User talk:Ev/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

There is no conterdiction

Arvand was used for Tigris, The Shatt al-Arab was Tigris at that time, there was no distinction. Also, why are you removing the part about the river being a Persian territory until the time of Afsharids? At last, do not use words like "vandalism" to scare off your opponents in a content dispute, vandalism is the addition of "I poop on you" or similar stuff to articles, not a subjective disagreement over content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.138.108 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of vandalism, I responded in your talk page (diff.).
On the disagreement over content I moved the discussion to the article's talk page (diff.).
Regards, Ev (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ev, please look at what you are reverting. I had already reverted the anon[1][2], you simply blind-reverted all of my non-controversial improvements to the paragraph[3]. --07fan (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi 07fan. I (almost) always look what I revert to, and I did look in this case. I had seen you revert 99.238.138.108's edit, and your modifications to the paragraph. It was not intended to be a blind revert :-)

When reviewing the changes, and aiming at brevity & simplicity, I thought that:

• the addition of "the confluence of the Shatt al-Arab" was unnecessary just two paragraphs below the mention of "[the Shatt al-Arab is a river] formed by the confluence of the Euphrates and the Tigris";
• describing it again as a "waterway" was also redundant, since both the first and second paragraph mention that it is one;
• I preferred mentioning it as simply "Arvand", instead of the full "Arvand Rūd", because the article in Encyclopædia Iranica used only "Arvand" too (as does the verse of the Bahman Yast mentioned in the article's talk page). To avoid possible conflicts, I wanted the sentence to reflect as accuratedly as possible the wording of the source used.

On the other hand, now that I think of it, I like the change of "for" by "specifically to designate".

Sorry about being lazy and just reverting all... I was tired of writing the explanations to the anon, and hoped that just adding "respectfully" to my edit summary would magically make all what I mentioned above clear to any reader. I humbly apologize.

Do you think that we could use my version, with the sole addition of the "specifically to designate" part ? - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but I think "the confluence of the Shatt al-Arab" is is a good addition within the context of the paragraph, I fixed everything else.--07fan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it then. Thank you for doing all the work :-) And, again, my apologies for not communicating properly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:On moving a page (Istok)

Yeah, I noticed that when I did it, I apologize. It wouldn't let me use the 'move' option, and at that point I lost my patience for a move request :P... Thanks, --Bolonium (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) (post copied over)

Yes, I figured that it was a simple lack of patience. Don't worry about it :-) Just try not to do it again. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

cyrillic names

Hi I see that you agree on ptting the cyrillic names last on the infobox og Kosovo cities
Me too but there is a small problem
User :Bolonium is countinuing to put them first
I would deal with this myself but I am going to be a little busy till Saturday so I would appreciate if you could take a look at this
thank you very much--B.C. 09:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered in your talk page (diff.) - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Kosovo

I thought you might like to know that I've (re)started Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo to help coordinate editing and facilitate monitoring of Kosovo-related articles. I will be sponsoring the project. If you have any queries about it, please ask me on my talk page or use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo.

If you wish to become involved, please feel free to do so - simply leave your username at Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Participants. One feature that you may find particularly useful is the public watchlist. If you click here you can see all the recent changes to articles listed on the watchlist.

There is still a lot of work to be done on getting the project off the ground, so your help would be welcomed. In particular:

• The public watchlist needs to be populated with all Kosovo-related articles (and redirects), categories, images and templates. I've added as many as I've found so far but more need to be added.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Recognized content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Formerly ecognized content need to be populated.

If you can help out with these, it would be much appreciated.

-- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dedicating the time necessary for re-starting the project in the right track, ChrisO :-) For starters, discussion there may well prove to be the solution to many of the recurrent edit wars over style issues.

For the time being I will concentrate in populating the public watchlist, following your example as to the alphabetic order. Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosova: disambiguation page or redirect?

The article Kosova should redirect to Kosovo and there should be a disambiguation page for Kosova. Please understand that the term is widely used to refer to the country even in English.--70.241.0.212 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the current disambiguation page, because I believe it's more usefull to our English-speaking readers than a simple redirect to "Kosovo". And I really like disambiguation pages :-) However, if you consider that it should become a redirect, simply raise the issue at Kosova's talk page, and try to gather consensus for such change. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick heads-up

Just wanted to notify an admin active on Kosovo articles about [4] and [5]. I don't know what the consensus format is at the moment for these boxes, but either way bouncing between the two isn't doing any good. If you have time/inclination, could you drop in on them and let them know what the current position is ? It would be good if there were a page with details of how Kosovo-related articles are to be presented in the near future - maybe WP:KOSOVO? Thanks in advance for any help, Knepflerle (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Knepflerle :-) Thank you for bringing this up, I will deal with them.

There's no consensus yet on how to present articles on Kosovo, althought ChrisO mentioned that he wouldll "put together a manual of style for Kosovo placenames along the lines of WP:MOSMAC".

Your suggestion to work out clear guidelines at the Kosovo WikiProject is the obvious course of action; but to be honest, I dread to face the cascade of nationalist rants it will most certainly entail. *sigh* I will give it a try :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;) I don't envy the task of sorting it out (from which I happily recuse myself from lack of expertise/axes to grind). Looking at [6] this is happening sporadically form many different IP's, so it's going to keep people busy for a while. Hopefully at least if they are directed to the central scuffle over drafting a guideline they can argue there in a contained environment and it'll keep the heat and reverting off the articles! (And we might even get a happy simple Gdańzig-shaped rule in the end). Thanks and best of luck, Knepflerle (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo municipalities

Hey there. I remember that a consensus was reached earlier that mentioned the names of Kosovo municipalities are in English/Serbian and then in Albanian. Now that a few countries have recognized that unilateral declaration of independence, does that change the municipality naming policy? I've noticed that Albanians are changing the names of municipalities throughout the entire article into Albanian names... Even those municipalities with a Serbian majority, like Leposavić. I'm just wondering what should be done. Thanks, --Bolonium (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Kosovo's declaration of independence doesn't change anything: common English usage continues to be our guiding principle to mention names in the English Wikipedia. See my comments at the Kosovo WikiProject. - I'm afraid that my internet connection is not functioning properly right now, and there's no much that I can do. By the way, and just as a friendly remainder, remember that the three-revert rule remains valid also, so be patient and don't get yourself blocked :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian/Serbian Naming Convention: Kosovo

Dear Ev,

As per your message, I agree that for historical reasons, the English-speaking world recognizes Serbian nomenclatures of Kosovan cities, towns, villages, mountains, etc. Nonetheless, a NEW convention must be made. Because Kosovo is now independent and the primary language is Albanian (followed by Serbian, the second official language), then all the names should be in Albanian followed by the Serbian counterparts. This is the logical way to go because new historical events have always CHANGED things in the world. Kosovo's independence, a new historical event, will surely change the way the English-speaking world recognizes the new state. Therefore, Wikipedia should be as neutral as it could get, but it should also respect the new state, not the ways the English-speaking world know the new state...--Arbër 09:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied in ArberBorici's talk page. - Ev (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gjakova

Dear Ev,

Gjakova is a town in Kosova that has 0 % serbs. The first name that should appear in the page on this town, should be Gjakova, not Djakovica. Please revert it to Gjakova. How would you feel if Volgograd is still called Stalingrad? Thanks, Edvini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvini (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied at Edvini's talk page. Ev (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jebem ti srpsku majku

Sta ti mislis bre da si neki bog!!! Jebem ti wikipediu is sve sto je srpsko u njoj kao i tvoju majku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendobs (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand Serbo-Croatian. Please, write in English. - Regards, Ev (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the Yugoslav lexicon of swear words gave me an idea of the general meaning of the comment... - Ev (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Kosovo

Thanks! The move was urgent and that's why I made such a change. --Getoar (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to canvass here, but what do you think about certain Kosovar place-names being written in Albanian instead of Serbian.

First of all, I’d prefer Kosova (with the accent on the second syllable) because that’s how the overwhelming majority of the population says it (and not only Albanians). However, I am skeptical of a possible change on this aspect.

Second, the name of capital should be Prishtina as it would reflect both the primary official usage and the English pronunciation/spelling (no English speaker gets it right the first time they see Pristina, but they get Prishtina). In any case it should not be Priština with the diacritic.

Third, when it comes to towns like Skenderaj (Serbian: Srbica) and Drenas (Sr. Glogovac), one should note that the names have officially been changed just like in the case of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City). There are virtually no Serbs living in these towns and it’s unnecessary to use the Serbian names, given that they do not constitute any historical significance in the English language (like the case Germany vs. Deutschland). English speakers even adopted the change from Constantinople to Istanbul, despite the heavy use of the earlier name.

Fourth, many Wikipedia editors have told me that it is our aim to use the most frequent English names on all articles, but so far this rule has not been respected. E.g. Priština is less frequent than Prishtina and it is used on Wikipedia articles. The use of Serbian names over general English usages or the Albanian names as primary official ones is purely POV.

Finally, this is one of my main Wikipedia concerns I and would like to initiate a change through a balanced and neutrally-monitored discussion.--Getoar (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do I need to remove the discussion section from the talkpage?--Getoar (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I did remove it. Thank you!--Getoar (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Priština

I don't understand how you still regard the University of Prishtina as an institution in Serbia. Serbs may claim Kosovo, but it is a fact that they don't have it. I would actually propose a split here. Keep the main article for the University of Prishtina in Prishtina since it corresponds with the name of the city, is bigger and accredited with the government of Kosovo. The article would also refer to a second article dedicated to the Serbian university.--Getoar (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't regard the university as an institution in Serbia anymore. The addition of {{Serbian universities}} was just one of the many mistakes I constantly do in Wikipedia: I simply hadn't noticed the template's title ("Universities in serbia"). - Thank you for pointing it out. I have removed it now.

As for splitting the article, for the moment I think that it would entail more problems than it would solve. Right now the article has much more content on the pre-1999 situation and the details of the ulterior coexistance of both paralell institutions than content about the current work of each one of them.

