User talk:Beamathan

I need your help

Mr. Beamathan, I just realize that it is written in the article Kosovo: "Kosova" redirects here. For other uses, see Kosova (disambiguation). but that is not the case as when I type Kosova it does redirect me to "Kosova (disambiguation)". So I would appreciate your help, Sir. --Tubesship (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have thrown my support behind this in the talk:kosovo page. Beam (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, thank you, Sir. --Tubesship (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Omg. Sugarbat (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Consenus breached, need support

Hello Beamathan, contrary to a reached consensus there is a splitting going on instead a merging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Split_completed And I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you! --Tubesship (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings From Germany (further manipulation)

Well, I could not tell you how much thankfulness I felt about your involvement in the article Kosova. It seemed that it was foremost your endeavour that saved this article from being abused by people with an obvious resentment against Albanians. So I wanted to thank you, dear Beam! But your trying to create a fork surprised me. Not in a good way. --Tubesship (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)BTW: I hope you do not change your mind about the Kosova case like many turncoats before as this forks seems to indicate this.

Well, just so you know, I don't think it's helpful when you spout crap like "KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT THIS IS A FACT, REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO IS KOSOVO." But hey, I do what I can. And it didn't work anyway. I had the article actually working, and then it was reverted, and I don't feel like an edit war.Beam (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, please don't ever delete or edit this. Sugarbat (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

liar

Sorry Beam, but I think Ricky just prevented a POV fork. You should learn to accept that Kosova is not at all "crap". --Tubesship (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a very manpipulative person Tube. When I was arguing for NPOV you were only hoping to be able to instill your personal POV. Look at all your "Thank you beam, dear" posts. They were all lies. I can't believe how quickly some people discard NPOV after it's been used to get rid of something they apparently were only interested in changing to their POV not NPOV. It's almost funny. Beam (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not lose your sense of humor, you will need it, if you are really a turncoat as your pro merging, pro splitting moves indicates. Well, everybody is like he is, take it easy. --Tubesship (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) BTW: You may rather call me naive as you obviously managed to fool me.

I'm now officially disgusted. Fooled you? I am staying with the same argument I've had for weeks. Go look at the talk page. Go look at what you've said, and now look at what you're saying! How can you try telling me that I'm a "turncoat"? I fought for this merge harder than ANYONE here. You only went along with me to get it done apparently. Your recent actions speak louder than anything you can say now. Beam (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me cite dab, he wrote: "what the hell? You just clamored for merging, and merging we did. If you want an article on the Republic of Kosovo, your position is splitting.", see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Structure and I have to agree with him. You pretend being pro merging but you did the opposite. How would you call this behaviour? Not turncoat like, but? I am really curious about your pretext. --Tubesship (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're lying. He didn't say that in response to me. Why do you lie so blatantly? I'm sorry but you're acting crazy, but I hope not on purpose. Let's also read something from that very passage you lied about: No, you cannot get a single "Kosovo" article that is in fact about the "Republic of Kosovo". That's of course what you would like to happen, but that's something that needs to happen in the real world first (majority or universal recognition), and only then on Wikipedia. This article as it stands is about the Kosovo region as a whole. You are very devious, and perhaps dab was right to reprimand you repeatedly. I suggest you change your ways. Beam (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So you want to say that you were against merging all the time but we all misunderstood you? So everybody of us is crazy and you are the only sane? So it be, let us the reader make the decision about whom he believes, you or the rest of the world. --Tubesship (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You're not making any sense. Beam (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what you wrote: "Agreed, merge it. We have a consensus, do it now. Beam (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)", see at archive 17. So you pretended to be pro merge and then admin Ricky had to avoid your split. How comes? Do really all of us misunderstand you? Do you want to say this? --Tubesship (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you ok? Don't you get it? I have always said, and you have always agreed, to one article on Kosovo. This article is not supposed to focus on the RoK. The RoK is a new development. Why would it be the focus of an article on Kosovo? You're so biased it's ridiculous, you only agreed with me for a merge to push your own POV. It's gross. And why won't you admit you just lied within this section? You're a liar and a deceiver. Beam (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you admit or deny that you were pro merging the article Republic of Kosovo and the article about Kosovo (geopolitical region) into the article Kosovo? So again, why did you try to create again an article named "Republic of Kosovo" after you were pro merging? Whom do you try to deceive? --Tubesship (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always been clear on exactly the best way to do this, and you agreed! And now you lie in this section and continue to ignore it. Are you that insane? Or are you just so evil and biased? As you said I have ALWAYS been for an article about Kosovo. Sorry Kosovo has not ALWAYS BEEN THE ROK. It's only been the RoK for months. And as I have always said the point of a Kosovo article is NOT for a ROK article. Sorry, crazy girl, you know I'm right. And apparently you only agreed with me to get a merged article to change it into an ROK article, and I've never agreed to that because that's retarded. So retarded. And regardless of your little commentary here and there you know you're wrong. I'll take an apology and a promise to stay the freak off my talk page now. Thanks! Beam (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And here you go Tube: The way I presented the Merge, and the way it gained consensus was NPOV. These people who deceived just to get a merge are so biased, it's scary. The right way to do this article is merged, about Kosovo. As I say repeatedly the RoK's several months does not need to dominate an article about the whole Kosovo. A merged article is the correct way to do it. Bias must not ruin it. NPOV will prevail. Beam (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's in Talk:Kosovo#To_Some_of_Those_who_stood_by_me_in_making_this_Merge_happen: go take up your lunacy there. Thanks. Beam (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For good luck there are admins like Ricky above, taking care of your sense of "reality" and your split pushings. And my gender as much as my ethnic background or my religion should be off topic, please. --Tubesship (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I never brought up your background or religion, stop spewing lies, do not return to my talk page, please. Goto that section of talk if you want to push your POV further. Beam (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a girl, so stop calling me that. --Tubesship (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How about emotional lying biased liar? Good enough? Beam (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about yourself, are not you? But you will not fool the admins like Ricky who already stopped you from split pushing and they will continue to do so. Just give it up. Nobody believes you. They know you better than you think. --Tubesship (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, dab was right about you. I was blinded by your lies then, but now I see. Please, stop coming to my talk page or I will start to quote your lies from the Kosovo talk page, so for your own good, just stop. It's laughable. Beam (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STAY OFF OF MY TALK PAGE

