User talk:Oranges Juicy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oranges Juicy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Oranges Juicy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Oranges Juicy. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Vanjagenije, to be honest, with my professional life as is at present, time just doesn't permit me to edit here or even be online as much as I'd like to. As a result, my number of edits for the time my account has been active is relatively few (spread out), so I am not surprised I haven't registered with many people! Still! Not to worry, thanks for the kind message. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Marko and Novak Đoković

Conversation originally launched at User talk:Soundwaweserb [1]

Hello, could you explain why you reverted my edits [2]+[3]. No summary was provided in either case. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

She is Serbian. Their mother was born in Belgrade, Serbia. Best regards.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

She was indeed born in Serbia, but place of origin does not determine ethnicity, if it did there would have been no ethnic wars in the 1990s in Yugoslavia. Ultimately it is how they identify, and Dijana's background is public knowledge. See this link --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, she's declared as Serbian, she is Serbian citizen. This reference is not relevant, and his mother was not born in Croatia. Because of all, that categories can't be in the article.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have established where she was born, but as I said, that is not the essential factor here. If a Croatian person has a parent among the Serbs of Croatia then he will be presented as being of Serbian descent. So let's leave that irrelevant topic. Even if Dijana actually declares herself Serb, do you have a source to clarify that? I've certainly never encountered any such statement. In any case, what she personally calls herself would not be relevant since her own parents would be Croatian thus still making Novak and Marko part Croatian. There is certainly no denial of that status from Dijana or anybody close to her. People from Vinkovci (parental origin town) could easily be Serbs but if this were the case, it would never have been stated that Dijana is of Croatian origin, but rather of Serbian origin from Croatia. I must insist now that we return the category to each subject and to their younger brother should he ever have an article. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop, she is born in Serbia, she is Serbian, and also Novak is Serbian [4]. Ja sam Srbin. Ponosan sam na svoje korijene.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

But those are the words of Novak, they do not aspire to deny his own roots, and I'm not even going to explore any further the "born in Serbia" status. Most of the UÇK were also born in Serbia. Novak can identify as he pleases, I respect that but with regards descent, he is Croatian on his mother's side and Montenegrin of his father's. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. These are rumors. Please believe me, his parents is Serbs and born in Serbia.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking and it is poorly sourced, but nothing this widespread can be a rumour, and with the name Žagar there can hardly be any doubt. It is not acknowledged that she is Serb anywhere. I am going to leave it until a reliable source can be found. I'm sure one will turn up in due course. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Thank you for your edits on the Bosniaks article :).--Sabahudin9 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

re:Name

Changed it. It was first AnulManul, then I changed it to Yerevani Axjik, which nobody couldn't remember... so I changed my name for a second time to AnulBanul. --AnulBanul (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. It threw me off track for a moment, I thought have we got two female editors with the same name from the same country both with interests in Serbia? I didn't suspect multiple accounts hence why I asked you. I see anyway from the editing history that it is the same account. Good luck with the new nom de guerre (j/k). --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kumanovo edit