A split would leave us with three articles: a long one on the whole history and current odd situation, and two small ones on each institution, with odd names for disambiguation (University of Priština in Priština, and University of Priština in Kosovska Mitrovica ?). - Or with two articles, which would for the most part repeat the exact same information, and would differ only in the short description of the current organization & statistics.

Of course, an article split will eventually happen. But I don't think this is the right moment yet: with the current content, I think that our readership would be best served with this single comprehensive version. With time, as the article evolves, a point will be reached in which our readership will benefit more from something more than a single article, and everyone will support splitting it in some form or another.

Well, that's just my opinion, of course :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for trying to understand the situation now. Nevertheless, I removed now links and categorization that have to do with Serbia. I will try to propose a total rewriting of the article, since its current form is POV. It talks about the Albanians as if they had usurped the university campus and ousted the Serbs, and the Serbs are always listed first despite being a parallel institution with apparently smaller student body and other assets. And, the references are completely Serbian and POV, except for those that refer to the number of students and some rather trivial matters. The Serbs could also have their University of Vienna in Mitrovica, but that would remain in Mitrovica and would not challenge the legality of University of Vienna.--Getoar (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the article on the University of Prishtina. I have been participating in the discussion, and this is one effort to provide concise and unbiased information. This is different from the heavily disputed, uneven, biased and non-wikipedia University of Pristina. I've kept the history section short, following the example of Uni. of Vienna and Uni. of Texas at Austin. I am hoping to remove the biased information and redirect the page to Univ. of Prishtina. The Serbian institution could have a separate page with a different name (referring to Mitrovica somehow).--Getoar (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're just in time to catch me in a brief pause from a wikibreak, Getoar :-) I will take a look at those articles tomorrow. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Names of cities in Kosovo

I see that you are interested in name issues and would like to know what is the WP policy for city names. I feel we are using wrong names on Kosovar cities and I am very suspect this is happening due to the large number of Serb wikipedians and low number of Albanian wikipedians. --Noah30 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Noah30's talk page. - Ev (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Np. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Consenus breached, need support

Hello Ev, contrary to a reached consensus there is a splitting going on instead a merging: Talk:Kosovo#Split completed. And I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you! --Tubesship (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tubesship. I'm having a busy week, but I will be paying attention to the issue. Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you had done like you said instead of fighting against the consensus by writing "let's scrap the infobox". Sorry, it was my mistake to be wrong about your mindset. --Tubesship (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship, I'm not fighting for or against anything. I'm merely endorsing what I think is a great proposal to slowly work towards an article that complies with our core policies. Keep in mind that an infobox is just a practical but redundant summary of an article's content. If removing one simplifies the process of writing the text, let's scrap it, and then, after the article is successfully written, let's discuss how (and if) to summarize its content in a "pretty infobox". - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, and what is your standpoint about the flag of the newest state in the article Kosova? Should this also be "scrapped"? --Tubesship (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, why on Earth should the flag or any of the information mentioned in the infobox be removed from the article ? It just doesn't need to be repeated in an infobox that appears to be causing much more problems than it is worth. Instead, everything would simply be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the article. For instance, the flag could be displayed in the section dealing with the 2008 declaration of independence.

After the article is finished we can spend a whole month discussing in detail what kind of infobox to use to summarize the article. We could also just restore the current one, but placing it in the 2008 UDI section instead of the top of the page. Or do something else.

The main point is that there's no need to have an infobox, and if it stands in the way of having a meaningful collaboration in one single, unified, comprehensive article, I share Fut. Perf.'s view that it's better to remove it. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, at least about the flag we agree. I thought you want to have it like in the Serbian WP, where neither an infobox nor a flag of Kosovo in the article Kosovo exists. Still I find it better to have 2 infoboxes presenting both sides instead of no one at all. This would be a temporarily compromise. --Tubesship (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"That hellish infobox"...

I couldn't resist the temptation. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I see the problems the infobox may cause to some people I think it would be wrong to just avoid them instead of solving them together. Avoiding would neither help the article nor the reader. --Tubesship (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL That a picture is worth a thousand words remains as true as ever. And if the results are this good, let's hope that a perfect future doesn't include learning to resist to such impulses :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Way you are maken this

Way you are maken this chanche. Ther is a map Serbia. They have some rouls of travelig in this Stat and Kosovo hase owen roul of traveling. Betwen this two Stats it is a border. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Human activities tend to be less black and white, Hipi, although usually this fact is not immediately apparent to those directly involved in a specific conflict. And, of course, we're supposed to write from a neutral point of view. - Regards, Ev (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

tr.wikipedia

your request for username usurpation in tr.wikipedia has been approved and tr:Kullanıcı:Evv is changed to tr:Kullanıcı:Ev --tr:Kullanıcı:Mskyrider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.18.168 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mskyrider :-) Ev (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

question

What constitutes a valid opposition? Is the personal suspicion of one editor that journalists did not translate some text correctly (despite the lack of base for such claims, for an example text in Persian) enough to block edit request? Any edit request for a non English speaking country can be blocked that way - "Also, the source is Iranian, so nuances of tense and meaning could conceivably not have survived intact the translation from Persian." and there you go, edit request blocked. I don't like that at all.

If you can see anything wrong between these two feel free to change it but please add it to the article. Hiding it in the talk page is the worst possible thing we can do.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran, after considering the region's issues and conditions of the region, decided not to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

Original news content [7] is: "Ahmadinejad also said that Iran had not recognized the independence of Kosovo after considering the "region's issues and conditions of the region."

Thank you,

--Avala (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avala. I only glimpsed at the talk page discussion before making the edit to the Czech Republic. I'm sorry, but real life is demanding my attention for the next few hours. I will look into it when I get back home. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed an alternative. - Regards, Ev (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Mareklug also agreed so it's safe to add it. Being successful at this, please take a look at India request as well. I am sure you could find a solution easily there as well. Thanks. --Avala (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure :-) I have made the edit for Iran (diff.). Regarding India, I have declined the request, because the comments by the Indian Ambassador merely repeat, almost verbatim, the official position of India as stated in the February 18 press release of their Ministry of External Affairs. The comments would add nothing new, except for indicating that India's position has not changed between February 18 and the end of March. Besides, having already an official press release from the Ministry of External Affairs, an interview to an ambassador is comparatively insignificant. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

True but the statement made right after the declaration says this as well "There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation.". It seems in the meantime India somewhat finalized their decision. Could you add something like this:

In late March Ajay Swarup, Indian ambassador to Serbia, reiterated India's full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and belief that solution must be found through peaceful dialogue.

Or alternatively remove "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." from text because it gives false impression India is thinking about this issue for month and a half while in reality they have made up their mind.

Thanks, --Avala (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to tread carefully, Avala. That is your personal conclusion based on the absence of a particular statement from the news excerpt published by B92. Remember that to comply with our Verifiability policy, a position must be directly, explicitly, unambiguously supported by the source. So, for the specific purposes of Wikipedia, an ambassador not mentioning something in (part of) an interview does not support, prove or disprove anything regarding what has been left unmentioned.

Right now, the article has a solid source: an official press release from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. To change anything from that original statement, we would require a source of similar quality that directly, explicitly, unambiguously informs of a change or clarification of India's stance on the Kosovo issue:

• Another press release by the Ministry of External Affairs.
• Analyses from reputed political analysts discussing India's position (preferably emanating from academic circles).

Of course, finding proper sources is often the most difficult part of editing an article.

In any case, a country is not required to "actively not recognize" another state, something that could have undesired consequences. It's often simpler to avoid taking any formal decision whatsoever... and that's what India and the majority of the world are doing right now :-) Even if it had made up its mind already, India is unlikely to go public on that decision.

India has good reasons not to recognize Kosovo: it has its own problems with separatism and territorial disputes, and, as the ambassador said, Kosovo "can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world", including those in India itself. I don't expect it to recognize Kosovo anytime soon.

Anyway, let's remember to stick to what our sources state, and avoid inserting our own interpretations. It's not as easy as it may sound, since we homo sapiens are defined by our hability of thinking for ourselves and interpreting the information we recieve. In Wikipedia we're asked to do something contrary to our very nature :-) If you only knew how many times I have raised my fist to the air and cursed the No Original Research policy... - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to all said but I think we are driven into belief that article is called "Official documents regarding Kosovo independence" rather than what it is - international reaction. Only countries that are recognizing independence of Kosovo are required to publish an official document, others have no such obligation because they consider the situation legally unchanged. May I remind that only Serbia, Romania and Slovakia had voted a non-recognition document in the parliament. While in Slovakia for an example some parties voiced concern that no document should be adopted because they believe adopting a document which contains words "independence" and "Kosovo" would constitute an indirect recognition. Therefore position of many countries has to be explained through MFA press releases or through statements by high officials and diplomats. There is a great chance India is doing the same, maintaining low voice.

Of course any kind of addition must be explained. Adding a statement by Indian ambassador must include that information, it cannot be called "India's position is..." but "Indian ambassador to Belgrade said..." by which we manage to keep 100% accuracy. Also considering Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia any new information which explains the situation further can't do any harm. We have rather long sections on many other countries which is great for accuracy because all the statements by various officials might have a different sound to them so it's the best to let the readers decide what is the situation (for an example Portuguese PM said Portugal will probably recognize but that he will consult the president and parliament and then it turns out president calls independence "something very abnormal" and parliament votes against recognition twice. Will the PM recognize? We don't know but adding information about the President and the parliament has only enhanced the article and helped readers get a better insight even though we could have only included the statement by the PM because he is the boss). I must say I am one of those editors who are very reluctant to give a delete vote on AfD unless it's an utter nonsense.