...--Tubesship (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay off of my talk page please, you're not welcome. And I'd also appreciate it if you did not directly address me in any way. You disgust me. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. :) Beam (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I promise I will. Good bye then! ;-) --Tubesship (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue of civility

Hi Beamathan. This remark by you was brought to my attention, and now I notice the friendly exchanges in the above sections of this talk page.

For the collaboration between editors to take place fruitfully, especially on conflictive and sensitive topics such as Kosovo, a reasonable degree of civility, tact and respect is required. We're asked to avoid upsetting other editors wherever possible, especially by avoiding unnecessary non-constructive remarks that we know may upset others.

That remark added nothing to the article's improvement, and could very well irritate some people. You'll help us all by avoiding similar comments in the future.

In any case, keep in mind that civility is subservient to the basic goal of writing an encyclopedia; of collaborating to improve the articles without disrupting the work of other bona fide editors in one way or another.

If you haven't done so yet, please take the time to read carefully our core principles, talk page guidelines and civility policy. You will find them quite usefull to facilitate your editing, and may help you avoid some bad experiences.

And congratulations for the part you played in helping to stabilize the article on Kosovo :-) Just try to keep a cool head while continuing your collaboration in this delicate area. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I hope you don't consider anything at face value sir. The remark that you even quoted was only in response to her/him "LOL"ing at me. And I didn't attack, merely commented. My Talk Page is simply so that she/he will leave me alone. There have been many accusations against me simply because I am very neutral and won't support kosvars or serbs. And thank you for noticing the work I've put in to this article. It's appreciated. I will continue to defend an NPOV, for as long as it takes. Beam 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm very sorry to hear that we have editors who take the time to complain and snitch on other users. I have been insulted many times, however I understand that most of these people are simply emotional about a cause they believe in very much, and I forgive them. When editors start turning on other editors it's a sad sight. Beam 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This was not really snitching, but an issue of balance and fairness, and the perception of it. In any case, irrespective of context, your comment was not precisely civil, and was unnecessary, since nothing productive could come out of it.

I have been editing Kosovo-related articles since July 2006, so that by now I have an idea of the problems it entails. I know what you are talking about :-) You will soon find out that adhering to our talk page guidelines and civility policy (even when you're irritated or others are rude) greatly facilitates your editing experience, and that of everyone else.

