![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The UNMIK laws no 1999/24 of the date 12 december 1999 clearly say that the municipalities of Kosovo should be named in its official language (wich is the language of the majority) and evry other name is out of law.All the Kosovo Municipalitys are named in serbian (Wich is out of law).
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf
Therefor I see it quite resonable to change the names to albanian - Bindicapriqi —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to mve this page Pristina to :"Prishtinë" because that is the official name under the following UNMIK(United nations mission in kosovo) rules acording to it only albanian names are legal names for the munisipalities of kosovo . So please move this article because the current name is ilegal
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf
The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only official names are the names presentet in >A< every thing else is out of Law.
RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm, Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara, Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK) mbi autorizimin e Administratës së Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë, Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë, Shpall sa vijon: Neni 1 Numri dhe emrat e komunave Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e atyre komuniteteve. Neni 2 Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 3 Zbatimi Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 4 Ligji i zbatueshëm Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. Neni 5 Hyrja në fuqi Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000. Bernard Kouchner Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language.
UREDBA BR. 2000/43 UNMIK/URED/2000/43 27. jul 2000. godine O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara, Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine, Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na Kosovu, (hier is oficele user) U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu, Ovim objavquje slede}e: Clan 1 BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA 1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli A u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. 1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica. Clan 2 PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. Clan 3 PRIMENA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe. Clan 4 ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna sa wom. Clan 5 STUPAWE NA SNAGU Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine. Bernar Ku{ner Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara tabel of contens >A<
TABLE ‘A’ (alb) (left names are official names) Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb) Albanski Srpski
I recently wrote an article on a comic strip comic strip called "Westside". No sooner than I had finished it, it was tagged with a "speedy deletion" thing on the grounds that I was primarily saying that Westside was bad and the characters were stupid. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding or something and my article, which I worked on for a very long time, was deleted. I posted several messages on the talk page explaining why my page should not be deleted and as far as I know (it was late at night and i went to bed soon afterwards) they were ignored. I am not, I repeat NOT trying to insult Westside, its characters, or its creators. I simply tried to make an article that Westside's readers could be pointed to for more information, as I should hope is the goal of your site, and any good encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.196.67 ( talk)
"Everybody will think you are lame". Should a better phrase be used instead?
Objection! OHnoitsJamie has declared that by informing the public of a company which has operated for 3 years and is the most successful Internet advertising company in Australia, that this information is spam. This is simply not the case and I demand an immediate review of this matter. Commission Monster is a legitimate company and does not in any way endorse or condone spam and as you have a very well detailed page relating to the affairs of Commission Junction, a Chinese owned and American operated company, you must by right also be obligated to cover Australia and the Oceana region. Please review this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen@commissionmonster.com.au ( talk • contribs) 10 August 2006 00:04 UTC.
OBJECTION: The Herschel Grynszpan article has been subject to extreme bias by a writer who refuses to take additional references and criticisms of the presentation seriously. If sources are not reliable, why should someone at Wikipedia have the right to keep using them and to prevent changes in the article? i am really disappointed in Wikipedia.
oldcitycat
01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a support system in place for administrators? If not, is anyone interested in creating one? My priorities are changing now with adminship, and I'm not sure how to get my bearings on what I want to do/should do on Wikipedia now. I doubt I'm the only one. A program might prevent admin burnout as well as abuse. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."
Fang Aili used this as her only criterion for a speedy deletion of my stub on The Tuna Helpers, which I had planned to expand. She seems to be rather rampant about speedy delete, as one can see on her talk page. I think she needs to be warned about speedy deleting and encouraged to mark pages as candidates for deletion instead, since she clearly has overstepped the rules. I think the article I wrote did make a claim for notability, even if it did not satisfy the guidlines; therefore, she had no right to speedy delete the article. --06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.
Are Bureaucrats are at a higher level than Administrators, or are Bureaucrats and Administrators merely different, but without one being higher or lower than the other? 38.100.34.2 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere of who are currently administrators? Simply south 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Regards the merge propsal Wikipedia:What adminship is not...
Regards the merge propsal Wikipedia:What administrators do...