What keeps bothering me is that a reader of that article might come to a conclusion that the only thing India did was to take note. What if that stays the only press release regarding this issue from their MFA (apart from ambassadors who work for the same MFA) for a longer period? In six months readers will think India has just taken note and ignored the issue because we haven't added clarifying information (probably one of the reasons for the interview with that ambassador was to clarify the situation). They would be denied an opportunity to read more about India's position even though we have chance to expand the article. I remain convinced that adding one sentence (In late March Ajay Swarup, Indian ambassador to Serbia, reiterated India's full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and belief that solution must be found through peaceful dialogue.) cannot harm the article it can only upgrade it.

Regards,

--Avala (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We're basically on the same page, Avala :-) But I can't emphasize enough the need to stick to what our sources state. Even if India (or any other state) may indeed have a more complex reaction than just a single -and rather boring- official statement, we can't add anything if we don't have good sources with which to back up the facts.

In the hypothetical case that no other reliable source (official or otherwise) discusses India's position(s) for the next six months (or years), then per our Verifiability policy there's simply nothing we can do about it. But rest assured that any "normal" reader will understand that India didn't ignore the issue, but just decided to remain "neutrally ambiguous" instead and not choose sides.

I mentioned at the article's talk page the possibility of mentioning Swarup's comment to indicate that India's official position remains unchanged as of late March. I'm not particularly fond of such an addition, but I understand the idea, and I can live with it.

However, Swarup merely repeats what the official press release stated before, to the extent of using almost the very same wording. There's no need for the article to mention the exact same thing twice, quoting first the Ministry of External Affairs and then one of its employees:

It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties.^MoEF

In late March Ajay Swarup, Indian ambassador to Serbia, reiterated India's full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and belief that solution must be found through peaceful dialogue.^Swarup

That repetition is actually irritating :-) Adding "In late March the Indian Ambassador to Serbia, Ajay Swarup, confirmed his country's stance on the issue." instead would avoid the repetition and even enhance clarity.

What do you think about it ? - Ev (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes actually would be good as anyone could then open a link in the reference and read more about it. Although Indian ambassador also mentioned high level of Indian support which goes against "neutrally ambiguous" position so I wouldn't mention that. Summarizations were thrown out of the article due to various interpretations of positions by various countries. So please add "In late March the Indian Ambassador to Serbia, Ajay Swarup, confirmed his country's stance on the issue." for now and I will email the embassy in meantime asking them to put up a statement regarding this issue on their website so we can have an official reference with perhaps few more details. And one more thing is that we need to make a distinction between sources. There are both Serbian and Kosovo media which can be trusted on this issue. For an example internationally awarded media, media that was shut down by Milosevic for their truthful reporting etc. Calling B92 a Serbian propaganda machine is like if someone called Radio Free Europe a communist stronghold. Also using common sense is a good thing - if the news article features photos and quotes perhaps even sound and video material it can be trusted (of course there could be a misunderstanding but in that case reaction comes very soon. Estonian media reported Georgia will recognize Kosovo but in few hours Georgian Government explained it was a misunderstanding and that put an end to this story.).

Anyway you can add that sentence for now, until we get a more information.

Thanks,

--Avala (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, I have proposed the addition at the article's talk page :-)

The issue of sources is, as you well said, basically one of common sense. I agree that there's nothing wrong with B92 in general: the merits of their report should be examined on a case by case basis, as with any other news media. However, we would do well in relying on non-Serbian/Albanian sources whenever possible: it would mitigate possible perceptions of bias and simplify the editing process.

I'll check out that Georgian gaffe later tonight :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll agree with me that in this case common sense tells us it's not shocking Serbian media reported on statements by Indian ambassador in Serbia (which like I said clearly says who made a statement, it's not misrepresenting under shadow of "India's position is" but clearly explains it was the ambassador, although he is reflecting the official position but for the sake of accuracy and professionalism we must say who made a statement, there can't be discussion over that). Opposing this addition on grounds that media from third country should report on this issue are a bit senseless. I know at least we don't have reports in our media what an ambassador of country X in country Y said despite the importance. If someone wants to oppose there could be dozen other reasons but this one looks like opposing for the sake of it (for which this user was warned by an admin during some of the previous lockings). I still stand behind my words that adding content can't harm but not adding more content can be harmful or at least counterproductive.

--Avala (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I have emailed the embassy but I am not sure how reactive they are so let's not wait for them.

p.p.s. Caucasus countries are really unprofessional. We had a row over Armenia when it turned out the same official gave two different statements to journalists from Azerbaijan and domestic ones in the same day. --Avala (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that in this particular case, using B92 shouldn't be a problem. However, it's only fair to wait until an agreement is reached on the issue of "local" sources. A confirmation of a previous statement is not that important anyway.

LOL I have not being following those details :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sources should be checked on case by case basis anyway. For an example CNN mixes up European countries, on a map Slovakia becomes Switzerland or similar but it doesn't mean we should stop using CNN as a source. Anyway B92 is mostly funded from the US and the first time I've heard someone calling them Serbian propaganda was by that Kosovo2008 users here. I think B92 would be delighted to read that actually considering under how many attacks they are constantly :D After Kosovo declared independence hooligans stormed the US embassy but what do you think was their 2nd target which survived only because of extremely heavy police presence around the building? Yes, you've guessed it, B92 headquarters. --Avala (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew they had targeted "some radio or TV station", but wasn't aware it was B92. – I'm slowly reading the discussion on "local" sources. I will try to settle it, somehow. - Ev (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well those some was B92 and two foreign TV crews. Anyway you can see here when hooligans started gathering around B92 and first clashes. --Avala (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got some new edit requests on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. They are rather uncontroversial especially the one regarding Saudi Arabia. If you could check them out when you have some free time. Thanks, --Avala (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia edit done :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

The link was a good idea.

Where does it link to though? Is that just an old version? What is the oldid=203184480# ?

Also, why I'm bothering you, how do you archive a section? You don't have to answer, but it would be nice if you did ;) Beam 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beamathan, and don't mention it :-) It's not really necessary, but I like to keep links to deleted sections in talk pages, to avoid confusing some readers.

As you already figured out, the link is just a permanent link to an old version of the talk page, and it says so at the top of the page. "oldid" means just "old ID", or "identification of old version stored in the article's history"; and as most IDs, each one has its own number, in this case 203184480 is the "ID" of this particular version. Look at any page history (for example, that of Talk:Kosovo), and place the cursor over the different dates of each version: you will notice that each old version has its own identification number.

When looking at the page history, you can choose to watch differences between two versions of a page, or just any old version individually. — By the way, take a look at the "toolbox" at the left of your screen: the last option generates a permanent link to the version of the page you're currently watching.

These possibilities explain part of the importance of preserving page histories, and moving pages properly instead of performing evil cut-and-paste moves :-) The other reason is to comply with the GFDL license.

The hash (the symbol #) allows to link to a specific section of a page (be it a current version or an old one). Thus, Talk:Kosovo links to the talk page in general, while Talk:Kosovo#The Infoboxes links to the particular section titled "The Infoboxes".

Finally, to "archive" (actually, remove) a section like we did with "When you need relevant data to Kosovo oand Serbia", simply delete the text of the section and replace it with a permanent link to an old version of the page, like this. — For archiving talk pages in general, take a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. If after reading that page you still have any doubts, don't hesitate to ask me :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you. Beam 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help :-) Ev (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand how to add one section of the talk page to our existing archive box thing. Help:Archiving a talk page left me twice as confused as before and offered me zero help. Can you just tell me how I archive one section of the talk page? I'm a college educated man and it's starting to seriously bother me that I can't do it. Thank you. Beam 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can :-) But it will be easier to explain if I know precisely what you want to archive. Some old sections of Talk:Kosovo ? Of another talk page ? Of your personal talk page ? - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and the disputed territory debate.

Hi,

I am trying to find out over at the Kosovo article some info on the countries/parties which dispute the territory, as the article claims at the very beginning. So far no one has been able to tell me and user dab keeps telling me not to troll and leave since the article explains it all. My issue is that the article does not explain it, I know it is growing, but this sentence is at the very beginning and if there is a dispute as mentioned the the countries involved should also be mentioned. Anyway I would like to invite you to help us resolve this issue. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo. Regards, Jawohl (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jawohl. The countries/parties that dispute it are Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo itself (or, if you prefer, the Serbian state and the local Albanian population in the process of being organized as a Kosovan state with the help of UNMIK): both claim sovereignty over that territory. The current introduction explains it by mentioning that "the [PISG] declared the territory's independence as the Republic of Kosovo[, an act] strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which continues to claim it as its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."

Yes, the introducion could be improved. I am keeping an eye on that article and horrible talk page. I'm having little time today, but I will try to comment if I think I can help. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ev. I appreciate it. I am simply getting only NO from user dab and user beam and that is not helpful. By creating an article on the geopolitical region of Kosovo, in order to avoid POV, they created another POV. Anyway I think that the region and the RoK is on and the same thing. The data speaks for itself. Wether its population or demographics. Unlike the region of Macedonia which is also in northern Greece and is different from the republic of Macedonia/Fyrom, Kosovo (the region) and RoK are the same thing. And this is I think the reason why the article is stuck. They simply want minimize the albanian and the serbian POV/NPOV and concentrate on the region which is ironically a hot political subject. Jawohl (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Kosovo

Hello Ev. Just so you know, I blocked those two last night for persistent incivility. But after thinking it over for a while I decided to unblock them and leave firm admonishments at their talk pages instead. They have both been warned that if they don't stop bickering each other, as you put it, they will effectively be blocked. Good you're keeping an eye on incivility too. Best regards, Húsönd 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Húsönd. Thank you for the notice. I had seen your blocks, and it was the right thing to do. I had mentioned the issue of civility to both of them (Beamathan & Tubesship) before, as you also did. I hope they stop now, after your delicate intervention :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - edit request

I think we have reached a consensus. I'd happy if you are now willing to make the edit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit done :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

B92

Greetings. First, thank you for involving yourself in the Kosovo articles. Your disussion and treatment of both editors and information leads me to believe that this involvement will materially help writing the encyclopedia, which is what we want first and foremost.