I hope to continue seeing good work from you in the coming months. Have a nice weekend :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness, but i hope you noticed the preceding comment, and subsequent comment. If mine is to be construed as an insult, than what are they? And if you've read my talk page, you'll se that that person has lied about me and basically depicted me as an asshole. And it's not even true! That's the reason I have these particular exchanges saved on my talk page Ev. So people can see that when he/she makes a comment on the Kosovo:Talk that she/he has lied in the past. Beam 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And also the fact that she's previously attacked me, should give you an idea of why i said what I said. Does it make it right to have said that? No. It doesn't, and I should be better than that. But it wasn't exactly uncalled for. Beam 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the general context. Tubesship behaviour has not been helpful, and I have told him so. But, as you aknowledge, two wrongs don't make a right... and Wikipedia is not a battleground. – I greately appreciate this edit. - Ev (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading your appalling comments, I would have blocked both you and Tubesship had Húsönd not done it before. If you are not able to remain polite, even when others make you angry, then you won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a usefull way.

In a controvertial area such as the Balkans, where sensibilites and emotions run high, you'll often find yourself in situations that put your patience and spirits to the test. If you don't have the ability to deal with that politely, then you're probably going to be blocked for the same thing again.

We need more "neutral", civil editors in these areas of Wikipedia. But incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable. They must stop.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. - Ev (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke. Did you not read what was said? At all? You have to be joking. Please let me know you're joking. Beam 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations for helping resolve the Kosovo article dispute

Hi Bemathan, I'm User:R-41, I've been one of albeit a minority of moderate editors for the Kosovo article page who has strived to make it neutral as you have. I'm grateful to meet another user committed to neutrality on the issue. All I and most other Wikipedians have wanted is a clear, concise and neutral article on Kosovo, however fanatic partisan nationalists of the Albanian and Serb camps think they own the Kosovo article and have used it in the past to wage their edit wars with each other. For me as neither an Albanian or a Serb, but a Canadian viewing that the international community is split on recognition of Kosovo independence, I was dissappointed in how long it took Wikipedia to move to an NPOV position on the matter, but am grateful that people like you have pushed for NPOV on the issue. If you know any more moderates on the Kosovo issue, please inform me. As I imagine you know, it is very difficult to curb off attacks from partisans alone, and finding more moderate editors for topics on Kosovo will be quite useful in stopping future edit wars. Thanks for your help!--R-41 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Please would you give your view here [1]
Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An Autonomous Province, The Autonomous Province

Surly its self evident that the correct article to use is the definite article, "the". There is only one object that we are talking about. You can only use the indifinite article, "a" or "an", when refering to an object that is part of a class of larger objects, and you do not intend to refer to a particular object within that class.

1. it is OK to say "Serbia claims Kosovo as an autonomous province" (there are a number of autonomous provinces, of which Kosovo is one.)

2. it is also OK to say "Serbia claims Kosovo as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M"

you can't say "Serbia claims Kosovo as an Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M" because it implies that there is more than one Autonomous Province of Kosovo and M - clearly there is not. Sentence 1.

In general, proper noun (ie names of actual objects, people or countries) can only be preceeded by the (ie the Frence Republic or the Atlantic Ocean, never a French Republic or an Atlantic Ocean - the latter implies that there are several French Republics and I am refering to any of them.

If you don't understand - please just post again and I'll think of a better way 2 explain.

Thanks

APM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one province in Serbia. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and... is just one of those provinces, unless I'm wrong and it's the only province in Serbia. If I'm wrong than we'll keep the "the", but if I'm right and there is more than one province, the correct term is "an" for reasons for which you seem to already understand. Luckily I'm such a nice guy I won't take offense to the insinuation that I am not competent in the English language. Let me know if you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it in a different, simpler, way. Beam 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. RoK Redirect