First of all, this is not a vote, so your bolded declarations are not meaningful and even if it were a vote would be premature. There is no corrolary to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, that is, there is no policy page about "What Wikipedia is". If there were such a policy page, that exactly defined the properties and functions of Wikipedia, then WP:NOT would likely warrant merging into it. It is probably better over-all, though, to describe Wikipedia by what it is not rather than rigidly defining what Wikipedia is in a single page, beyond "it is an encyclopedia". For Administrators however, there is such a positive page, Wikipedia:Administrators. It may be reasonable to confine it only to a straightforward technical description, and Wikipedia:What adminship is not may not be formal enough to be a guideline. Wikipedia:What administrators do looks to be rather redundant, and anything that is not clear in Wikipedia:Administrators can be changed to have a simple introductory explanation. — Centrx→ talk • 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with merging Wikipedia:What administrators do. But I think Wikipedia:What adminship is not should be kept separately. That one is a nice essay but would be just distracting at Wikipedia:Administrators. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
adding &bot=1 to URL used to access a user's contributions, Don't work in new version? Zahiri 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I am relatively new to the site (with an account that is), one thing I have not got my head around is this: How exactly do users become administrators on Wikipedia? Are there pre-requisites one must follow, how many admins are even currently active on Wiki? Any answers would be much appreciated. -- Arsenous Commodore 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone recieves a rollback button. It is extremely difficult for me to control vandalism while I patrol, because I have to do this cloverleaf action to revert a page. What harm could it do? Joecool94 - Bane of Vandals 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can people be blocked from editing for being annoying? Because if they can man do I have a person needing to be blocked.-- Emokid200618 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.
The resources required to express this opinion here imply that I represent, though perhaps not relatively, a vast demographic. To the misfortune of the project, this demographic includes experts on significant academic topics that are presently neglected by Wikipedia. That admin culture would persist in spite of this indicates that admins value their ability to affect the project more than the project itself. How unfortunate.
In consideration of the quote in the "Trivial matter" section, I think Jimbo would be particularly disappointed to see a readout of the common admin's dopamine levels when they mark an article that someone obviously spent a lot of time on with an AfD. 69.142.140.177 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fair to infer from this project page that the only difference between admins and non-admins is capabilities? And yet according to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, there are certain additional social restrictions on behaviour, specifically on closing deletion debates (which non-admins are capable of doing in the "keep" case). Is this appropriate? — Ashley Y 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The problematic guidelines are generally of the form "only administrators should do X, because non-admins are more likely to get it wrong", while the implication of this project page and WP:IAR is that if a non-admin does X and gets it right, they won't be reverted. Far better to mention what things non-admins are incapable of, and impress upon everyone best practice for doing X if non-admins are capable of it. — Ashley Y 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, some vandals keep on vandalizing the Animal Face-Off article? Can someone please do something? Radical3
I recieved an email about deleting the page titled Ithna Ashariya. Ithna Ashariya is also known as twelvers and Imami. I didn't want to duplicate information already on Wikipedia, so I simply left links. If this is still not acceptable, I will add more to the page. Please let me know.
Sfantana 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is minor enough that I should have just been bold, but I figured I'd stay on the safe side. I'd like to suggest a change under Wikipedia:Administrators#Other: "Can move move protected pages" to "Can move pages that are protected against moves." I think it will be less confusing and unclear this way (since people sometimes miss double words when reading, this could be taken to mean "can move protected pages"). Any objections to the change? delldot | talk 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've 2 semi-unrelated question: 1) Does one become an administrator somehow automatically, or is 1 voted in? 2) How cin I git me 1 them doohickeys on ma page sais This user is a:/ This user does: and what not (gots all them purty colors an all)? Thaddeus Slamp 00:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
When? Is it after you've been involved for some particular amount of time? Does a user know when they are being considered? Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not understand your second question, could you rephrase it please? Prodego talk 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was after userboxes. I phrased it that way to express how out to sea I thought I was regarding the subject, and really thought that the best way to express such. I figured them out enough to get every userbox I wanted. I still need to learn how to modify existing ones and create my own, though. Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting before we end up with one-word-per-line) If the standard for accountability is "Any bureaucrat decision with which some people object is cause for immediate de-bureaucratting" then no, we are not accountable. If, however, the standard is the same as it is for administrative and editorial actions, then we are quite accountable to the community. In case I've left you wondering, the standard of accountability for administrative and editorial actions is "Those who demonstrate a pattern of bad judgment and abuse of the priviledges granted to them will lose those priviledges." We don't ban editors for one controverisal revert, we don't de-admin administrators for one controversial AFD closure, and we don't de-bureaucrat bureaucrats for one controversial RFA closure. I guarantee that when someone can demonstrate a pattern of repeated bad judgement in the use of bureaucrat rights, the Arbitration Committee will act to de-bureaucrat that individual. That there are only 24 bureaucrats, only 10 of whom are remotely active in using thier bureaucrat rights, and that all of them are sensible, well-respected individuals makes it highly unlikely that such a case will ever happen. It does not mean, however, that if they actually did something that warranted de-bureaucratting it would not happen, and that is what accountability means: If you actually do something for which you should be held accountable, you will be. It does not mean providing for vigilante de-bureaucratting of anyone who makes a call that generates disagreement. "No bureaucrat has actually done anything to deserve being kicked out" does not equate to "The bureaucrats are not accountable." Essjay (Talk) 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A bit late, but: I said usually. If I recall, <75 nearly always fail | 75-80 Bureaucrat digression | >80 nearly always pass. Prodego talk 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be very difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:VAND says Vandalism includes, "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism."