Regarding the famous Serbian independent radio station B92 and its news operations (such as B92.net, which is what we source for our purposes), it has a justifiable reputation since the Yugoslavia war times as an impartial news source, and has been the object of attacks and reprisals by local chauvinists and governments. However, having said all that, its most recent reporting via the aforementioned website has been surprisingly different and uneven. Users Jawolh and Kosova2008 have repeatedly made this case on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.

Today, I myself documented fully a case of that. It is lodged in the section talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Macedonia, Montenegro to recognise (apparently).

I would like you to consider it carefully and verify my work, which includes examination of content on the United Nations DOC website, the source claimed by a B92.net headline as designating Kosovo by name as the drug running heart of Europe, or words to that effect. The evidence is just not there.

Mentions of B92 and contesting of our sourcing it are sprinkled all over that talk page, so it may be best to use Search this Page mechanism of your browser and pick them all out. Users Avala, Tocino are very much campaigning for treating B92 on par with neutral news sources from outside this region, yet such use falls under discouraged use by WP:VER and WP:NPOV, and I noticed you making exactly this point above in your conversations with Avala.

Which brings me to the following point: User:Avala is using the B92 source re: Serbian ambassador's recent interview in Serbia to quantum jump India from neutral/ambiguous/delaying recognition category to red (have already officially rejected the declaration of independence of Kosovo). I believe that this is what is behind his willing to accept your uneasy willingness to add this item to our pool of evidence, even though, as you said, it seems to be a restatement. Obviously Avala is silently thinking more, as his Commons edits on the map reveal. I thought you should be explicitly appraised of this on your talk page. Regards, and thanks again for helping out on Kosovo encyclopedia writing. --Mareklug ^talk 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mareklug. I'm sorry for the delay in answering you; I have not been active on Wikipedia lately. Thank you for your kind words :-) However, given that I have been editing on this topic since July 2006, a simple look at the sorry state of most Kosovo-related articles proves just how small my contributions to Wikipedia actually are.

As you asked me, I have taken a quick look into that B92 article, "UN: Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route" (26 March 2008, source: Tanjug), and your fact-checking. Your analysis seems to be correct. First, the B92 article appears to mix two different UNODC reports:

• The wording "The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released a new report" seems to refer to the UNODC Annual Report 2008 (.pdf file, ca. 2 MB) published in 10 March 2008.
• However, the comments and quotations in the article appear to be exaggerations and distortions of the 2007 World Drug Report, page 83 (.pdf file, 7.45 MB), published in 26 June 2007.

A comparison:

B92: UN: Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route NEW YORK -- The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released a new report.		2007 World Drug Report, page 83: Concerns about cocaine along the Balkan route
It warned that the axis between South American drug cartels and the Albanian mafia have reached "alarming proportions", while reports by several intelligence agencies show that Kosovo is a distribution center on the crossroads of global routes and pathways of drug trafficking.		While most cocaine shipments from South America continue to be directed towards western Europe (more than 99 per cent of European cocaine seizures), some shipments to East Europe and the Balkan countries have been noticed by enforcement agencies.
This presents reason for concern, primarily because of the new pathways of drug trafficking, and "inclusion of cocaine in the range of products offered by the groups that are active along the Balkan drug route", the UNODC annual report for 2007 said.		This raises concerns about the development of new traficking routes and/or the incorporation of cocaine into the range of products offered by traditional heroin trafficking groups operating along the Balkan route.
The Albanian mafia has recently begun taking over the control of ports in Romania, in addition to the already solid network existing in Albania and Montenegro, the report said.		Some cases of cocaine shipments via the Black Sea to Romania and via the Adriatic Sea to Montenegro often organized by Albanian criminal groups, have already been observed.

The rest of the B92 article offers many other claims, without even clarifying properly if they are supposedly mentioned in any UNODC report or are a collection of totally independent claims (this second option looks more probable). So, the article's title appears to be a misleading merge of the UNODC resport/s ("UN:") with an unrelated claim ("Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route") which supposedly comes from "a report presented to the U.S. Congress". *sigh*

This horrible article doesn't change my general impression of B92 as a rather "normal" news source. In any case, the reasons to avoid using Serbian and Albanian sources in that article go beyond their reliability: by mitigating possible perceptions of bias such avoidance provides better content to our readers and simultaneoulsy facilitates the collaboration among aditors. — By the way, I had seen your comments regarding the maps at Commons.

For the last two weeks, real life has kept me away from the endless discussions of Kosovo-related articles. I expect to remain fairly busy for three more weeks, and to tell the truth I'm enjoying the wikibreak :-) I wish you the best of lucks in bringing some sanity to those crazy articles. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

Hello. A consensus has been reached on [8] So i would grateful if you would make the edit please ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also if you would be so kind, a consensus has been reached on the US [9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ijanderson977. For the last two weeks, real life has been demaning my attention. I expect to remain fairly busy for three more weeks, and to tell the truth I'm enjoying the wikibreak :-) - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Kosovo/Kosova

Hey EV, I understand why you moved the talkpage, however, these are now archives and should be treated as such. As well, if and when the articles are moved back, so will the corresponding talkpages, Regards, nat.utoronto 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Nat. After seeing too many improper page moves on Kosovo-related articles, I just assumed that odd-placed talk page was the result of yet another attempt of pushing for the use of "Serbian-slash-Albanian" (or vice versa) article names, instead of the ones commonly used in English. Not realizing that you were an administrator, I even blamed you for the "misdeed" :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks on the Etruscan statue ID. Pure brilliance. Donald Hosek (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help :-) I have just mentioned the Ombra della sera, probably the most famous of these statuettes. You may want to compare both. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

reply (my talk page)

You're most welcome.

While I have your ear, could you please comment on my revised "spelling variants edit" I prepared on talk:Kosovo (in section "A modest...")? It seems to be dying on the vine, neglected. --Mareklug ^talk 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on your proposal -with a simple "go ahead"- was one of the first edits I did today. I also took the liberty of adding your signature to your comments: it seems that you had signed with five tildes ~~~~~ instead of the standard four ones ~~~~, a mistake we all do from time to time (cf. How to sign your posts :-). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

That list is very handy ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help :-) Ev (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics

I'm sure they will Ev: it would take one brave volunteer a life-time to rummage through the millions of articles to remove the diacritics. I've been familiar with you as an editor for a long time now (as you may know me as well) and I am most impressed with your personal contribution and I like to think that I am in agreement with you over most issues. My main reason for supporting them (not just in my familiar Slavic languages but for all tongues) is precisely that they are accurate, and they reflect care on the part of the editor. You don't need me to tell you that the biggest reason for publishers to leave them out is primarily from being lazy and unintelligent. These types dominate and their influence spreads to other companies who probably don't even know about the local language form, yet would probably have been happy to entertain if not for the fact that they copied the lazy sources. And so they too remain ignorant. The way I see it is, as long as one can be connected through a pipe to read Hashim Thaci or Goran Persson, or about Malmo, Gyor or Icmeler, then why ruin these pages by taking them backwards! Is it too painful for people's eyes? If someone wishes to write Lech Walesa, that is fine; and if I then ammend it to Lech Wałęsa in good faith, where is the sense in some smart-arse editor reverting it? And for the information of some useless individuals, the English alphabet contains 26 characters and diacritics are accessories to them, not separate letters; and if the language is not regulated, then no clause excludes them. I don't know if you are familiar with literary Croatian, but it contains 30 letters for 30 sounds, but uses only 22 letters. Absent are q, w, x and y, but when foreign names become a part of the language, they maintain their local forms (or transliterated forms if not primarily Latinic script names, but the transliteration being as in the local language). It causes no problems, even when the four non-Croatian letters are used; it is partial code-switching. Yet to use diacritics in English is not in any way code-switching, and adds no more confusion to the written language than that provided by that chaotic system already in place. If you know where this talk is taking place and you havn't read from me in it, please drop me a line on my talk page, it would be appreciated, thanks. Evlekis (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Evlekis' talk page. - Ev (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Please make an update.84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you indicate precisely which one, please ? Regards, Ev (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Spot Welders - please advise

I would like to resolve the "written like an advertisement" tag. I have verified all disambiguations and removed non-existing links. Could you advise on other edits that might be necessary to resolve the tag? Thanks!! Shamus00 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shamus00. So-called "red links" to subjects that deserve an encyclopedic article are fine, and even encouraged :-) See when to create red links.

The problem with that article is the general tone in which it is written. Similar to an advertisement, it extols the virtues of the company instead of describing its history and activities with a more sober (and clear) language.

To get an idea of what Wikipedia articles aim for, take the time to read our (rather longish) neutral point of view policy and the much shorter style guideline on the perfect article – and do take a quick look at the other writing guides linked to at the bottom of that page, especially the one on writing better articles.

To see those principles applied to an actual article, take a look at Panavision, which appears to be the only featured article dealing with a company related to the film industry.

To get better advice from wikipedians more familiar with this topic than myself, do not hesitate to contact those working in the WikiProject Films and its filmmaking task force – either posting a comment at the task force talk page or contacting any of their members individually.

I hope this can get you started :-) Let me know if I can help you in any other way. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosova - Kosovo

I understand you changing all the entries that contain the word Kosova into Kosovo, but you are not always right. The rules might apply for geographical places, but for organizations such as Alliance for the future of Kosova is a chosen name, and you have no right to change those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.134.221 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't apply to geographic names only. See our general naming conventions and the specific ones on using common names and following common English usage. In the English-language Wikipedia we don't actively choose by ourselves what name to use, but restrict ourselves to passively reflecting the common usage of reliable English-language publications. — To see specific examples of how the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo is referred to in English-language publications, take a look at that article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point. This organisation prefers to be called Alliance for the future of Kosova, its the name of an organisation, I work for AAK and we receive letters from the American and British embassies in Prishtina (in fact all other embassies) and they call us by our preferred name. So please revert back to the preferred name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.134.221 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the situation. The political party is named Aleanca për Ardhmërinë e Kosovës in Albanian, and translates its own name into English as "Alliance for the Future of Kosova" instead of "of Kosovo" (as can be seen in its official website). Obviously, the party itself prefers this form, and foreign embassies diplomatically use their preferred name :-)

However, the English-language Wikipedia does not name its articles according to the subject's perferences. We don't do diplomatic lingo :-) Instead, following the principle of least astonishment, we simply reflect the names commonly used in English-language publications. In the case of this political party, English-language publications generally call it "of Kosovo", a more intuitive and consistent form, and therefore so do we.