No, Beamathan, as you can read first and most in the summary I provided, "users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" may well be searching for plain Kosovo itself and all its related matters". The fact that the section you want it to redirect is a pathetic one line is just one more reason. Please don't create a problem where there is not a problem. Regard, Húsönd 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained it to you sir. You are creating the problem. I won't enter into an edit war tonight, but I will change it back tomorrow. Myself and others are correct to do it that way. You have a problem with the section in the Kosovo article. You should put your effort into improving that section instead of incorrectly redirecting something, against not only logic but myself and DAB. Simply saying the section isn't' good doesn't mean it is not the correct redirect. I ask you to revert it yourself, so I don't have to. This will allow you to take your own advice regarding problems. Regard, Beam 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, it's futile to threat an incoming revert war. Revert wars never go the way of those who start them unilaterally. There's no consensus for your intended redirect target, and that should suffice for you to give up on this. Siding with dab won't help. And I don't really see what's the purpose of accusing me of trying to get my way when I was merely undoing an unilateral and rather unreasonable action. Think about it. Regards, Húsönd 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not threating a revert war! Wow! Anyway, telling me to give up is very strange and I'd even consider that against Wikipedia. And for you tell me to "think about it" is either an example of drastic ignorance on your part or you're actually being a {{rpa}}. I can't honestly tell, but either way I don't appreciate your needless condescending tone. And last time I checked unilateral didn't mean me and another editor who are quite well versed in the Kosovo articles on Wikipedia. Let's go over the facts AGAIN:

- The Kosovo article is about Kosovo.

- The Kosovo article has a section about the RoK

- Someone looking for the RoK is probably looking to read about the RoK.

With those facts, how can you call it unreasonable? Pretty strange Husond my friend, it's as if you have some sort of agenda, and by belittling me you feel that my opinions are invalid. Again, I think your problem is with the section on RoK. I recommend you beef up the section, so that when they get redirected there they'll be something to read.

Think about it. Regards, Beam 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And your edit summary is insulting Husond. Pretty blatantly too. You really get {{rpa}}, huh? You have just dropped all pretense of discussion and exchange of ideas, and relegated your actions to pointed negativity and ill reason. Beam 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We might have not started out communication well, but since you insisted that my major edit to the article on Kosovo be reverted, please keep an eye on the latest undiscussed major edits by Boze Pravde. Thank you very much for your efforts!--Getoar (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Defying Logic

Sorry, like most users I don't provide my phone number. But I shall remind you once again of WP:CIVIL, which you have breached on my talk page. Húsönd 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, remind of where it says POV Pushing is ok...? Do you have a link to that? I'd like that, very much. Beam 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation

I see you are new here and based on your edit log I do not see you have contributed with anything else than edit wars in the Kosovo article. With this recommendation I have good intensions and would recommend you to first read about the issue you are discussing and then come back and discuss in a polite way and remember that other people's bias do not justify your own bias. As some other editors said: Two wrongs don't make a right. :-) --Noah30 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost just choked on my coffee. You'd be funny if you weren't being an (Personal attack removed). Beam 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I have a new recommendation. Based on what you wrote in my talk page I think you should take a break and come back after some weeks. Right now I feel you are thinking black and white and excluded the things in-between. With this attitude and feelings of being betrayed I don't think you will be able to be an neutral editor. I have not seen your edits that contributed towards NPOV in the article but if it is true than I am very grateful. Please take into consideration this second recommendation. I believe even if you feel betrayed by RoK's supporters this can not justify anti-RoK edits. --Noah30 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very confused friend. There should be no "pro-RoK" edits, so if reverting such things are "anti-RoK" edits than there should be MORE OF THEM! Seriously man, you need to drop your bias. I won't let RoK Nationalists or Serb Nationalist push their POVs and that includes you. Beam 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) And that betrayal isn't a sign that RoK POV Pushers are necessarily bad, it's a sign that people will go to great lengths to get their POV Pushed. And that neutral editors must act fervently to prevent it. Which I will. Beam 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be butting in here, but what the hell. Guys, stop telling each other you don't contribute anything. I can't really say much for Noah, because I haven't really followed his edits. What I can say is that Beam is definitely a worthwhile contributor, and seems to always put neutrality first. That being said, Beam, you do get a bit aggressive (for want of a better word) when it comes to other views (be they nationalist or not). And if/when you are right, you should be a bit more on the nice side, even if you don't think it's warranted. Maybe one or two days (not months) of a break could help, but it's up to you. Don't feel obliged to stop the nationalists, because there are always others to cover for you. Now everybody please put personal feelings aside to improve the article. BalkanFever 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

favour ...