So when an admin is engaged in this what should be done?
[1] with the summary saying, "(rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...)" and nothing in the talk pages. The admin: William_M._Connolley. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me start over (this time without a specific example) so I know how to proceed (and not with the example above). When an administrator is violating policies (i.e. Vandalism, 3RR, etc) what, where and how is this dealt with? I'm not looking for a ruling on the example above (though the input was appreciated), I want to know the correct process in dealing with situations that are more cut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnyakko ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 March 2007.
Where is the correct Sysop page to go to request a page move reverse. I remember reading that only a Sysop can do a move correctly, so the related links and talk pages stay connected, when both pages already exist. The page that needs moving is discussed here. -- Sadi Carnot 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
THIS obviously doesn't apply to ALL adminstrators, but rather a tight-knit group of administrators that watch, edit, and constantly revert most changes (however minor) to many Jewish-themed articles. I'm not here to name names, but if one looks at the edit histories of this tight-knit group of administrators almost ALL of their edits are in relation to Jewish-themed articles, somewhere in the range of 75-90%, with some of them close to 100% exclusive editing of Jewish-themed articles.
Now, I understand that certain administrators have certain pet articles or favorite groups of articles usually focused on a single theme that they most like to edit/patrol, but what does it say about the priorities of these powerful administrators that spend 75-90% of their time editing Jewish-themed articles to the exclusion of all other articles, eventually abandoning the rest of Wikipedia for their own set of articles yet still retaining all of the privileges and powers of an administrator with broad powers over the entire project (even though they rarely if ever edit non-Jewish themed articles or even care about them, as stated)? So, I ask: once these administrators get locked in to this cycle of editing only their particular set of pet articles and ignoring the other 99.99% of Wikipedia (even though they are supposed to be the police or 'guardians' of the entire project), are they still looking out for the entire project or just their special sub-set of articles? What admins. are doing the 'grunt work' and looking after the well-being of the entire project while this set of narrow editing administrators ignore the rest of Wikipedia in favor of their special articles and pet projects? These are a few questions I'd like answered...thanks for any replies. -- WassermannNYC 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I turned "In a nutshell, administrators are volunteers who originally joined Wikipedia for free at an earlier date." into "Administrators are editors that have volunteered to undertake additional responsibilities." Seems more concise. Teke ( talk) 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wont to be a admin. on this site! I would be honored to work on wikipedia! so can i?-- Mr.Taka 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain why IP addresses can't become administrators? 68.111.92.229 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's suggested liberal approach to granting adminship is not followed. Is it explained somewhere why this is so?
Presumably there have been conscious decision made on this - I would hope it's not just instruction creep; but at the same time, the current approach of making adminship a "big deal" seems quite contrary to Wikipedia's general philosophy of openness. -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting the neversouth page. I don't know how to use MySpace and this is the closest that I will ever get to understanding technology. Thanks!
The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the " no big deal" section should be removed. It may have been accurate in 2003, but I think that this is no longer the case. Indeed, recent ArbCom statements affirm that a higher standard of conduct is expected of administrators. -- El on ka 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for one, specifically for a research project I'm doing on Wikipedia, but since it is due later today (likely before I get a reply) I would appreciate a link or several links to something like this, including a break down of what automated fail-safes are in place and where users are in respective levels (i.e. User, Editor/Contrib, Admin, DB Admin, etc). If one doesn't exist, I can start a page with one, but I need info first.-- P4wn4g3 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I found one here. Doesn't explain the automatic processes like I was hoping, but its good.