For a similar situation take the case of Kiev. The Ukrainian government prefers the form "Kyiv". However, despite that fact, in the English-language Wikipedia we call the city "Kiev", because that form represents the current common English usage. — See the latest proposal to rename that article into "Kyiv".

Of course, if at any future time the form "of Kosova" replaces "of Kosovo" as the common English usage, our article will be renamed accordingly. — The same is valid for Ukraine's capital: if the form "Kyiv" ever becomes the standard English usage, that article will be renamed accordingly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the Persian name of Shatt al-Arab

In the articles that is directly related to Iran , omittion of the Persian name will cause confusion for the reader : imagine a person who want's to use the Wikipedia as a source for information on a Iranaian entity related to the Shatt al-Arab. If there is no mentionaing about the Iranian name of that river in the article , the reader will be confused.I don't think using the common English means to deprive the reader from information . As per [10]:

Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms...you could use both terms.

Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alborz, let me quote the entire paragraph:

"Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article."

Yes, the naming conflict guideline allows the use of synonyms, and even two terms, names or forms. But it most certainly doesn't allow the use of any synonym or alternative name or form: it's simple common sense that in the spirit of our general naming conventions (especially the issue of writing in English), the idea is to allow the use of more than one name or form in common English usage.

In other words: if English-language publications commonly refer to a certain subject by more than one name, you can use any of those names in articles, or even give two, for clarity. — However, this is not the case of our waterway: Shatt al-Arab is the clear standard English form, used most of the time, while Arvand Rud is the little-known Farsi name seldom used in English-language publications. In such a case, the English-language Wikipedia should simply use the standard English form (Shatt al-Arab), the only one the vast majority of our readership would be familiar with.

In the few cases in which the Farsi name is relevant we should mention it once, along the lines of "the Shatt al-Arab waterway (Arvand Rud in Persian)". But in the vast majority of our articles such an addition would be nothing more than unnecessary clutter.

And rest assured that the omission of the little-known, seldom used Farsi name will not cause any confusion in our English-speaking readership :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The pages (naming conventions) and (writing in English) most of all , talk about naming the "pages" and not the subsequent usage in other articles.The fact that using alternative names (I mean by this function [[x|y]] ) is so common , shows it's free to use other names according to the subject of the article . Anyway , using the alternative name with the common English name is a moderate approach v.s using the redirects and the uncommon but useful name .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the naming conventions policy does deal primarily with article's titles. However, those titles are the basis for the subsequent consistent usage in all other articles. — This is a matter of common sense actually. After all, our goal is to communicate facts in English to English speakers. When a standard English name exists for a place, it is obvious that it should be used when writting an English-language text which aims to follow the common usage of reliable English-language publications (as the English-language Wikipedia does). In short, we use English.

The naming conventions for geographic names state this rather obvious fact quite clearly in its third general guideline, and I quote:
1. The title:
2. The lead:
3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article."

In other words: The same name as in the title of the main article (Shatt al-Arab) should be used consistently in the text of all other articles using the name in question.

The only exception allowed is for the use of alternative names in specific historical contexts. Like the rest of our naming conventions policy, this exception is based on our core criterion of reflecting common English usage. — If, when referring to a specific historical context, most reliable English-language publications use a certain name (different from the modern one), we follow that usage too, and use that name consistently when dealing with that historical context. — For example, articles dealing with the 2nd century should use Ariminum instead of Rimini, those dealing with the 14th century should use Constantinople instead of Istanbul, those dealing with the 18th century should use Pressburg instead of Bratislava, and those dealing with 1945 should use Stalingrad instead of Volgograd. In all these cases, you can rely on redirects or use the [[Bratislava|Pressburg]] function.

The main issue is that, in using those alternative names, we're merely applying our core criterion of following common English usage - we simply do as most reliable English-language publications do.

For the case of our waterway, of course we can use (or mention) any name other than the standard English one (Shatt al-Arab), if and only if this alternative name is commonly used in English-language publications, either generally or in a specific historical context. As far as I know, this is not the case of the Farsi name. Remember that we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.

And our English-speaking readers won't be confused by seeing the standard English name only, without mention of the Farsi name. In fact, seeing the standard English name, as in most other reliable English-language publications, is exactly what they would expect to find. It's the very opposite of "confusing our readers": it's communicating information to them in the very language they speak (instead of using Farsi, French or Chinese). Again, we use English. — In any case, even some of the Iranian references used in the articles use the form "Arvand-Roud (Shatt al Arab)".

The Farsi name is an interesting fact to mention in the article on the Shatt al-Arab, but, far from being useful, its addition to every Iran-related article would only be unnecessary clutter. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a forum to promote the name preferred by Iranians.
Regards, Ev (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed the "common sense" would be named so if it's an undisputed idea.The Arabic name is more common in English , but that does not means any English language person is familiar with that name.I think the section of the convention that is more applicable here is this one : Multiple local names.
But anyway , the whole convention which you addressed is talking about using a dominant name - which is being used as the convention orders- and not the explanations around the name !
Any information in an article should be discussed individually to determine if it is useful to be included or not . As an example , if an English language person is going to use the information on the signs in the roads of Iranian side of that river , there is no single sign that use the "Shatt- al - Arab" : then simply the Wikipedia's goal as you mentioned as "communicate facts in English to English speakers" is not fulfilled! I think the alternative name should be mentioned in articles that deal directly with local Iranian entities.
And I agree that Wikipedia is not a forum to promote the name preferred by Iranians , but also we should be careful not to became so obsessive about our point of view (= our understanding of common sense)to the point of unnecessary and counter-useful over emphasizing.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the points you make in your first paragraph:

Using the standard English names in titles and in the body of all articles is an undisputed idea among reasonable people willing to write an English-language encyclopedia that follows the common usage of most reliable English-language publications. It is disputed only by those who disagree with our current naming conventions, and simply ignore them in order to use true names unrecognizable to literate anglophones but dear to their nationalistic hearts.

The Arabic name Shatt al-Arab is not only more common in English, but it has become the clear standard English usage. For all intent and purpose, it is the English name. — Just as the German names Elbe (and not the Czech Labe) and Oder (and not the Polish Odra), the Spanish name Ebro (and not the Catalan Ebre), the French name Seine, and the Italian name Po have all become for all intent and purpose the English names of those rivers.

A substantial proportion of literate anglophones are familiar with the name Shatt al-Arab... especially after both Bushes assured constant mentions of Iraqi geography in newspapers, magazines and nightly newscasts. — But regardless of whether any English-speaker is already familiar with a certain name, the question is with which name is he most likely to familiarize himself when reading an English-language publication. It is pretty obvious that it would be the standard English name for the river, Shatt al-Arab.

If you read again the section on "multiple local names" of the naming conventions for geographic names, you'll see that it deals only with cases in which "English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the [...] tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." — This is obviously not the case of the Shatt al-Arab, whose importance has generated copious amounts of mentions in English-language publications.

Regarding the Iranian road signs, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. And we write for readers more intelligent than this confused & illiterate tourist who relies on Wikipedia articles to navigate Iran's roads. In any case, were he ever to search for "Arvand" (one way or the other) or look at the maps of our Iran-related articles, he would soon understand that those Arvand Rud road signs refer to what the English-speaking world knows as the Shatt al-Arab :-)

Finally, the alternative name should be mention only where is relevant: in the main article on the Shatt al-Arab, of course, and perhaps in few others (very few). But most certainly not in all articles dealing with "local Iranian entities", either directly or indirectly. — We don't mention in every Bavaria-related article that Munich is called München in German (even in their road signs!). We mention this fact in the article on Munich, and there alone... in all other articles we use the standard English name only. — The same approach applies to all places with a clear standard English name, and should apply to the case of the Shatt al-Arab too.

As a last detail, when I speak of common sense, I refer to the common natural understanding of editors following the editorial practices of the English-language Wikipedia. When I give my personal opinion, my personal view on a certain issue, I clarify that I'm doing it. I don't mix the two concepts. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion :"The alternative name should be mention where is relevant" :strong agreement."The alternative name should be mention only where is relevant,.... perhaps in few others (very few)" :Such words as "few" are not absolute terms ,they are relative ! When we use the condition of relevancy , the word "few" is useless here !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I meant that in my opinion there are very few articles where the Farsi name would be relevant for an anglophone reader. I apologize for any lack of clarity.

A good comparison would be the Persian Gulf, which as you know is called Arabian Gulf in some Arab countries. Where -in which kind of articles- would it be appropriate to use the form "Persian Gulf (known as Arabian Gulf in some Arab countries)" instead of the standard English name alone ? I think that in very few articles. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was writing here , I do have the "Persian Gulf " in mind ! When comparing them , we should note that the " Persian Gulf " is an international body of water , that have to have an international name , but the Shaat-al-Arab is not international and is a common river between Iran and Iraq : that means there is no official international name for that and there is no need for it also ! Anyway , as you show that in the talk page of Shaat - al - arab , the Arabic name is the dominant one in English ( and not in the international name list ) , that maybe because the nowadays Iraq was a mandate of British empire for a long time . I do agree to use the English name in Wikipedia , but not to take it as the " International name" . All of the disagreements you see in Iranian editors about using of the alternative names for "Persian Gulf " and " Shaat- al - arab " ; reflects the prologue of the Iraq-Iran war that began around these issues and resulted such a destruction for both sides that was comparable - correcting the number of the population -to world wars in Europe.Thanks again --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth is the "international name" of any geographical feature ? Even more so, what in Heaven's name is an "official international name" supposed to be ? Who says that international waters "have to have an international name" or "need an official international name" (whatever those terms mean) ? Which totalitarian madman dreamt up such notions ? Who is supposed to regulate such things ? What is this "international name list" ? — It all sounds like mere rhetorical devices to me... pompous and grandiloquent, yes, but utterly meaningless in practical terms.