Re your edit here at Kumanovo. This edit appears to be largely copied from the lede of the Kumanovo shootings page. (I recognise it because I made this edit there, including where the lede says "During a police raid on 9 May 2015,..." ) You should provide 'attribution' to the version of that page it came from, if you 'borrow' from it. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia which should tell you anything you need to know. 220 of ^Borg 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point Borg, and accept my humblest apologies for plagiarising! For that is exactly what it is. In all honesty, it is not the only occasion where I have pasted. You'll appreciate that for all practical reasons the transferred version was edited to fit the article but from here on I will follow the protocols. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, you're fairly 'noobish' so no big deal. I personally don't mind being 'plagiarised' in such a minor way. (Some editors 'borrow' whole articles!) Though, someone else didn't like my edit that much and reverted my changes to the Kumanovo shootings lead! 220 of ^Borg 06:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No I realised from the tone of your first post you felt pleased someone appreciates your works! It is better to be edited than have your whole section removed I'd say - because that way, the core of the contribution is still there - but we'll have to work together (all of us) to decide on what is best. I'll have a look now at your original edit to see how best I think it should be, because whatever happens, it will have to be mirrored where I pasted it, otherwise they may run counter to one another. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What ever you want to do. The topic area of 'Macedonia' is proving a bit too 'controversial' for me. (And I am on the other side of the world, so don't know much about it) A number of rather un-notable pages are being created by editors who seem to have a bit of a POV. I try to stay away from such areas. 220 of ^Borg 06:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How very commendable of you to willingly step back. I'm afraid that is the way Balkan politics goes, unfortunate I know. Although I have lived in Britain for just over 15 years now, I am someone with his origins in the region, Mostar to be precise, I didn't leave because of fighting, my background is believe it or not volleyball and I came here originally to promote the sport among females (though I am a man myself) after a shoulder injury put an end to my hopes of making it BIG. Either way, the Balkans is the only thing I know well enough to share with the world. I think it is nice that outsiders take part and deliver contributions and the rest of us should be grateful. But as you say, when you live so remote from the area and the topic is fuelled by "dislike of the rival", it is going to be very hard to make your mark. It would be the same for me if I asserted myself on South and Central American affairs, yes I have some knowledge but I'd be certain to run into disagreement somewhere down the line. Thanks all the same 220, I do hope you keep contributing on the articles, the longer we all hang around the more we learn! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Kosovo category

I actually don't remember adding that but if it was months ago, I guess that might be true. Also, I don't really prefer "Jackninja". You can just call me Jack or Jackninja5 and between you and me, I actually don't think of Kosovo as a country. :P Jackninja5 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To Iryna Harpy

Thanks for the information provided at Talk:Kosovo. You must forgive me but I am not sure what you meant by noticeboard, and I haven't realised that any of my editing may be in any way repetitive - that's not to say I haven't clung on to some issues. I accept that my posts were very long but this is because I was trying to address the matters cited in edit summaries and by editors to have posted on the subject prior to my involvement. To blast everything into one small paragraph might seem a bit curt. Obviously I make no secret of that fact that I have a view on the matter as to which way it goes but I have tried to substantiate this by providing a wealth of other examples. That is aiming for consistency if nothing more. I must admit, I have been reading the rules for the site and there is no simple way around things. To give you an example, you can circumvent WP:3RR if WP:IAR applies and you suspect WP:V problems, and your opponent can do the same by placing his own spin with WP:SYNTH or the like and in the end, some people will agree with party A and the others with party B. Thank you for assuming good faith. Please tell me what you feel I could do to both make my point and take cognisance of policies. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please make no mistake in my understanding that you are acting in good faith. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that opponents to your perspective could take you to task over such matters. Working predominantly on Eastern European articles, I'm all too well acquainted with how contributors WP:GAME in order to WP:PUSH their POV. I'm also a stickler for consistency across Wikipedia, and don't agree with exceptions to the rule unless there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for divergence (i.e., no census in Ukraine since 2001, therefore certain stats are appallingly dated and supplemented by carefully evaluated, consensus approved RS statistical service polls).

Well, as you're aware, the WP:NPOVN has been used correctly by bobraynor to bring in fresh, neutral editors (which is how I came across this fresh bout of warring). Other options would be a submission to the WP:DRN. What I do know is that it's best to reserve being the elephant in the room for special occasions: ripe for someone who spends much of her time being the elephant in the room.

Apologies for leaving such a terse response, but it's not an appropriate time to leave you a mini-thesis on the ins and outs of editing. I'll be leaving my 2¢ worth either on the Kosovo talk page, or at the notice on the NPOV/N. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some solid work you're putting in. Keep it up!--AirWolf ^talk 11:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing AirWolf! Copyediting is generally easy for someone living on English-speaking territory and I realise many of the articles are drafted by persons for whom English may not be the first tongue. That is not a problem since what I do is very much on the back of their hard work, but the only thing I need to say is that with regards these basketball/volleyball players, I am not clicking and searching for "edits" but I am reading them as I go along, and where I feel a small edit needs to be made, in it goes! :) Thanks again. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

✔--AirWolf ^talk 21:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposition

