User talk:Timbouctou

Bešker's assessment

Regarding the Bešker's JL article you mentioned: his assessment is precisely what Jimbo asked for in his talk page ("can someone ask as many of [the Croatian Wikipedia editors] as is practical to pop here for a discussion?"). Apart from being a Wikipedian, Bešker is a well-respected journalist, so his views carry a certain weight.

Since you have the paper, could you post a (condensed?) translation of the article for Jimbo's consideration? GregorB (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem, although I am at work now and can't devote much time to it right away. I could do it later in the afternoon if that's okay. Timbouctou (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks! GregorB (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, that was quick... I could not resist and bought the paper. (I don't remember ever buying JL on Monday.) IB makes some good points. Also, rips Jimbo a new one. (I tend to agree with him on this one, although for somewhat different reasons.) Of course, no need to post the article in its entirety, and IB's style is indeed not conducive to easy translation. OK, do we submit it to the discussion then?

BTW, I actually enjoyed reading your writeup in the Jimbo's talk page. I always like a bit of panache... GregorB (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just felt I had to say what was on my mind. I spent two days around that place and I felt as if I was in a madhouse. I've put Bešker's translation at the talk page just now. I personally don't agree with him entirely - nobody read all 140,000 articles - a) does that mean nobody is entitled to have an opinion on the 20 or 30 or 200 that they've read?, and b) we all know not all articles are equally popular and not all articles is what majority of people come to an encyclopedia for. Of course articles about recent history is the topic that anyone interested is going to measure a Croatian Wikipedia's standards by. Measuring Wikipedias by comparing articles on football clubs or obscure types of lizards would probably get us nowhere. And his assessment of Jimbo's proposition is a bit harsh. I am Croatian who majored in English in Croatia so I am well familiar with the differences in how we perceive our language and how it is perceived in Anglophone linguistics. And the two positions are much more reconcilable than people think. So although I disagree with the idea, I understand where Jimbo is coming from. Still, it is normal that people have differing opinions, ahd Bešker, being an editor himself, certainly has the right to say what he feels. Timbouctou (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw what was going on in Kafić. I thought I had seen it all, but I guess this tops everything. Surreal stuff.

Bešker's argument about 140k articles is technically correct but muddles the issue. Surely one is not bound to find bias in articles on marine life and such (although, after what I've seen lately, all bets are off). He spends a good quarter of the article berating Jovanović, not exactly known as a cautious communicator, merely for not being precise. Well, I've seen worse.

What I find problematic in Jimbo's idea is... You know, when he says it was "always a mistake to have separate Wikipedias in this part of the world", to me it sounded a bit like "The natives are getting restless. Let's corral them off until they behave. It's for their own good.". It's in good faith, granted, it actually might be for our own good, but it is not going to fly.

Anyway, back to the point: I'm going to leave a pointer to Bešker's text on Jimbo's talk tomorrow. And, since Bešker is an editor, I thought it would be only fair to drop him a note about his article being used here. With that in mind, you might want to... you know, "adjust" certain statements you might feel uncomfortable with. :-) GregorB (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean, at Talk:Croatian Wikipedia? Timbouctou (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I have no problem with this at all though, it's your call... GregorB (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw I would not support the merger idea neither. There are several reasons but the biggest one would be that nobody would read it since the speakers' perception of languages and reality are different from each other, regardless how slight these differences may seem to an outsider. It would be like herding Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox believers into the same church, forcing them to use it at the same time, because hey - they are all fans of Jesus Christ, and they all carry Bibles, so let them work out their differences. Joy was also right in saying that such a move would be insulting for all Croatians as it would mean only fascists speak Croatian. But I think we are all on the same page here. Nobody wants to see CW go or merge, but then nobody knows what to do with it in its current state. What that project needs is a complete reorganisation and new people. Maybe a temporary shutdown for a few months would help things? Followed by re-opening and fresh admin elections? Because I think fanatics are addicted to it, and if Wikipedia disappeared they would gradually become addicted to other places on the internet like far-right forums or hkv.hr. The places some of the regulars clearly belong to anyway. Timbouctou (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that there is going to be a reboot at CW, with dozen or so desysoppings, maybe even a complete admin reset. Transitional period with external monitoring, perhaps? Who knows? As far as I know, this is unprecedented. Some fairly drastic methods will almost certainly be necessary.