More to the point, whatever an "international name" is, our current naming conventions for geographic names do not even use the word "international", not once. As far as our editorial practices are concerned, the issue of "official international names" (whatever that may be) has no relevance to how we refer to things, both in article titles and in the text. — If such a thing as "official international names" does exist, perhaps you could propose to modify the naming conventions for geographic names, so that "official international names" are taken into consideration.

Back to the Shatt al-Arab, you're probably right: Britain's contact with the area since the late 18th century is most likely behind the adoption of the Arab name instead of the Farsi one. The geographical names of all places of the world entered all languages (including English) in certain specific historical circumstances that led to the adoptions of forms based in one of the local languages and not the others. Sometimes these usages changed over time, sometimes they remained constant.

I understand how the tragic war of the 80s would lead to disagreement on the content (the facts) of some articles, as most (all?) conflicts tend to do. But it shouldn't affect the issue of which names are used in that content, which depends entirely on English-language usage, or which alternative names are relevant for each article, which depends on relevance to our anglophone readership. — There's no need to mention in the article on the battle of the Ebro that the river is called Ebre in Catalan; or in the article on the battle of Berlin or those related to Poland that the Oder river is called Odra in Polish. Those little facts are simply not relevant for those articles. — In the same manner, the fact that the Persian Gulf is called "Arabian Gulf" in some countries, or that the Shatt al-Arab is called "Arvand river" in Iran is irrelevant to the vast majority of articles. We're not a dictionary. And for those readers wondering about such details, these facts are mentioned where it is relevant: in the articles on the Persian Gulf, Shatt al-Arab, Ebro and Oder.

Perhaps the Farsi Wikipedia mentions such details in all articles, along the lines of "the Arvand River (called Shatt al-Arab outside Iran)" ? If they do, it's their editorial choice, of course; but I would recommend them to avoid such unnecessary clutter, and mention that detail in the main article only. - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"What on Earth is the "international name" of any geographical feature"? The United Nations , defines a geographical name as a name applied to a feature on Earth. In general, a geographical name is the proper name used consistently in language to refer to a particular place, feature or area having a recognizable identity on the surface of the Earth.See [11]--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alborz, that's merely how UNGEGN defines what a geographical name is. It's the dictionary-style definition on which UNGEGN bases its work... and has absolutely no relation to this odd notion about the existence of "official international names."

The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), including its Working group on Exonyms, is merely dedicated to promote the standardization of geographical names. It works first at a national level: "UNGEGN's goal is for every country to decide on its own nationally standardized names through the creation of national names authorities or recognized administrative processes"; so that then "UNGEGN can promote the use of these names internationally".

There's an enormous difference between "promoting the standardization of geographical names" (or "promoting the use of certain names internationally") and "establishing official international names". — The UN is most definitely not the World Government, and has no authority whatsoever to establish "official international names" of any sort. The UN can only determine official guidelines for internal UN usage, indicating what names should be used in UN documents and publications only. - Ev (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the Persian name of Shatt al-Arab

Sure , but the bodies of water are different from lands : I mean what national levels in the oceans or seas can be considered? Is it wrong to consider the UN term as "international name" for the bodies of water that are not owned by any government ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are different: the portions of any body of water (mainly seas & oceans) that lie beyond the international borders of countries, that is, beyond territorial waters (or the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone), constitute international waters. They belong to no one, correspond to no national level, and are outside the jurisdiction of near-by countries. (Ships navigating international waters are usually under the jurisdiction of the country whose flag the ship flies). — You probably have seen in TV or movies how some ships sail to "lawless" international waters to do things illegal in the near-by land, such as gambling or consuming drungs :-)

These international waters don't have any "official international name"... they simply have different names in different languages, some of which could be "official names" in some countries. But no government, body or institution has the authority to establish any "official name" on an international level, not for international waters, and not for any geographical name whatsoever. Luckly, we don't have a World Government.

Which leads us to the second point: yes, it it wrong to consider as "international names" the ones the UN uses in its documents and publications, or the ones whose usage the UN promotes (through UNGEGN) in an attempt to standardize geographical names — regardless of whether the said names correspond to a country's capital city or an international body of water belonging to no state.

You can state some clear facts:

• UN internal regulations call for the use of certain name in UN documents and publications.
• The UNGEGN promotes the usage of a certain name in their ongoing effort to standardize geographical names.
  (People and institutions are free to adopt UNGEGN's suggestion or not).
• The government of X country has established a certain name as official.
  (Within X country only, of course, since that government has no authority beyond the borders of X... and in principle to be used on official documents only, unless it's a dictatorship that can impose name usage on its citizenship).
• The US State Department regulations call for the use of certain name in US State Department documents, publications & press releases.
  (And only in US State Department documents, publications & press releases... for it has no authority to regulate the names used by others.)
• The AP Stylebook (or any other style guide) calls for the use of a certain name.
  (In publications using the style guidelines of the AP Stylebook only, of course).
• The naming conventions of the English-language Wikipedia call for the use of a certain name.
  (Within the English-language Wikipedia only, of course, as we have no authority beyond this website :-).

...but, as you can see, organizations or institutions can issue regulations only for themselves and the ambit on which they have the authority to do so. — No organization, body or institution has the authority to establish "official international names" for geographical features; hence, they don't exist.

Of course, all this means that here, in the English-language Wikipedia, we can concentrate in following common English usage, without having to worry about any supranational body dictating the names we should use :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Informally, you can always use the term "international name" in the sense of "the name in common usage at an international level, probably also the official one of a number of organizations & institutions"... but the term is rather ambiguous, and for clarity it's better to use other wording: "internationally known as", "the name commonly used internationally" or something similar... especially in the cases where some kind of naming conflict exists, to avoid confusing some readers into seeing it as something "official" :-)

In the few instances in which articles need to refer to such "international names" -common usage at an international level-, it would be better to use a full sentence or two to describe the exact situation, defining clearly how wide or common the usage is. - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all , Thank you for the time and effort that you pay to discuss the matter. Second , as you know , my English is not so good and my wrong usage of the words maybe due to that.I was trying to say a river's name between two country, is different with an international water . Using the alternative local name of a relatively not famous river, in some of the related articles , alongside the dominant English name , seems to be informative and of practical.Same is true about the free waters of the world , but regarding international nature of this waters , using the common international name , seems tobe a little more understandable . "Official international name " is wrong as you mentioned : there is no international authority at all , and no international government : using the word was my bad.Thanks again . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arbitrary editing of 40 BunarFest article

Hello I saw that you edited the name of the Prizren river and the name of Kosovo. Since you don't know both albanian and serbian I would suggest you to learn more of these languages and not to edit articles arbitrarily. Lumi i Prizrenit ne shqip quhet Lumbardh, a srpski se zove Bistrica, to je bilo pisano u zagradama.

Regards

arpagjiki (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arpagjiki. It should go without saying that this version of Wikipedia uses the English-language, in the same manner as the Albanian-language Wikipedia uses the Albanian-language. In the same way as the Albanian-language Wikipedia uses the Albanian name Kosova (and the form Kosovë), here we use the name most commonly used in English-language publications, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize: Kosovo. In short, we do as English does.

Compare it with other cases: we use "Germany" instead of Deutschland, "Italy" instead of Italia, "Spain" instead of España, "Albania" instead of Shqipëria, "Serbia" instead of Srbija, "Kosovo" instead of Kosova or Kosovë.

For the specific issue of name usage in the English-language Wikipedia, the languages and usages of the inhabitants of Kosovo (be they Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Roma, Swedes or Martians) are just irrelevant. Instead, we use the names most commonly used in reliable English-language publications (mainly those from the UK, Ireland, US, Canada, Australia & NZ). — Thus, speaking Albanian or Serbo-Croatian, or knowing the Albanian or Serbo-Croatian names of geographical places, is not necessary to edit our articles. All you need to know is what names do reliable English-language publications use :-)

We do not use "local names" or "official names" or "international names" or "neutral names" or "real names" or "correct names" or "true names"... instead, we follow the usage of most reliable English-language publications.

The issue is explained at lenght in our general naming conventions policy and in the specific one for geographic names. - We use English. - These are official English Wikipedia policies, and all editors should follow them. Please, read these policies carefully to understand what names should articles use.

Thus, in the case of the river that runs through Prizren, the fact that it's called Lumbardh in Albanian or Bistrica (or Prizrenska Bistrica) in Serbo-Croatian is basically irrelevant. What matters is the name the majority of reliable English-language publications use for it.

For a number of historical circumstances, the English language has adopted Serbo-Croatian place names for Kosovo, and English-language publications commonly use the name Prizrenska Bistrica -or simply Bistrica with some qualification- instead of Lumbardh or Lumbardhi. Following our naming conventions, we merely reflect this usage.

Of course, Kosovo's declaration of independece may well induce a change in English usage. If, at some future time, the Albanian names Kosova or Lumbardhi replace the Serbo-Croatian forms as the common English usage, then our articles will reflect this shift. But not before. — Wikipedia is not a platform to advocate for the adoption of Albanian names in the English language.

I hope that now, after reading carefully our naming conventions, you will understand that there was nothing arbitrary about my edit. Instead, I was merely following our standard editorial practices, as described in our naming conventions policy.

If you have any further doubts about this issue, or any other, don't hesitate to ask me :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unprotect

Hi. I do respect your thoughts on this but no Wikipedia article should stay under indefinite full protection. We need to know whether or not the article can stabilize and the only way to do this is to unprotect it (now and then if need be). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, optimist Gwen :-) Perhaps there's nothing wrong with testing the waters and see how editing proceeds. My main concern is that the amounts of time & effort that containing the tensions and massive POV pushing in that article entail are simply not proportional to the article's significance to the encyclopedia. Having seen how that article developed before protection was implemented, I think that keeping it fully-protected for the next six or eight months -not indefinitely- is the most time-efficient manner of maintaining it at least moderately unbiased (close to the ultimate goal to which our editing methods are subservient).