is the correct BE spelling. I do not want to argue that this is more applicable to a non-native English speaking, European country--what many people would probably do. My point is more that you should know what you are dismissing before you get excited on incorrect spellings. Anyway, you are right the style found in the Kosovo article abysmal and I wish you success improving it. I have chosen not to lie hands on this article, because of the abhorrent atmosphere prevailing the necessary discussions on its talk page. Tomeasy (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not retarded. I'm aware that it is the correct British spelling. However this article is in American English. It's not that favour is wrong by itself, but within this article it is. Beam 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. RE: Your comment to my new section on the Kosovo Talk Page entitled "The rest of the article"

No, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to send a simple message that your participation in discussions regarding Kosovo have been going from bad to worse. Your incivility is growing at a steady pace, virtually all of your comments carry some sort of aggressive, rude or arrogant attitude. Then your bossy calls on "Kosovo experts" or on "takers for working on sections you believe need to be worked on" isn't really a constructive approach. If you think something needs to be done, then go ahead and do it (or discuss what you plan to do). But don't be suggesting hard work for others, suggesting is easy but rather useless on Wikipedia. We're all volunteers here. I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot on my comment, I was just using a little bit of sarcasm in order to soften this message. But you clearly did not understand my point. I'm not against you or anyone else, I'm just trying to control the smooth progress of discussions on the topic of Kosovo. And lately you have often displayed a negative cooperation. Particularly when it comes to language, which will likely grant you a topic ban unless you moderate your tone and speech. I apologize for having to sound rather blunt. Regards, Húsönd 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is lacking and pointless. And I will be doing the work on the pages, in fact my little section there DOES explain what I'm doing. You either don't get it, or are continuing to screw with me. I can't tell which. Beam 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply -- Pristina

For the discussion on recent edits made against consensus please view Mareklug's talk page where it was moved, and continued in it's entirety. Thanks Beam 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing of the Kosovo article's Intro

O.k., thanks for your advice.--Andrija (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Kosovo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you..

Note: as of 19:37, 2 May 2008 you have already violated 3RR. Your justification that "Starting a Talk Page section IS NOT CONSENSUS" does not wash as the other participant is at least making an attempt at discussion, which you choosing to ignore. Consensus is achieved through discussion. No other way. Given that you have already violated 3RR, you may consider this your last warning. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, as you say consensus is reached through discussion. I offered to discuss them with him, and went as far as to create a talk section. See his talk page. After he posted his own section, after I had made one in the Talk Page to get a discussion started, he immediately made the edits again. How was consensus reached? You say I ignored discussion, yet I tried to start it. You say consensus is reached through discussion. Which is what I was trying to enforce. He wouldn't have the discussion, he made the edits prior to, and without discussion. And, as you yourself point out so kindly, without discussion there is no consensus.

The edits he was making went against a previous consensus. By going against consensus, and refusing to reach a NEW consensus via conversation, his edits should be reverted. After the first revert, I pleaded with him to have a discussion. I begged him to reach consensus. As you point out in the last reversion I made, I said starting a talk page section is not consensus. There was no discussion, let alone consensus. The edits he was making went against a previous consensus.

You say I ignored his attempt at discussion. That's false. I tried hardest for discussion. I informed him the edits he was making were breaking consensus. I asked him to have a discussion so that we could form a new consensus. I did everything right as per WP:CONSENSUS. I do not see how you dare to say I ignored any attempt at consensus. I was one of the many participants to the consensus that was achieved through discussion that resulted in the decision that Pristina was the correct English way of stating Pris^tina/Prishtina. Please note the top of the Edit Page for the article of Kosovo.

This consensus, which even lead to that warning on the edit page, was reached through discussion. Markelug was making edits that went against a consensus. I asked him to please discuss them first. Discussion leads to consensus. He refused, continuing to break an existing consensus while refusing to let a discussion happen. With these facts I asked him repeatedly NOT TO EDIT WAR. He chose to continue his consensus breaking edits while refusing to have a discussion to reach a new consensus. Please review the facts of this again, I look forward to your response Fullstop. Beam 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) It may also be of some note to you that markel may have fought against the last consensus reached regarding Pristina, and it may be a reason why he made this changes. I'm not sure about that though. And I didn't mean to come off combative, but it's insulting to say I wasn't following the Wikipedia way. I strive for NPOV and Cooperation. As I stated on his talk page, I always try to adhere to WP:AGF, and have fought hard for neutrality and consensus for months on this Kosovo article. So when you give me a "last warning", it's pretty hurtful. I respectfully await your response with bated breath. Beam 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have just learned that I am blocked from Wikipedia? I implore you to remove this block after you investigate the facts that I have posted above. This is devastating. I was defending that article that I love and I'm blocked? Contact administrator User:Dbachman, talk to User:BalkanFever, User:Jonathanmills, User:Bože pravde, and User:Cradel. They will all attest to my unwaievering dedication to WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NPOV on the Kosovo article.

