User talk:Dan Palraz

Invitation for a "Discussion" - Belgrade - Kosovo Train

Good Day,

Due to barely interactions with the Article, it is easy to assume that there wont probably be a disccusion to start with. Since you were the one reverting the move, then you might also take part in the "discussion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Belgrade%E2%80%93Kosovska_Mitrovica_train_incident

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

I guess that you are ignoring my comments means that you dont want to accept my invitation. Am I right?

Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem.

Best Regards,

I am not Serbian nor Kosovar/Albanian (nor American nor Russian) so I have no personal position on Kosovo's statehood, but you know much better than I do that Kosovo is trying to gain full international recognition as a sovereign State, and that Serbia, Russia, China, India, Greece, Spain and most countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa still consider Kosovo a part of Serbia, while Albania, the USA, France, Germany and most countries in Western Europe consider Kosovo and Serbia two distinct countries, and Wikipedia tries (as it has to) to be neutral about it and use language that suits both parts. So your suggestion for changing this article from the name of the two cities to "Kosovo-Serbia" would obviously be controversial and not reach a consensus in this moment. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you, it's not the two of us who will change the minds of about half of the international community and Wikipedia's policy on the issue. But if the city name is Mitrovica, we can change it to Serbia-Mitrovica, yes. Dan Palraz (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

The whole comment of yours could have been written on the talk page of the article, the place where it is meant to be.

Of whose ethnicity you are part of, plays no role. Since it doesnt answer the question. On wikipedia I am trying to be neutral. Something like "Kosovska Mitrovica" isnt neutral at all. Maybe I shouldnt have directly changed the articles name and rather asked about it on the talk page first.

Either way, I take your comment into consideration and I will change the article to "Belgrad-Mitrovica".

Now to the second part, which you didnt answer:

"Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem."

Do you might wanna answer this?

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"InfoboxIPA": soundfiles

Hi Dan,

I undid your edit to article Voiced palatal lateral approximant because you inserted a sound file where a graphic is appropriate. Please note that sound file data of template {{Infobox IPA}} is handled on Module:IPA symbol/data. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

What purpose do you think is served by edit-warring at Maltese (dog)? You added some ill-written content (example: "What is sure it that is probably originated from spitz-type dogs") and removed some sourced material. I removed some of that, improved the sourcing, and made a start on cleaning up the rest of the mess there, but you've reverted to your preferred version, undoing the other edits in the process. Please read WP:BRD – in a nutshell, if your edit is reverted, don't make the same edit again, discuss. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oslo areas

Hi, if you come across unlinked refs to Oslo areas, you can use Area C (West Bank) and /or West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord as a quick ref, K? Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Re this, I suggest you ease off the editing until it is sorted out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can report anyone for anything. I will not stop editing, which is exactly what the user who reported me (who, differently from me - I have been in discussions about dogs, Kosovo and Serbia, dictatorships in Latin America, the Paraguayan Guaraní language and saints -, only has ONE area of interest: Israel) would want me to do. I will continue on editing, knowing I am actually contributing to Wikipedia. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you, I said ease off, not stop. Why would you delete "(as part of Area A)" Diff? Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It is an open, universal encyclopedia; "area A", "area B" and "area C" only make sense to Israelis and Palestinians, and it is not a coincidence that the users inserting "area A", "area C" into all articles are people whose every single edit are politically motivated against Palestinians, since what can be seen in Israel today is far-right activists trying to sell the idea that all of "area C" is "Israeli territory", theoretically recognized as so by the Palestinians themselves through an agreement signed 27 years ago. Since then, though, Palestinians have declared that all of the West Bank is part of the State of Palestine, a move that has been recognized by the United Nations and most countries in the world. So, if we want to be neutral, I don't see the point in corroborating the Israeli position, which diverges from International Law and differs from the positions of every other country on Earth (including the United States: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/west-bank/), who all see all of the West Bank as "Palestinian territory". Dan Palraz (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The best way to deal with that is to make sure that the fact of Israeli occupation is also in any relevant article because occupation by definition supersedes any A's, B's and C's (btw Palestine did not agree that C (or A or B) was Israeli). In general it is better to try and add stuff rather than delete stuff. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right, thank you. Dan Palraz (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz: If everyone could try to de-escalate - yes, the areas are occasionally given slightly higher prominence than they need to be - in short descriptions for example, which can seem a little reductive, but its more often less prominent - the key, as self notes, is that the more important information comes first, areas later. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't actually own this page, there are guidelines for its use

Including the one about not changing posts that have had a response. You can delete this again but it's in your history. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dan. You are overreacting. We're a community and, whatever our differences, we iron them out civilly. The only sensible response to any exasperation one may feel in this area, is to calmly ratchet up even higher the quality of one's input, while diligently hewing to best practice rules, which include not making subjective edit summaries that can look as though the motive were dislike of the matter. To be specific: of course the Area A/B/C distinction is an horrendous colonial exaction - everyone knows that. But it was unfortunately underwritten by an accord between Israel and the PLO, and there's fuck all one can do about that. We go strictly by sources, and our own feelings are immaterial. I state that as someone who thinks the whole discursive structure of the I/P conflict is obscene. But that's my POV, and must not intrude on my judgement when I edit there.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)