Of course, I hope to be proved wrong... and, as I said before, I suppose that doing a little experiment now and then wouldn't really hurt. But just in case, I'm saving here the version as of 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC), to simplify a long revert to a pre-editing-madness state :-)
Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, everything you say is worthy of thinking about and likewise, I do have faith in most editors and readers :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Clown in libertà"

I greatly appreciate your thoughful input, Ev, and all the more so for your graciously suggesting that the Hebrew translation may have its merits after all. Sometimes I try too hard for trilingual equivalencies, so a balanced view such as yours is most welcome. -- Con mis saludos respetuosos y afectuosos, Deborahjay (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Deborah. I'm glad to be of any help :-) We all try too hard sometimes (a field in which I have much more practical experience than what I usually like to admit...). Good luck with the translation. - Con saludos cordiales y quedando a tu entera disposición, Ev (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miracles article

Thank you for your kind summary on the AN page. Only one point, it was not 'within hours', it was 'within minutes'. See my account on the AN page. I remained pretty polite for half an hour of this nuisance - see the message on Stifle's talk page, please and thank you and everything. Then, seeing he simply would not listen to reason, I lost the plot. I am not apologising, nor am I coming back, unless someone will persuade him to apologise. I mean, really apologise. Best Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Damian, first of all allow me to apologize to you for the manner in which you were treated in this shameful affaire. Although I can only speak for myself, try to think of this as an apology from those involved in this odd experiment who wish the writing of old-fashioned encyclopedic content by those with the knowledge to do it were the main focus and core objective around which Wikipedia turned. — Instead we have Stifle freely hampering your article work in a most appalling manner, and you blocked for complaining too loud about it in talk pages & a noticeboard (without disrupting any article work as far as I can see). *sigh*

I appreciate your gratitude, but it's really I who should be thanking you for the time and effort you have invested here. I have little hope in that it will result in part of an encyclopedia... but I like to think that a few people will discover part of the history of human thought thanks to the words you made freely avaiable through this medium. And some of them may even get enthusiastic enough to buy a real book :-)

Sorry about the timeframe confusion (hours instead of minutes) and not even noticing your initial polite attempts to talk with Stifle. Yesterday evening I was rather busy finishing a couple of things before going out to a dinner, and was short of time. And after noticing your situation at the administrator's noticeboard I intervened only because nobody else had done so in five hours. I looked at the big picture only, without paying due attention to the details; in fact I was still scanning over the talk pages when I posted my first comments. For clarity, I have added a correction of the timeframe. — In any case, you probably were more calm than I think I would be under those circumstances.

As I said before, I think that it would be good for you to say "sorry for losing my temper, I'll try not to do it again", as doing so always facilitates to solve these situations. However, I don't think you should apologize. — It is we, the "Wikipedia community" (whatever that means) who owe you an apology for how you were treated (yesterday I said "we have to [apologize] to him"). I tried to do my little part above. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that of certain others :-)

Because for the moment, and the foreseeable future, Wikipedia is what we see, what you experienced yesterday. And trying to change it would require more time & effort than what I'm willing to invest here. — So, each one of us should decide if they want to participate in this Wikipedia, and if so in which manner, to which extent. Decide if you enjoy editing enough to make up for the rest; find if you're able to take a middle-term approach to what you write, allowing for the furor of the "teenagers running amok", knowing that in a few hours or a couple of days you can recover whatever text was removed or deleted in the interim :-)

In my personal case, after initial experiences not that different from what happened to you yesterday, and the realization that I would need to babysit any article I wrote, I decided to have a "low level" participation. I have contributed very little content. I just take part in some discussions, add some wikilinks here and there, and only occasionally write some very simple things (I have learnt to make first edits that deter the recent changes patrol). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that kind message. I'm sorry it had to end in this way, but v much appreciated. Peter Damian 81.155.187.90 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Skënderaj/Srbica

What sources do you have that Srbica is used more than Skënderaj in English, well, these are my reasons at least: the population is a majority albanian (hardly any serbs), google search, kosovo is a country/territory/whatever with albanian as a primary language, I can understand kosovo Polje because of the serbian history related with it but Skënderaj... -- CD 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cradel. First of all, keep in mind that our naming conventions request that we limit ourselves to use the names the greatest number of English speakers -our intended readership- would most easily recognize... the names they are used to find in English-language publications. Thus, for this specific purpose:

• the language & ethnicity of the local population is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether they speak Albanian, Serbian, Turkish, Swedish or something else... nor does it matter whether they are all ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Swedes or Martians. What matters is the name by which the place is commonly referred to in English-language publications.
• simple Google searches are not an adequate form of gauging English usage (read about false positives). Try to use other methods.
• the official or primary language of the region in question is irrelevant. What matters is the name by which the place is commonly referred to in English-language publications.
• the region's place in and relation with Albanian, Serbian, Turkish, Swedish or Martian history, culture and civilization at large is irrelevant. What matters is the name by which the place is commonly referred to in English-language publications.

Having clarified those points, let me answer your first question. I base my claim that English-language publications tend to use the name "Srbica" more commonly than the name "Skënderaj" on two simple grounds:

• My general perception of usage, the fruit of years of reading English-language publications.
• The usual simple tests, done by me in January 2007 in accordance to the methods proposed in our guidelines.

I have yet to percieve that English usage has changed or see any solid proof that English-language publications have switched to using the name "Skënderaj" more often than "Srbica". — I hope this answers your questions :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Slavic languages

I'm sorry to butt in on your talk page like this, uninvited and without a special purpose, but I have to say I was rather intrigued by your userbox stating that you don't understand any of the Slavic languages. I was also a bit scared, but I'm sure you mean no harm to the native speakers of those languages... Anyway, if you happen to like Slavic languages and you're interested in learning one of them, I might be of some help to you. I'm offering my best, that is. If my assumption was incorrect, I'm sorry for bothering you. :/ --iNkubusse^? 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi iNkubusse; you're most welcome at this talk page :-) The userbox in question mimics Babel's standard user language templates, and has the same simple purpose: to inform fellow Wikipedians of what languages I can speak, read or at least understand. – Since I have been involved on Balkans- & Eastern Europe-related articles, I thought that it could be helpful to inform other editors that I cannot understand sources & references written in Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, Russian, etc. — No harm intended :-)

I learnt the word pivo within hours of my first visit to Prague, and have for a long time intended to learn the basic rudiments of Russian. Someday I will find the time & motivation to actually take a course :-) Thank you for your offer; I will keep it in mind. Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Welcome

THANKS!!! You've made me feel so much more welcome here. Here's some cookies to thank you! ;) -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Visitors bringing cookies are always welcome on sundays. Thank you :-) Ev (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

More Cookies

More cookies.

Here's some more cookies to keep you happy. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This new batch of cookies was delicious, Mister Alcohol. Thank you! - Ev (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Preah Vihear Temple

As you have change the word "Amphoe" into "district" and "northeastern Thailand" to "eastern Thailand" on the article Preah Vihear Temple, I must inform you that Northeastern Thailand and Eastern Thailand is a separate region. (See regions of Thailand) As [ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Image:Thailand_provinces_six_regions.png evidence in this picture], blue area is the "Eastern" region while red area is the "Northeastern" region. Those regions are considered separate region. The information you edited is not right.

Furthermore, the use of Amphoe is recognised throughout English and German Wikipedia. See this list] (the blue link - no. 992 to 926.), you may concern that the articles are written using "Amphoe" in front of the district name. It is also like this in German Wikipedia. Further viewpoints please discuss with User:Ahoerstemier80, who take job in this area. Note that the "District" from no. 1 -5 are the amphoes in Bangkok - in Bangkok it is "district" while other provinces is "Amphoe" - this is what is used. If you got any question please ask User:Ahoerstemier80.

Best regards, --203.156.141.195 (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (school computer - does not login - User:Passawuth)

Also wondering why you chose to remove the words "Kingdom of" from the titles of both nations. Both nations are kingdoms. Cambodia is the Kingdom of Cambodia. The national motto is Nation, Religion, King. KhProd1 (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding that "both" nation are kingdoms and has the same motto. Please study the technical terms before editing it. --125.24.79.128 (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Amphoe" and "District" in Thailand are not the same. This is not WP:UE, district in Thailand is "khet" while "amphoe" is amphoe. Although it is the same administrative level, district is used only in Bangkok, e.g. Dusit district. Outside Bangkok is Amphoe such as Amphoe Kantharalak for example. In Thai the same administrative level is called differently, we use this to differentiate the location... Study more about Thailand please before you edit furthermore. --Passawuth (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Passawuth & KhProd1. Thank you for taking the time to explain me all these details :-) First of all, I admit that I know very little about South-East Asia. This particular conflict was in the news yesterday, so I looked at how Wikipedia covered it, and found that the language used in the article was not particularly clear for people like me, who know little to nothing about Thailand & Cambodia. My educated guess is that those ignorant about your region include the vast majority of English-speakers, our intended readership.

With this in mind, although my current ignorance of the region prevents me from writing or changing the actual content of the article, it is this very ignorance that proves quite helpful for a quick copy-edit, indicating what portions of the text need to be clarified for our intended readership. — Remember: our articles should be optimized for a general audience, and not for those English-speakers who are already familiar with South-East Asia.

My edits:

• I changed "the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand" into "Cambodia and Thailand" for brevity, and because I could think of no reason to use the "long" official forms instead of the "short" colloquial ones. Is there any ? (By the way, I did know that both coutries are kingdoms :-)

  Most Wikipedia articles use the short forms, including those on Bangkok ("the capital [...] of Thailand", not "of the Kingdom of Thailand") and Phnom Penh ("the capital [...] of Cambodia", not "of the Kingdom of Cambodia"). Our article on the Mekong river mentions that it runs through China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam (and not "the People's Republic of China, the Kingdom of Thailand, the People's Democratic Republic of Laos, the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam"). Our article on the Oder river mentions that it forms the border between Germany and Poland (and not "the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland"). Etc.