"It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." (Jimbo Wales)
What is he referring to? What is the technical matter that stops us all from having the powers given to sysops? A.Z. 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How do I report an admin whom I feel has been "over enthusiastic" in their duties. For example, en mass deletion of images without notice and within about 2 minutes of an apparent infraction?
perfectblue 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding the following statement to this policy:
-- Tony Sidaway 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Its not even weak passwords anymore, User:KnowledgeOfSelf was hacked this morning [2], he claims he had a stronger mixed number and letter password. This is extremely discomforting. Darthgriz98 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's statistics we only have 0.03% of the wikipedian community that are administrators. I don't know if that includes all the user accounts that are socks, but assuming half of the accounts on wikipedia are socks that still only leaves us with 0.06%. According to wiktionary they have 0.14% sysops. Given my belief that wiktionary is running a little smoother, perhaps we should take to this model. Hence, I propose we should increase our the amount of sysops in the next year by 100%. We would need to recruit approx 1,200. -- CyclePat2 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean, it's never good to lie, of course. But why is lying about being an admin worse than anything else? - Amarkov moo! 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be a good idea if the user page of an administrator would automatically be fully protected when the user gets promoted to admin status. An admin can edit fully protected pages and thus doesn't experience any harm from that measure, whilst vandals wouldn't have the opportunity to vandalise that page any more (especially vandals who get blocked or otherwise warned by the admin in question). What about this idea? Salaskan 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, since I'm not too familar with :en-Wikipedia's procedures I'm posting here, hoping for some help. I'm trying to regain my initial account User:Nemissimo on the :en. It would be great if anyone could help me to access it again. Since the account is clearly stating that it is mine (interwikilink) it should be possible. I highly appreciate any help with this. Kind regards from Germany. My Userpage on the German Wikipedia -- Nemissimo II 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How on Earth do we go about complaining regarding incompetant or absive admins then? Recently Spartaz unilaterally decided to overturn a perfectly valid and justified indefinite block of a persistant, abusive, disruptive sockpuppeteer. Spartaz did so without any consultation and following just a few days of apparantly contrite, spurious edits to the vandal's talk page. This is pathetic, and is just as much an abuse of privilage as blocking without reason. Pyrope 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think these information should be added to the page. A.Z. 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The UNMIK laws no 1999/24 of the date 12 december 1999 clearly say that the municipalities of Kosovo should be named in its official language (wich is the language of the majority) and evry other name is out of law.All the Kosovo Municipalitys are named in serbian (Wich is out of law).
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf
Therefor I see it quite resonable to change the names to albanian - Bindicapriqi —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to mve this page Pristina to :"Prishtinë" because that is the official name under the following UNMIK(United nations mission in kosovo) rules acording to it only albanian names are legal names for the munisipalities of kosovo . So please move this article because the current name is ilegal
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf
The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only official names are the names presentet in >A< every thing else is out of Law.
RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm, Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara, Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK) mbi autorizimin e Administratës së Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë, Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë, Shpall sa vijon: Neni 1 Numri dhe emrat e komunave Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e atyre komuniteteve. Neni 2 Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 3 Zbatimi Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 4 Ligji i zbatueshëm Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. Neni 5 Hyrja në fuqi Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000. Bernard Kouchner Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language.
UREDBA BR. 2000/43 UNMIK/URED/2000/43 27. jul 2000. godine O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara, Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine, Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na Kosovu, (hier is oficele user) U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu, Ovim objavquje slede}e: Clan 1 BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA 1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli A u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. 1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica. Clan 2 PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. Clan 3 PRIMENA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe. Clan 4 ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna sa wom. Clan 5 STUPAWE NA SNAGU Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine. Bernar Ku{ner Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara tabel of contens >A<
TABLE ‘A’ (alb) (left names are official names) Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb) Albanski Srpski
I recently wrote an article on a comic strip comic strip called "Westside". No sooner than I had finished it, it was tagged with a "speedy deletion" thing on the grounds that I was primarily saying that Westside was bad and the characters were stupid. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding or something and my article, which I worked on for a very long time, was deleted. I posted several messages on the talk page explaining why my page should not be deleted and as far as I know (it was late at night and i went to bed soon afterwards) they were ignored. I am not, I repeat NOT trying to insult Westside, its characters, or its creators. I simply tried to make an article that Westside's readers could be pointed to for more information, as I should hope is the goal of your site, and any good encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.196.67 ( talk)
"Everybody will think you are lame". Should a better phrase be used instead?