I've been thinking about this hypothetical merged sh wiki, and no, it wouldn't work. And, funnily enough, not because of articles like Croatian War of Independence and Draža Mihailović. With an equivalent of WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES in place, the former would be in Croatian while the latter would be in Serbian. Great, to each his own. But Croats will hate to read about and contribute to an article like, say, multiple sclerosis in Serbian, while Serbs will not enjoy reading about e.g. abortion in Croatian. I can only imagine what will Bosniaks have to say. For all parties, this is not just that they're not going to like it: it will be unacceptable, a dealbreaker - and by this, I mean just the articles without a content dispute. The greatest obstacle to that outcome, though, is the sheer volume of work needed to merge the existing four editions. The idea is unworkable in pretty much every aspect.

I also thought about starting a discussion within WP Croatia, but is there a point? We are already having a discussion, albeit in different places. Moreover, I feel there is little we can do at present except state our opinions to Jimbo. GregorB (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also thought about it a lot recently. I am thoroughly against merging because I don't think there's a chance in hell anybody would be willing to read it. It is 100% likely that all the editors and admins from C, B and S wikipedia would leave to work on newly spawned language-specific encyclopedias, starting with thousands of articles lifted from the merged Wiki, leaving the merged version a ghost town. Plus, this is not like in the old days of Yugoslavia when Croats could read Serbian and vice versa with no problem, it would be difficult for people who grew up after the breakup to adjust (it's not just a matter of different scripts like Jimbo thinks), so it would be a practical problem as well. So I would keep them apart.

However, I'd maybe introduce some sort of a cross-wiki committee to deliberate on and align articles on a specific sets of controversial topics. There's no need for articles on marine life (to use your example) to be identical across all three wiki's - but there is a need to quell the potential each wiki has as a platform for chauvinism and nationalism. We all know what kind of topics and articles attract that kind of attention so why wouldn't we have a place where Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak editors could meet and decide together on drafts of articles related to controversial topics, which is pretty much the entire 19th and 20th century history articles. Kind of like a cross-wiki mediation thing, where credibility of sources could also be discussed, article by article. After all, that would make sense - for peoples who became independent nations following the breakup of Yugoslavia to write the story of that period together, and everything concerning the periods that came chronologically before and after that they do on their own on their own wikis.

Although - when you think about it, the only problem with all these smaller wikis really is that their standard of quality way lower than over here. Tomobe talked about that at Talk:Croatian Wikipedia. Simply raising the bar in terms of policies and referencing and quality assessment would solve a lot of problems that they currently or (potentially might) have. Timbouctou (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there actually was an "exchange" between hr and sr wiki (sh probably too) in which articles - especially those that filled the gaps - were translated (a trivial matter, obviously) and otherwise adapted. Still, this is short of actual collaboration, as the editors were still effectively walled inside their respective wikis, with only the content moving back and forth. A cross-wiki committee could be a great idea - away from mechanically producing content, and towards improved article quality, processes, policies, mediation, and cooperation. The individual wikis seem to be below the critical mass for most of that. Are people going to recognize the opportunity, though? Well, this is where things start to look bleak... GregorB (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief remark for Timbouctou: I haven't written nothing about merging of two Norwegian editions, but I've mentioned Danish and Bokmål. Inoslav Bešker (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Feel free to correct that. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lastovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ubli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just want to thank you for your last revert of my edit...you've just made me realize how much I detest Wikipedia. You and Direktor reverting me on the basis of some ridiculous quasi-semantics issue is something to behold...I am in awe of you... You two are my idols. Can I be your friend? Shokatz (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you will have no problem befriending many like-minded individuals at Croatian Wikipedia. I suggest you try looking for friends there. Timbouctou (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Boro Primorac

You do realize you have broken the WP:3RR rule on Boro Primorac? Also WP:OPENPARA clearly states under #3: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Boro Primorac was born in FPR Yugoslavia not Bosnia and Herzegovina. We do not know what passport (it could be Croatian, French, who knows...) he holds and that fact is unknown to us. The only valid and viable designation is ethno-geographic designation. Shokatz (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)