Thank you for your comment. So, what do you propose? We have a lot of sources that Kosovo is disputed territory. Disputed territory is not a proper legitimate state. "Kosovo government will never gain full control of the disputed territory", "The disputed territory of Kosovo", Quality of Life in Kosovo (Disputed Territory), "Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia", "Kosovo remains a disputed territory largely because of three conditions", "it has been a highly disputed territory", "from the still-disputed territory of Kosovo". Hmm, i will post that, just to take him off me finally. Very bad editing style he has. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources Anastan. As I told you, I do not need convincing because I equally oppose the category if the basis for its addition is in publications from recognising entities. Obviously if a legitimate policy be put into place whereby disputed territories can be added to country lists then I cannot continue to oppose Kosovo's addition when Nagorno-Karabagh would feature in the same grouping. I fear the opposing party would dismiss those sources as not promptly spelling out "Kosovo is not a country", so my proposal for you - and certainly what I would you in your circumstances - is revise what you previously inferred to admit that no true source states Kosovo is "not a country" per se (expect to get a "told you so") but point out that this plethora of reports affirm its status as a disputed territory and those in turn directly counter the World Bank profile which seems to acknowledge Kosovo as a country in passing, rather than exploring the dynamics of the implication. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Danish Ex-KFOR Soldier: Kosovo Is Not A State hehehe :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha!! Yes if common sense was deemed reliable instead of publications from corporate-owned western media and "scholars" who agree with them then Wikipedia would be different, meaning truthful! :)))) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oranges Juicy. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 22:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

note

Just a FYI, I requested closure of the RfC. LavaBaron (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

All good, thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	In appreciation of your hard work as a new editor. Thank you for your NPOV integrity and intelligent assessments of content issues and disputes! Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your message about removing content from List of active separatist movements in Europe

Before posting such messages, I'd suggest you to: a) acquaint yourself with the edit history of the article (you claimed that I haven't stated a valid reason for removing content, which is completely incorrect) b) check, whether the removed information is substantianted by any evidence (the fact of the matter is that the references are fake and the given sources do not contain any information about an alleged separatist movement in the Latgale region).

I have stated numerous times (five, if I recall correctly) that the sources and the content I removed are fake, by which I mean that they do not contain any references to separatism in Latgale. One of the previous sources I removed didn't even contain any references to the Latgale region. Another one discusses general linguistics in Latvia/Latgale, and another one is a link to a BBC News article about a rally held by Russian nationalists in Moscow. Not a single mention of separatism in Latgale anywhere whatsoever.

Because of these disruptive activities, I have repeatedly warned the user Iryna Harpy about deliberately posting misleading information and the counter-productive nature of his/her actions. I'm also currently in the process of filing an official complaint about recurring vandalism carried out by said user.

There is no need to discuss anything on the article's talk page, as the sources simply do not contain any information about separatism in Latgale. I am fluent in both English and Russian, and I checked the Russian wikipedia entry, which allegedly should contain references (according to Iryna Harpy) to separatism in the Latgale region, but the Russian wikipedia entry lacks any such references as well. I asked Iryna Harpy several times to indicate the specific part/page/paragraph of the "sourced" material, which contains any information about a separatist movement in Latgale, but he/she failed to do that every time I asked.

Please, do not roll back the changes to the article without looking up the 'sources' yourself. 84.237.163.181 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, hello and thank you for messaging me. I'm not actually 100% knowledgeable on this matter; I tend to follow world relations and I know about the situation between Russians and Baltic peoples on those lands (excluding pro-Soviet Latvians/Lithuanians/Estonians who are certainly there, but would be branded traitors by supporters of those countries' governments). It is not actually your job to warn Iryna, nor hers to warn you for that matter. You are two individuals party to an edit war. I see no policy has been breached by either of you. The way forward is to continue to discuss on the talk page. I'm no stranger to that concept as I too spend half my day on those things. I feel I should advise you however (your choice whether to take this) that you will not succeed in influencing any action be taken over Iryna since nothing what she has done, nor what you have done, constitutes WP:VANDALISM. You oppose one another yes, but both of you are doing what you believe improves the article. As such, it is not vandalism that is your issue. I know her to be approachable and intelligent, so just continue with the dialogue and in the end, I am sure we will be able to phrase the passage in a more agreeable manner for all sides. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Oranges Juicy, for your courteous response to the IP in question. Ultimately, as the user does not wish to engage on the talk page of the article and prefers to carry on a battleground mentality against me in their edit summaries and on my own talk page, I'm entirely amenable to having them file a complaint against me. Reverting other editors who are listening to my rationale for being reticent to remove content without checking it first, then launching an attack against that editor is not acceptable behaviour.