Objection! OHnoitsJamie has declared that by informing the public of a company which has operated for 3 years and is the most successful Internet advertising company in Australia, that this information is spam. This is simply not the case and I demand an immediate review of this matter. Commission Monster is a legitimate company and does not in any way endorse or condone spam and as you have a very well detailed page relating to the affairs of Commission Junction, a Chinese owned and American operated company, you must by right also be obligated to cover Australia and the Oceana region. Please review this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen@commissionmonster.com.au ( talk • contribs) 10 August 2006 00:04 UTC.
OBJECTION: The Herschel Grynszpan article has been subject to extreme bias by a writer who refuses to take additional references and criticisms of the presentation seriously. If sources are not reliable, why should someone at Wikipedia have the right to keep using them and to prevent changes in the article? i am really disappointed in Wikipedia.
oldcitycat
01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a support system in place for administrators? If not, is anyone interested in creating one? My priorities are changing now with adminship, and I'm not sure how to get my bearings on what I want to do/should do on Wikipedia now. I doubt I'm the only one. A program might prevent admin burnout as well as abuse. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."
Fang Aili used this as her only criterion for a speedy deletion of my stub on The Tuna Helpers, which I had planned to expand. She seems to be rather rampant about speedy delete, as one can see on her talk page. I think she needs to be warned about speedy deleting and encouraged to mark pages as candidates for deletion instead, since she clearly has overstepped the rules. I think the article I wrote did make a claim for notability, even if it did not satisfy the guidlines; therefore, she had no right to speedy delete the article. --06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.
Are Bureaucrats are at a higher level than Administrators, or are Bureaucrats and Administrators merely different, but without one being higher or lower than the other? 38.100.34.2 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere of who are currently administrators? Simply south 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Regards the merge propsal Wikipedia:What adminship is not...
Regards the merge propsal Wikipedia:What administrators do...
First of all, this is not a vote, so your bolded declarations are not meaningful and even if it were a vote would be premature. There is no corrolary to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, that is, there is no policy page about "What Wikipedia is". If there were such a policy page, that exactly defined the properties and functions of Wikipedia, then WP:NOT would likely warrant merging into it. It is probably better over-all, though, to describe Wikipedia by what it is not rather than rigidly defining what Wikipedia is in a single page, beyond "it is an encyclopedia". For Administrators however, there is such a positive page, Wikipedia:Administrators. It may be reasonable to confine it only to a straightforward technical description, and Wikipedia:What adminship is not may not be formal enough to be a guideline. Wikipedia:What administrators do looks to be rather redundant, and anything that is not clear in Wikipedia:Administrators can be changed to have a simple introductory explanation. — Centrx→ talk • 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with merging Wikipedia:What administrators do. But I think Wikipedia:What adminship is not should be kept separately. That one is a nice essay but would be just distracting at Wikipedia:Administrators. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
adding &bot=1 to URL used to access a user's contributions, Don't work in new version? Zahiri 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I am relatively new to the site (with an account that is), one thing I have not got my head around is this: How exactly do users become administrators on Wikipedia? Are there pre-requisites one must follow, how many admins are even currently active on Wiki? Any answers would be much appreciated. -- Arsenous Commodore 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone recieves a rollback button. It is extremely difficult for me to control vandalism while I patrol, because I have to do this cloverleaf action to revert a page. What harm could it do? Joecool94 - Bane of Vandals 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can people be blocked from editing for being annoying? Because if they can man do I have a person needing to be blocked.-- Emokid200618 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.
The resources required to express this opinion here imply that I represent, though perhaps not relatively, a vast demographic. To the misfortune of the project, this demographic includes experts on significant academic topics that are presently neglected by Wikipedia. That admin culture would persist in spite of this indicates that admins value their ability to affect the project more than the project itself. How unfortunate.
In consideration of the quote in the "Trivial matter" section, I think Jimbo would be particularly disappointed to see a readout of the common admin's dopamine levels when they mark an article that someone obviously spent a lot of time on with an AfD. 69.142.140.177 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fair to infer from this project page that the only difference between admins and non-admins is capabilities? And yet according to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, there are certain additional social restrictions on behaviour, specifically on closing deletion debates (which non-admins are capable of doing in the "keep" case). Is this appropriate? — Ashley Y 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The problematic guidelines are generally of the form "only administrators should do X, because non-admins are more likely to get it wrong", while the implication of this project page and WP:IAR is that if a non-admin does X and gets it right, they won't be reverted. Far better to mention what things non-admins are incapable of, and impress upon everyone best practice for doing X if non-admins are capable of it. — Ashley Y 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, some vandals keep on vandalizing the Animal Face-Off article? Can someone please do something? Radical3
I recieved an email about deleting the page titled Ithna Ashariya. Ithna Ashariya is also known as twelvers and Imami. I didn't want to duplicate information already on Wikipedia, so I simply left links. If this is still not acceptable, I will add more to the page. Please let me know.