From my very talk page, User_talk:Beamathan#Recommendation, respected editor User:BalkanFever says: What I can say is that Beam is definitely a worthwhile contributor, and seems to always put neutrality first.

I have NEVER, EVER, gone against discussion, consensus, or NPOV. NOT ONCE! Look at the talk page section above. He wanted to make an addition to the article. I reverted, than went to his talk page and advised him to start a discussion to reach consensus. I am all about consensus and NPOV. Please review and respond sir, this is horrible. Beam 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: You were blocked for edit warring, not for your 3RR violation.

Edit warring is contrary to the principles of cooperation that Wikipedia is built on, and is never justifiable, regardless of whether you feel you are in the right or not.

Further, all Kosovo-related articles are under ArbCom probation. This means that edit warring and other policy violations will be harshly dealt with.

Finally, consensus is not what you or anyone else can reach alone, or with what you might consider to be a majority opinion. Even minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and these should be taken into consideration, and not just rejected out of hand. Thus, in practice 'consensus' means agreement (even it is only to agree to disagree, i.e. a demonstration of respect), and an application of force, which is what one does when waging a war, is obviously not going to help achieve or maintain consensus. Also, consensus can and does change, so even when you have consensus on one day, this is not necessarily still valid on the next day.

The bottom line is please don't fight. It doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that must always be every editor's first priority. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You STILL HAVEN'T READ WHAT I SAID. He was BREACHING CONSENSUS. I tried to have him try to reach a new consensus. I'm BAFFLED by what you are saying? Did you not read what happened? Do you not realize that he was breaking consensus? And that I was defending consensus, while trying to get him to start a new discussion?

What are you talking about Fullstop? Beam 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read what you said here and on the Kosovo talk page, and frankly, everything Fullstop touched upon is what I was going to tell you anyways. There are editing restrictions on Kosovo to a harsher degree than other articles because of the ArbCom case. Plus, if those users are really trying to establish consensus or have your consensus, they should have been reverting either with you or done the blocking themselves. But they didn't. Anyways, stop fighting, acknowledge this block and start discussing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also got your email, let's continue there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, Beam. I know we've got off on a bumpy start, but I can reciprocate and say that you're contribution to the Kosovo discussion has been very useful over the past weeks. Do keep it up! Regarding your "hating" me at first: I do recommend you avoid at any cost getting emotional about other editors. WP:DENY says, don't get worked up about trouble-makers, it only encourages them. Treat them as a technical problem and route around them. It's ok to feel annoyed when you feel Wikipedia is being disrupted, but do not allow this to develop into a feeling of personal animosity. It's ok to feel mild contempt, though, with all the stupidity abounding on Wikipedia, any sane editor will harbour such feelings from time to time. dab (𒁳) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ah yes, and I feel sorry about your 24h block. I guess it was sort of justified due to the article probation, but I don't think you've done anything wrong. You just shouldn't have taken it upon yourself to revert unilaterally: the great thing about any consensus version is that there will be numerous people defending it. You could just have waited for a couple of minutes, and somebody else would have joined in. --dab (𒁳) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hate" really means "disagreed with", lol. Even when we weren't on the same side of an issue you still stuck with Consensus and NPOV. If we hadn't disagreed than I wouldn't be sure that you were all about neutrality and gaining a consensus. I was a jerk about it then too, but you stayed calm and forced Wikipedia's policies. And that led to me becoming a better editor. So, thank you.

