Talk:University of Pristina (disambiguation)

message: Regarding the two discussions above I would like to ask the following questions:
#Do we still need RfC?
#If so, can it be limited to the two most recent proposals above?
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes, to both. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the page. Now waiting for ZjarriRrethues's permission to remove option 2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can be limited to the proposals above.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Then I would ask you to review and probably re-write the rationale of the DS's proposal: I couldn't find a wording that would both reflect the ideas behind the proposal and still be short enough not to be puzzling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: . Are we ready to start RfC? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure  --WhiteWriter speaks 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already started since users have agreed/disagreed with opinions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This blank proposition is still empty. Users who commented here and above will not be counted, as some are obviously meatpuppets. I just want to state that i will accept this only if five or more uninvolved editors comment. Everything less would be just waste of time. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: There is currently no RfC neither here not on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal: you can check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Thus I ask whether I can start RfC at Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal and ask all the people who came via previous RfC here to vote there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: You know, you could simply merge the two sections above in a single section, then put a RfC tag. It already has a proper estructure, and people won't have to post their arguments again. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you going to accomplish that? Several votes are in place. I would also note that for most editors viewing this page leads to a pretty straight-forward decision – tl;dr. Frankly, I invested some effort into creating a page where we can probe for uninvolved readers' opinions, that would minimize the judgment based on such side effects as political biases and prior discussion participants wordings and behaviour. Once this is all done, it would be weird not to use such an opportunity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy. Just placing "==RfC==" right before the two sections, then make them subsections by adding "=" to their titles. They would become subsections inside a single section without changing any text. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which will not address the concerns I expressed in the comment you replied to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand your point: currently there is no source of uninvolved editors and all the active participants have stated their opinions. What do you propose to wait for? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am placing VETO on these pointless propositions:.. :) None of those votes are neutral, and all are backed up with nationalistic propositions and tensions (not to count obvious meatpuppets in there). All this discussions are now closed, and all further informations should be added by 5+ ININVOLVED editors only in this section. Those are my conditions to deal with Balkan subject RfC. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you the only one who gets to call people meatpuppets, WhiteWriter? I'm involved because this is a stupid, stupid dispute and I want to resolve it quickly, because I have better things to do than deal with stupid, stupid ethnic disputes. That's right, I'm calling it  stupid.  This is a nomenclature issue. It is entirely arbitrary. There is no objective right answer. It is all made up by humans. If you have an opinion on this that does not involve compromise and being equable, then that is stupid. The quickest and easiest way for me to resolve this would be for me to issue indefinite bans to everyone on all sides, and to then delete all articles created or edited by everyone on all sides. "Scorched earth". But I somehow doubt you'd find that acceptable. So sit down and reach a compromise. DS (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I call them meatpuppets because few editors are constantly reappearing after months of poor activity, but only for votes and RfD, etc... It is quite clear, even to starter, that off-wiki activity is highly active, on both "sides". None disputes that this is nonsense, and stupid problem, but you may see above (i suppose you read all of these) that i tried SEVERAL times to agree and reach a compromise, but some other people are just pushing their pov, despite any propositions, all over again, until everyone gone mad. Please, keep it calm and basic, we dont need yours or anyone's bad mood in here. User:Czarkoff entered this, and with great care and peacefulness guide this in a bright direction. I see no problems? RfC will start, and we will have some good ideas how to split this. And you are right, DS. This is ethnic dispute, as always on Kosovo subjects. Therefor, only uninvolved editors will truly help here. None of us others, you and me included. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: , 100%. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Fine, , get it over with. DS (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I only disagreed with the archival of all the previous discussions, I don't see why we have to shut down all ongoing discussion in this talk page in order to start a RfC. Another editor undid one of the archivals, and I undid two more of them, I left Talk:University_of_Pristina#Split_proposal#Split_proposal because I think it was superceded by the newest discussions). This looks OK, and the RfC looks well-worded, I . --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If these discussions are not closed, some editors may comment on this page instead of the dedicated one. This will only create reasons for further debate. I see no arguments to keep these open. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: , but don't consider voting as it was labeled a wikipedia norm.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current standing 

message: As we have the editor expressing concerns about the possible sock puppets issue and the page is only visited by a bunch of editors who already stated all they could (we have 517 page views and only 13 editors involved in the last 30 days), I suggest the following course of action:
#Agree to start the RfC.
#Agree to count the numerical vote result the final decision of the issue.
#Start the god damn RfC.
#Consider the issue resolved.
#After the 30 days of RfC I will implement the decision.
#All subsequent malcontent will be discussed in a topic about me at WP:AN/I.
Agree? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: , 100%. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Fine, , get it over with. DS (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I only disagreed with the archival of all the previous discussions, I don't see why we have to shut down all ongoing discussion in this talk page in order to start a RfC. Another editor undid one of the archivals, and I undid two more of them, I left Talk:University_of_Pristina#Split_proposal#Split_proposal because I think it was superceded by the newest discussions). This looks OK, and the RfC looks well-worded, I . --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If these discussions are not closed, some editors may comment on this page instead of the dedicated one. This will only create reasons for further debate. I see no arguments to keep these open. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: , but don't consider voting as it was labeled a wikipedia norm.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 

message: The University of Pristina which is based in Pristina must be located in a certain district of the city of Pristina. How about we use the district which it is located, in the title? So we can have "University of Pristina (District X)" and we can have "University of Pristina (Kosovska Mitrovica)"]]. To me this seems like a neutral way of distinguishing the two. your thoughts??? IJA (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnatural, as it implies that in city of Pristina there are two universities: one in Pristina's district "X" and another in Pristina's district "Kosovska Mitrovica". It was a long way to find two reasonable solutions to bring to RfC, please just don't start it all over again. And, as you might have missed it, the RfC is supposed to be avoided by prior participants of the discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What district is it in? 

message: So, in 30 days of RfC 17 editors were invited to participate. 2 editors actually did so with both of them choosing option 2:
*University of Pristina – a disambiguation page linking to the following articles:
*University of Pristina (1969-1999) – an article about Yugoslav university
*Universiteti i Prishtinës – an article about Albanian-speaking university in Pristina
*Univerzitet u Prištini – an article about Serbian-speaking university in Kosovska Mitrovica
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this result is implemented. At least for now this talk page stuck at Talk:University of Pristina (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 18#Talk:Universiteti i Prishtinës), though it might be a good idea to leave all the bits of split discussion at the talk page of this DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC result 

message: When this page was split up, there was a cire error remaining. It appears to be relating to the note about the Kosovo independence dispute. I cannot work out the editor's intention here i.e. whether the note should go or whether it should stay. At the moment the note is there. Please reply as to what you want and I will endevour to provide it. Op47 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have agreement about that note, so it should stay. Thanks! :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite Error 

message: Office for Sponsored Research and Projects of University of Prishtina has undertaken the initiative to update university's digital presence.  The Wikipedia article about University of Prishtina is divided into three different ones, creating ambiguity among readers.  This is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of providing the proper information to our stakeholders.  Therefore, we want to control for the information the article presents, and to control for what entities it is intended.  
We do not want to abolish articles of University of Pristina in Mitrovica or other articles, we want to have a uniform article that presents the main information, without ambiguity and discrepancy in the historical and cultural context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZKPS (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile uniformity