Sfantana 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is minor enough that I should have just been bold, but I figured I'd stay on the safe side. I'd like to suggest a change under Wikipedia:Administrators#Other: "Can move move protected pages" to "Can move pages that are protected against moves." I think it will be less confusing and unclear this way (since people sometimes miss double words when reading, this could be taken to mean "can move protected pages"). Any objections to the change? delldot | talk 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've 2 semi-unrelated question: 1) Does one become an administrator somehow automatically, or is 1 voted in? 2) How cin I git me 1 them doohickeys on ma page sais This user is a:/ This user does: and what not (gots all them purty colors an all)? Thaddeus Slamp 00:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
When? Is it after you've been involved for some particular amount of time? Does a user know when they are being considered? Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not understand your second question, could you rephrase it please? Prodego talk 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was after userboxes. I phrased it that way to express how out to sea I thought I was regarding the subject, and really thought that the best way to express such. I figured them out enough to get every userbox I wanted. I still need to learn how to modify existing ones and create my own, though. Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting before we end up with one-word-per-line) If the standard for accountability is "Any bureaucrat decision with which some people object is cause for immediate de-bureaucratting" then no, we are not accountable. If, however, the standard is the same as it is for administrative and editorial actions, then we are quite accountable to the community. In case I've left you wondering, the standard of accountability for administrative and editorial actions is "Those who demonstrate a pattern of bad judgment and abuse of the priviledges granted to them will lose those priviledges." We don't ban editors for one controverisal revert, we don't de-admin administrators for one controversial AFD closure, and we don't de-bureaucrat bureaucrats for one controversial RFA closure. I guarantee that when someone can demonstrate a pattern of repeated bad judgement in the use of bureaucrat rights, the Arbitration Committee will act to de-bureaucrat that individual. That there are only 24 bureaucrats, only 10 of whom are remotely active in using thier bureaucrat rights, and that all of them are sensible, well-respected individuals makes it highly unlikely that such a case will ever happen. It does not mean, however, that if they actually did something that warranted de-bureaucratting it would not happen, and that is what accountability means: If you actually do something for which you should be held accountable, you will be. It does not mean providing for vigilante de-bureaucratting of anyone who makes a call that generates disagreement. "No bureaucrat has actually done anything to deserve being kicked out" does not equate to "The bureaucrats are not accountable." Essjay (Talk) 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A bit late, but: I said usually. If I recall, <75 nearly always fail | 75-80 Bureaucrat digression | >80 nearly always pass. Prodego talk 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be very difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:VAND says Vandalism includes, "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism."
So when an admin is engaged in this what should be done?
[1] with the summary saying, "(rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...)" and nothing in the talk pages. The admin: William_M._Connolley. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me start over (this time without a specific example) so I know how to proceed (and not with the example above). When an administrator is violating policies (i.e. Vandalism, 3RR, etc) what, where and how is this dealt with? I'm not looking for a ruling on the example above (though the input was appreciated), I want to know the correct process in dealing with situations that are more cut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnyakko ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 March 2007.
Where is the correct Sysop page to go to request a page move reverse. I remember reading that only a Sysop can do a move correctly, so the related links and talk pages stay connected, when both pages already exist. The page that needs moving is discussed here. -- Sadi Carnot 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
THIS obviously doesn't apply to ALL adminstrators, but rather a tight-knit group of administrators that watch, edit, and constantly revert most changes (however minor) to many Jewish-themed articles. I'm not here to name names, but if one looks at the edit histories of this tight-knit group of administrators almost ALL of their edits are in relation to Jewish-themed articles, somewhere in the range of 75-90%, with some of them close to 100% exclusive editing of Jewish-themed articles.