And no worries about the block. As long as the people who actually contribute know what happened, I don't care. Beam 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic banned

For continued and sustained disruption on Kosovo-related articles during the past month or so, you are now banned from all Kosovo-related articles for 14 days. This ban extends to any talk pages of any major Kosovo-related talk page or user talk pages where incivility is displayed, especially Talk:Kosovo and User talk:Husond. If you breach this ban by making edits in these areas, you could face a block of an then-to-be determined length, or renewed sanctions. You are however, free to make edits anywhere else on Wikipedia. Some comments that have been used to provide a basis for this block are: (1, 2, 3 and 4). This topic-ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia‎. Rudget (Help?) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is Disruption defined as defending Consensus and NPOV??? Do you have some special definition of disruption? I missed that definition, but if you can show me that than I'd agree with my "topic ban." If not, than I'm very sorry to see such a ban occur, and even more sorry to see people like you enforce it. I'd laugh if this wasn't retarded. What a joke! Beam 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reduce the topic ban for 7 days starting after 14:28, 5 May 3008 (UTC) (the timestamp above), especially after some constructive contributions, here for example, however, this is particularly worrying and the sanction remains in place (considering that the ANI thread didn't gain the attention I thought it may have). Rudget (Help?) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the ANI thread, please? Rudget (Help?) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure hold on a second. Beam 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)[here] Honestly man, I'm no bad guy. I really do contribute and such. And me and Balkans didn't start off as friends, but eventually through WP:AGF we found out that we were both just trying to help and for the last 2 months we've been cool. Beam 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to seem like I'm too involved with Husond already, but I'll ask him for his opinion. Rudget (Help?) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem. That's why you went to ANI. Because taking the word of someone who, according to Dab and msyelf, has bitten me, isn't right. But ok man, you do your thing. Beam 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But, if I reduce this without the input of Husond it'd be without due consideration. Rudget (Help?) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But inducing it in the first place with his input was wrong to begin with! But fine, I don't want you to have to put up with his complaints, so do what you have to do. Beam 16:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undentified)

Please let me clarify that last statement, it's not an attack towards Husond or an insult towards your adminship (or his for that matter). You banned me with what, at first glance, looks like good reasons, nicely packaged and sourced in wiki style. You got these reasons from an Admin you respect or at the least work with, a coworker. I have no problem with any of that, and it is Husond's right to complain.

My main problem is that Husond is an involved party to many of his "reasons." In Wikipedia I've noticed that administrators usually do not ban someone they are involved with at an article. He contacted you, and without thoroughly investigating further than reading the nicely layed out excerpts prepared by a an involved party, you banned me for 14 days from the topic.

That's not right. Then after I realize this has happened, I immediately contacted you as did an administrator, who actually is familiar with the article, and is even less involved than Husond. He points out that Husond may have bitten me, since he is such an experienced wiki user, and I am not. I am new, and after it was pointed out, I realized that I was "set up" in a lot of instances. As an example: please read this section from the Kosovo Talk Page. Stuff like that, trying to get a reaction out of me, is pretty vicious and against the spirit expressed by WP:BITE. Does this excuse my behavior? Not at all. As BalkanFever points out I probably was pushing WP:COOL.

I really don't want to spend much more effort here, but you rightly went to ANI, and the two people who did respond, that weren't you, me or Husond, agree that I have been a good contributing editor exhibiting positive influence upon the article and that I should not be topic banned. I don't want you to take offense but I think this should have been brought to ANI before a ban. Or at least more investigation prior. In thise case banishment from a topic is warranted, and I don't think Husond should have to agree to me being unbanned. I tire from defending myself but I do want to work on the Kosovo article which I have never wrongly disrupted. I would like to be unbanned. Beam 19:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Response

I'm going to get some flack for this, but here goes. From what I can see, you are clearly a dedicated editor who has been here for a little near 2 months now, and you are probably not that familiar with the policies of Wikipedia, despite a multitude of warnings from above quoting relevant policies and guidelines which are aimed to prevent any sort of disruptive behaviour and ensure that all editors are able to work in a collegial environment in which contributions are constructive to the 'furtherment' of an article. I read a very good piece of advice the other day, and hopefully it can apply to your situation in particular.

I think it's generally true that any contribution to Wikipedia indicates that the person has a desire to contribute something, even if it's absolutely not useful in the slightest.