If you don't have the patience to accept that Wikipedia is not a race to add or remove content, that's unfortunate. As it stands, there is sourced content demonstrating that the 'Latgale' movement did exist, although I still haven't found time to check the sources for reliability or verifiability. All of the content surrounding the existence of the movement, as well as its current status, will be investigated and removed where appropriate, as well as being updated to reflect that it is no longer an ongoing movement if that proves to be the case. If you are dissatisfied with my approach, do not harrass other editors in order to make your point.

Looking forward to either a constructive, civil discussion on the appropriate article talk page, or an ANI case against me.

Addendum: Where, specifically, did you note that you'd looked at the sources being used in Russian Wikipedia? The only thing you've 'demanded' of me is sources without any attempt to qualify that you'd looked at the Russian Wikipedia article and could not, apparently, find reliable sources for the existence of the movement. Read what you've written, the tone of your (lack of) rational arguments, and explain how you are behaving like a good faith contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding contested/uncontested

I strongly think you're incorrect with contested/uncontested territory of Serbia, since the latter implies that Kosovo is merely "contested territory of Serbia", and that it borders the part that isn't contested. This is very pro-Serb point of view, and should be unacceptable for an encyclopedia. In addition, Serbia's views on its territory are very much contested--by Kosovo and at least 111 other countries and governments--since they do not accept: a) Serbia's views on what constitutes Serbian territory, b) its contesting of Kosovo's sovereignty, and c) that this "uncontested territory" is uncontested, since these countries consider that territory to be the entire Serbia, and nothing more (and certainly not Kosovo).

So I have no idea why you're reverting my changes, and why you keep arguing that "uncontested territory of Serbia" is somehow not reflective of the Serbian POV--it very much is. --alchaemia (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there. I didn't revert you, another editor did. Furthermore my aim was to provide you with the archive where the issue was discussed. I did not take part in that talk as I did not know it was happening. I know there is no simple solution to this sticky matter and there is no true consensus either. But it is certainly not "very pro-Serb" as you put it. Serbia doesn't contest it at all, as far as they and 80 countries are concerned, it is legally an integral province. The fact that this land is held by the proponents of the proclaimed state supported by 111 recognitions is what makes the territory "contested". But remember, it is contested two ways. Either way, the suggestion that "Kosovo borders Serbia" is a grave breach of WP:NPOV as would be "Serbia borders Albania" with no information as to the Kosovo scenario. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Please remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for reverting vandalism and other edits where the reason for the revert is obvious
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback

If you have any questions, please do let me know, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Revert - Kosovo Verification Mission

Hi OJ, can you please explain why did you insist that the troops engaging in the Kosovo war and subsequent human right abuses are not Serbian. The article has multiple sources stating that the troops are Serbian. You want to tell that the troops are Yugoslavian, which is true. But you should add the army affiliation, not undo the info on Serbian ethnicity which is well backed-up by reliable sourced. Furthermore, you are arbitrarily reverting the page to the version where the term "Serbian" is hidden under the carpet. You did that multiple times, without any additional source stating that those troops are NOT Serbian. May I ask you why? In particular, are you aware that edit warring against reliable sources is a behavior that can be reported? Since my request in the talk page went unanswered in essence and you keep reverting the page, I am planning to escalate this case of yours, in case you do not step back and restore the article in the version backed up by sources. OppositeGradient (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi OJ, can you please explain why did you remove sourced content on Kosovo Verification Mission. You removed a very-reliable source by the US Government that indicated the massacres committed by the Serbian troops. You claimed that the "source is not found", which is not the right way to treat sourced-content. Especially, since the report is a published US government book that is widely found across internet. Examples , , ,