Now, I understand that certain administrators have certain pet articles or favorite groups of articles usually focused on a single theme that they most like to edit/patrol, but what does it say about the priorities of these powerful administrators that spend 75-90% of their time editing Jewish-themed articles to the exclusion of all other articles, eventually abandoning the rest of Wikipedia for their own set of articles yet still retaining all of the privileges and powers of an administrator with broad powers over the entire project (even though they rarely if ever edit non-Jewish themed articles or even care about them, as stated)? So, I ask: once these administrators get locked in to this cycle of editing only their particular set of pet articles and ignoring the other 99.99% of Wikipedia (even though they are supposed to be the police or 'guardians' of the entire project), are they still looking out for the entire project or just their special sub-set of articles? What admins. are doing the 'grunt work' and looking after the well-being of the entire project while this set of narrow editing administrators ignore the rest of Wikipedia in favor of their special articles and pet projects? These are a few questions I'd like answered...thanks for any replies. -- WassermannNYC 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I turned "In a nutshell, administrators are volunteers who originally joined Wikipedia for free at an earlier date." into "Administrators are editors that have volunteered to undertake additional responsibilities." Seems more concise. Teke ( talk) 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wont to be a admin. on this site! I would be honored to work on wikipedia! so can i?-- Mr.Taka 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain why IP addresses can't become administrators? 68.111.92.229 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's suggested liberal approach to granting adminship is not followed. Is it explained somewhere why this is so?
Presumably there have been conscious decision made on this - I would hope it's not just instruction creep; but at the same time, the current approach of making adminship a "big deal" seems quite contrary to Wikipedia's general philosophy of openness. -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting the neversouth page. I don't know how to use MySpace and this is the closest that I will ever get to understanding technology. Thanks!
The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the " no big deal" section should be removed. It may have been accurate in 2003, but I think that this is no longer the case. Indeed, recent ArbCom statements affirm that a higher standard of conduct is expected of administrators. -- El on ka 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for one, specifically for a research project I'm doing on Wikipedia, but since it is due later today (likely before I get a reply) I would appreciate a link or several links to something like this, including a break down of what automated fail-safes are in place and where users are in respective levels (i.e. User, Editor/Contrib, Admin, DB Admin, etc). If one doesn't exist, I can start a page with one, but I need info first.-- P4wn4g3 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I found one here. Doesn't explain the automatic processes like I was hoping, but its good.
"It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." (Jimbo Wales)
What is he referring to? What is the technical matter that stops us all from having the powers given to sysops? A.Z. 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How do I report an admin whom I feel has been "over enthusiastic" in their duties. For example, en mass deletion of images without notice and within about 2 minutes of an apparent infraction?
perfectblue 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding the following statement to this policy:
-- Tony Sidaway 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Its not even weak passwords anymore, User:KnowledgeOfSelf was hacked this morning [2], he claims he had a stronger mixed number and letter password. This is extremely discomforting. Darthgriz98 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's statistics we only have 0.03% of the wikipedian community that are administrators. I don't know if that includes all the user accounts that are socks, but assuming half of the accounts on wikipedia are socks that still only leaves us with 0.06%. According to wiktionary they have 0.14% sysops. Given my belief that wiktionary is running a little smoother, perhaps we should take to this model. Hence, I propose we should increase our the amount of sysops in the next year by 100%. We would need to recruit approx 1,200. -- CyclePat2 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean, it's never good to lie, of course. But why is lying about being an admin worse than anything else? - Amarkov moo! 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be a good idea if the user page of an administrator would automatically be fully protected when the user gets promoted to admin status. An admin can edit fully protected pages and thus doesn't experience any harm from that measure, whilst vandals wouldn't have the opportunity to vandalise that page any more (especially vandals who get blocked or otherwise warned by the admin in question). What about this idea? Salaskan 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, since I'm not too familar with :en-Wikipedia's procedures I'm posting here, hoping for some help. I'm trying to regain my initial account User:Nemissimo on the :en. It would be great if anyone could help me to access it again. Since the account is clearly stating that it is mine (interwikilink) it should be possible. I highly appreciate any help with this. Kind regards from Germany. My Userpage on the German Wikipedia -- Nemissimo II 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How on Earth do we go about complaining regarding incompetant or absive admins then? Recently Spartaz unilaterally decided to overturn a perfectly valid and justified indefinite block of a persistant, abusive, disruptive sockpuppeteer. Spartaz did so without any consultation and following just a few days of apparantly contrite, spurious edits to the vandal's talk page. This is pathetic, and is just as much an abuse of privilage as blocking without reason. Pyrope 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think these information should be added to the page. A.Z. 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)