Now whether that could be seen as some elusive ideal by an editor could be debated, but since I am the initiator of the topic ban, then I will apply it here appropriately. As you know Husond did notify me of the events that were occuring as a result of your conduct (especially on Talk:Kosovo) and I must admit a few diffs that were presented as evidence (in colloboration with I few I looked at aswell) were damning and did seem to conclude that you were in fact 'disrupting' the talk page with either 'unhelpful' or otherwise inappropriate comments. (I think now would also be a time to mention that I did not take Husond's evidence at face value, I did, as I say, look further, hence some diffs in the topic ban implementation were different to those given by Husond). However, I do see an editor in there who is willing to contribute, and whether or not that is debatable or not, should be taken into account. An example where you have sought help is here which impressed me somewhat. I don't want any further contact between you and Husond, since it is clear it could become heated in the future. I hold equal respect for both of you and I acknowledge both arguments, and I appreciate BalkanFever (talk · contribs) coming to my talk page briefly explaining the rationale behind an edit you made to their respective talk page. Note that I will be reviewing your case constantly and you are not off the hook. If I see any conduct here or anywhere else that is severly inappropriate, then renewed sanctions and/or blocks may be to follow.

The situation. Kosovo (and the Balkans in general) are very-hot topics, and conversation can quickly become heated, we as administrators have a responsibility to make sure that we nip 'bad-blood' before it can develop into something that drives even more people away. Topic banning in general is to provide all contributors with an equal chance to discuss how an article may be modified, by removing users who are either disruptive or messing around intentionally. I would like to remind you that now you have had warning and community feedback on your actions so far, that your behaviour must not violate any policies here on Wikipedia: namely not to make any personal attacks, or to impose restrictions on other users contributions, to remain civil during discussion, make sure all contributions don't come from specifically your point of view and represent interests of the article, assuming good faith (for example when someone makes a mistake, it's not always intentional) and not to revert anyone else's changes on more than three occasions. You know all this so far, and I am willing to give you a second chance. Don't let me down. Topic ban reduced to 7 days (effective of 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) hence otherwise it will expire at 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Sincere regards, Rudget (Help?) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you went above and beyond what you had to in this case. Very appreciated. Beam 14:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing well. Thank you for proving that I can trust you. Rudget (Help?) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your trust is well placed, rest assured. Me and Husond are actually working together on the Burma article regarding a Disputed Title Tag. So I don't see any problems occurring between us any time soon, and I will work hard to make sure you don't have to hear any bitching or complaining regarding me. I truly do appreciate your effort in resolving the topic ban. Other admins might have refused to do what you did. So thanks again. Beam 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel article

Hello Beam, I am happy to work with you and others on the Israel article. I would suggest that you could try to qualify how people you disagree with do not conform to guidelines and that you contribute to propose new wording based on sources and guidelines. I hope you don't mind my unsolicited suggestion. Keep up the good work! Winetype (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

actions of the controlled territories

Hello, in your edit, what did you mean by "actions of the controlled territories"? thanks, Imad marie (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Burma article

Kindly do not insert undue "edit-war warnings" in user talkpages, especially on issues in which you are directly involved in.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be reminded of the 3RR rule. I, myself, have had trouble with it in the past. Beam 12:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that is good to know, considering how you appear willing to revert even prior to concensus making. I hope your "reminder" is done in good faith, and in good faith alone.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well denying that consensus is present, and has been present isn't really an option for me. As Husond points out, the tag is simply a sour grapes action by those who were against the move. I think it's NPOV to NOT have the tag, and POV Pushing to have it. Also, I'm weary of your tone regarding my good faith. Maybe you should review Wikipedia's Good Faith policy. Beam 14:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Burma dispute tag

Sorry Beam, apparently I didn't notice your report yesterday on my talk page about Huaiwei transgressing WP:3RR. He did in fact violate the rule and a block was in order. However, since it has been many hours now since the transgression, I won't issue a block. Besides, he seems to have stopped warring, at least for the moment. I will pay attention to further transgressions. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with him, all appears well. No block in order. Beam 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Beam, edit summaries such as this will bring back your probation. Please observe WP:CIVIL at all times. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I really DO NOT appreciate you threatening me. I am being CIVIL. He has made those edits repeatedly, I am not the only one who reverts them. So run along and go talk to him, I'm taking the correct action. It's bullshit to threaten me when I am being Civil. I'm not reverting him without an explanation, I'm not going to his talk page and telling him to stop and that he sucks. I'm simply letting him know that his constant POV edits, that have no consensus and in fact have been agreed upon not to be included will not be tolerated.

I want an apology. And if you won't apologize for threatening me improperly, than I just want you to agree not to do it again. I'm willing to work with you, see Burma article, but I'm not willing to let you try to intimidate me and hold a topic ban over my head that I didn't deserve in the first place. I won't let you ruin my Wikipedia experience with this type of action, please cease and desist and apologize. Beam 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)