" and "de facto". -- Hipi Zhdripi

My God, Hipi; you're back?!?! Why don't you learn a lesson for instance. Then, we could talk like Wikipedians. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi. I have already explained you many times that you keep on confusing the SFRY with the FRY. I do not want to repeat myself once again! --Asterion ^{talk to me} 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew he'd be back at one point, I just hoped it be after he got a few English lessons or two. Wonder if you can block the IP list of an entire city.... --- C-c-c-c 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Shqip: Gjitha të mira, gjithëve. Nganjëher kam përshtypjen se jeta e juaj pa Hiin është shumë monotone.

Anglisht: I wish you all the best. Sometimes I think that your life without me is monoton.

Gjermanisht: Ich wunsche euch was. Manchmal, habe ich das gefuhl das ohne mich uere leben lagweilich ist.

---Hipi Zhdripi

English: Oh Hipi, how true, how true. With you gone these pages have been too quiet.

German: Oh Hipi, wie Wahr, wie Wahr. Mit deiner Abwesenheit waren die Seiten zu still. C-c-c-c 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This becoming STUPID!

I added list of districts and cities here with the purpose to IMPROVE article, not to start new revert war. The names are written in both, Albanian and Serbian, and the name order is that used by UNMIK. So, if somebody see problem with that, he should discuss that problem here. It must be noted that state of Serbia recognized UNMIK and accepted civil UNMIK rule over Kosovo, thus, I do not see reason for revert war here. Even when Milošević was in power Albanian was an official language in Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)