This behavior together with removing the sourced fact that the troops were Serbian is a disruptive behavior. Please rollback the article to the neutral/original version and seek consensus on the talk page. Otherwise you risk being escalated for POV-pushing. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained on the talk page. Furthermore those sources do not support your claim, that or they cannot be used for other reasons. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but you are funny :) First you remove a sourced content arguing "the source is not found online", while now you changed to "the source does not support the claim". If the source is not found, how does it not support/not-support a claim. It is obvious you are POV-pushing to remove the fact that Serbian forces committed violations of human rights (murder, rape, deportations) against the local Albanian population. This is not OK and is against Wiki rules! OppositeGradient (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

All right all right, let that debate stay on the relevant talk page. You can post here if you want but I need to respond in the correct spot. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo Verification Mission is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, acknowledged. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo

FYI, on 22JUL I'm going to submit another request to have the RfC on Kosovo closed as "no consensus" for the change. It will have been one month at that point. LavaBaron (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely LavaBaron, thanks for all your input since the discussion began. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oranges Juicy. You have new messages at Amortias's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amortias (T)(C) 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Aqif bluta

Why isnt his name albanian? His father is albanian and also his mother. He dont have anything to do with the serbian or bosnjak version of the name. And he called him self albanian. Kadribistrica (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, we'll continue this talk here. The article was created by User:Antidiskriminator on 20 August 2012 and he or she made the first two dozer or so edits. Why this editor chose the South Slavic variant I don't know. I admit this isn't something I have looked into closely but here is my knowledge on the matters.

Sandžak was part of the Vilayet of Kosovo when in the Ottoman Empire so any two official birth names this subject would have had would have been in Ottoman Turkish and Albanian (since we know he was Albanian). After 1913, which covers the significant period Bluta was a politician, he was active as a minority member within a state where Serbian or Serbo-Croat were official language and this may be why so many subjects past and present from Serbia may have a Slavicised name instead of their native name. Take the footballer Albert Nađ who is ethnic Hungarian. Having represented FR Yugoslavia he has the Slavic name but his surname should essentially be Nagy.

That said, all modern-day Albanians from ex-Yugoslavia seem to have their names in Albanian as article titles. I guess the relevance is whether they are widely notable across the whole state, or just within their ethnic community. An Albanian singer from Serbia for example such as Donika Nuhiu is famous among Albanian-speaking communities but is probably unknown in Belgrade and Novi Sad, as such it is correct not to have her under her Serbian name which surely exists on documents (surname spelling: Nuhiju, Нухију).

But then going back to early 20th century Yugoslav politicians, we also have Ferhat Bey Draga whose name is seemingly Turkish, and by that I mean modern Turkish: Ottoman Turkish was written using Arabic with the Roman script adopted in 1924. Albanian does not use "y" in consonant form, instead it would use "j". And Serbo-Croatian doesn't use "y" within its standard 30 letters of the Latin alphabet, it too would use "j".

With all these things in mind, I do not know where I stand Kadribistrica so forgive me for not being more help. Have a word with the editor who created the article if you wish, and certainly if you find sources for the Albanian name in English, that with his ethnicity should be a good enough reason for a move if you ask me. Let me know. --OJ (TALK) 10:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kadribistrica: I just want to point out that it is irrelevant whether he was Albanian and whether he has "anything to do with the serbian version of the name". Wikipedia follows a policy called WP:COMMONNAME. That policy dictates that we should name articles according to the name most commonly fount in English language sources. So, the main question here is not whether his native name was Albanian, but what is the name under which he is best known in English sources. Now, I don't know what is that name, but since he spent most of his career in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where Serbo-Croatian language was official, it is well possible that he is best known in English sources under his Serbo-Croatian name. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok i understand now im sorry i will not change his name anymore. But why cant i change that his is ethnic Albanian then, there are full of soures of it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: why cant i change that he is then ethnic albanian??

@Kadribistrica: In Wikipedia, we follow a policy called WP:VERIFIABILITY. Every statement that might be challenged should be supported with references to reliable sources. The question here is what source is reliable to describe person's ethnicity. One's ethnicity is a very sensitive issue, and it should only be emphasised if we have a reliable source that shows how the person himself described his ethnicity. I.e. we need a source that shows how Aqif/Aćif described his ethnicity, and not how other people describe him. For example, there might be many sources that describe me as German (just an example), but that still does not make me German, the important thing is how I describe myself. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)