  So, what reason is there to use the "long" official forms in this particular article ?

• I changed "Amphoe" into "district" for clarity, as no educated anglophone should be expected to know what amphoe means. — Since the articles on each amphoe use this word in their titles, and from what you tell me the word "district" has a specific use in Bangkok, I see how amphoe could be used in this & other articles. However, at this term's first appearance its meaning should be explained, along the lines of "amphoe (district)" or "amphoe (equivalent to a district)". You know better than me what explanation would be most appropriate :-)

  Remember to always clarify the meaning of any foreign word that no educated anglophone should be expected to know or understand. — You can ask me to "study more about Thailand before I edit" (yes, I should), but you cannot ask our readership to "study about Thailand before reading Wikipedia's articles".

  Notice however that in other articles on Thailand the norm appears to be the use of districts instead of amphoe:
  The current version of Administrative divisions of Thailand mentions that "each of Thailand's 76 provinces is divided into districts - as of 2006 there are 877 districts (amphoe) and 50 districts in Bangkok (khet)."
  The current version of Amphoe uses both amphoe and district interchangeably throughout the text.
  The current version of List of districts of Thailand (districts, not amphoe!) mentions that it is "a list of districts (amphoe) of Thailand, sorted by province."
  The current version of Amphoe Kantharalak mentions that "Kantharalak is a district (Amphoe) in the southeastern part of Sisaket Province", and goes on to use district throughout the text.

• I changed "northeastern Thailand" to "eastern Thailand" for clarity, as (without knowing that it referred to specific regions of Thailand, and without any indication to that effect) I assumed that it was meant to indicate the general geographical area. — For me, a generic "northeastern" meant the area of Sakon Nakhon province. So, upon looking at a map of Thailand, I found that "eastern" was better to locate Sisaket province.

  From my mistake we learn that the article should clarify that "northeastern Thailand" is a specific region, and not a generic geographical area :-)

In short, although some of my edits may not have been appropriate, the article lacks brevity & needs to clarify certain details to an anglophone readership unfamiliar with South-East Asia. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MisterAlcohol Beer.png

Hello. I'm John Wansted, one of Alberto's friends, and I'm currently on holiday using this IP. Apparently, Alberto (Mister Alcohol) has been complaining that this beer glass image has been deleted. The deleting sysop is claiming that it is an "infringement" when it is actually public domain. Would you mind restoring the image so Alberto can change the tag? Thanks for reading. — John Wansted on 92.16.12.245 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, John, but my "internet media" skills are minimal to practically inexistent: I have not being involved with images so far (I don't even know what the uploading process entails :-), and don't want to perform any administrative action on topics I'm not yet familiar & confident with, especially when there are many other administrators dedicated specifically to this area. — I see that you already contacted Orangemike & Elipongo. You could always seek further input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. In any case, I assume that uploading that small image again (with the proper tag this time) shouldn't be much of a problem (although I imagine that it could feel like a ridiculous waste of time, like so many Wikipedia processes feel sometimes :-). — If you need any other (less "technological") thing, I'm here at your (and Alberto's) disposal. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell Orangemike (talk · contribs) to restore the image then? I'm hacked off that he won't respond or do ANYTHING. Thanks! — John Wansted on 92.16.12.245 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I couldn't advice or ask Orangemike to do anything, because I simply don't know how these image issues are handled, John. He did respond tho'. Try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions... they are the ones who really understand how this area of Wikipedia works :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Šar Mountains

Ev, this is a friendly notice to inform you of an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of Serbia in the article Šar Mountains. Your views on this matter would be welcome. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aramgar, I had seen the many reverts, and had been delaying starting a discussion at that talk page. Thank you for prompting me into participating there :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ev. I am afraid we have an impasse at Šar Mountains. The Serbian editor is skirting incivility while maintaining that his own nationalist version is a "compromise". I do not understand why an article on physical geography needs to be a battleground. Would you please return to the talkpage and help us bring this to a sensible conclusion? Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't edit yesterday, and may skip other days in the future, but I have not left the discussion :-) Ev (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seemed impatient. There are few other editors who have an awareness of the issues and the essential patience to deal with them. I appreciate your involvement. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't. If anything, encouraging discussion is always commendable :-) And thank you for the kind words, although in fact it's me the one who really appreciates your participation here: it's always refreshing to have the input of someone not directly involved in whatever conflict afflicts an article. – Of course, what sets the English-language Wikipedia apart from all its sister projects is that we have to deal with the internet fallout of all the conflicts & old grudges in the world combined :-) All the best, Ev (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mister Alcohol :-) Ev (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

problem, need advice

There is a wikipedia user who seems to be doing some stuff with maps. The guy is Ceha. The issue that I have is that he is simply just editing maps whenever he feels like it. I find this to be troubling. He has incomplete maps online, like this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Izbori_1990.GIF , and edits them whenever he pleases. Incomplete maps are a detriment to knowledge. As in that example we can see that most of the map is labeled as unknown. I find this to be a problem. What can be done about it? We can notice that when anyone publishes a map in a scholarly article, they publish it when it is complete and at the final stage. There are not these subsequent edits and stuff to it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a page to help one make maps. It's not for one's personal projects or works in progress, is it? This is what bothers me, that these misereable maps are reducing the standard of quality on wikipedia. What can I do to go further with this issue? (LAz17 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Hi LAz17. I think that there are two separate issues here: the creation of maps for Wikipedia, and the use of those images in our articles.

Let's start with map creation. Maps are not always uploaded in its final state, finished. I have seen many drafts being uploaded to get feedback from other editors, and being subsequently altered & improved over & over again until everyone's happy :-) As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no problem with working in this manner, uploading unfinished maps to show others what you're doing. In essence, our maps are just as "unstable" and subject to improvement as article text is. As long as the English-language Wikipedia refuses to implement so-called "stable versions", we could say that maps are never finished. :-)

I know little about images (too technical to my very limited computer skills), but it is my understanding that for maps some specific type of files (.svg) are encouraged over others in part precisely because they're easier to modify (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format).

So, in principle, the upload of unfinished maps that are slowly completed over time should not be a problem. However, that's only so if the map is being completed based on reliable sources, instead of being an original synthesis of published material.

Now to the second point: the use of those "unfinished" images in our articles, like the example you provided (Izbori_1990.GIF) being used in the "Bosnia and Herzegovina municipal elections, 1990" article. – I think that the decision should be made on a case by case basis, asking ourselves whether the unfinished map is an improvement or a detriment to each particular article.

I understand -and to a certain extent share- your concern over using such maps. But at the same time it could be argued that the same thing is true of article text, and that "unfinished" stubs (that dwell in some details only, failing to provide a general overview of the subject) are also a detriment to knowledge.

However, if it is decided to use such maps in an article, it is very important to label it properly. In your example, the map is labelled:

Results of the 1990 elections in Bosnian municipalities. Red are municipalities in which SDS won most votes, green for SDA, blue for HDZ and pink are those where none of the nationalistic parties achieved the right to choose a mayor. Beige are unknown.

What does "Beige is unknown" mean ? Unknown to who ? To anyone, or to the Wikipedia user who created the map ? If the later, the caption should be changed to:

Partial results of the 1990 elections in Bosnian municipalities. Red are municipalities in which SDS won most votes, green for SDA, blue for HDZ and pink are those where none of the nationalistic parties achieved the right to choose a mayor. Beige are unknown.

In any case, the article has two maps that contradict each other (one mentioning that results are unknown and the other giving those same supposedly unknown results), and that is bound to confuse our readers. One -or both- should be removed.

One last detail: when you consider that an image should not exist in Wikipedia, it should be listed at Images and media for deletion, not Articles for deletion. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi

Are you the one who "reported" me to Moreschi for "edit-warring"? --alchaemia (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was me, and I reported the general situation on Talk:Kosovo and User:Bože pravde specifically and not you. He is also banned from Kosovo for a month, BTW, so it is not that bad. Colchicum (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad? Seriously? For what reason was I reported or became part of this mess? He was reverting my edit, I wasn't reverting his. --alchaemia (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You wasn't reported, Moreschi took that decision by himself. Colchicum (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And for a month, no less. No reason was given, and he's not replying on his talk page. Great behavior. --alchaemia (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be around here 24/7. Just wait. And calm down a bit, please, otherwise the situation may be worsened. Such is life. Sorry. Colchicum (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am calm. Wikipedia is not something that can change my mood. I wrote on his talk page immediately after he wrote on mine, so it is more than likely that he saw it. And no one said that he needs to be here 24/7, but what he does need to do is provide example of edit warring instead of just saying it happened and bam, you're banned for a month. Otherwise, he can extend it to 3 months if he wants. --alchaemia (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Alchaemia, you posted that comment to Moreschi's talk page at 22:39 UTC, eight minutes after he made his final edit of the day at 22:31 UTC. Whether Moreschi remaind online -or in Wikipedia- after 22:31 UTC is pure especulation.

For the record: no, I did not reported you for edit-warring. - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hi Ev. I just wanted to thank you for your work in calming the edit-warring at Šar Mountains. I know it will never completely cease, but the footnote seems to have helped quite a bit. I really appreciate the time you invested in putting it together and the patience you showed in dealing with the entire situation. Cheers, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Most appreciated, Liz :-) But, as I mentioned to Aramgar above, I am the really grateful one for your (and his) participation there. Calmer voices, arguing encyclopedic needs, merits & significance instead of eternally revisiting the local political conflicts (and all its derivations) are most refreshing. – You're right however, it will never completely cease. May the powers that be bring us soon the long-awaited stable versions, in some form or another ! - Regards, Ev (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza ban aint gonna happen

Wow, this is unexpected, Ev I already have things to worry about, please do not make yourself one of them. Please do not be one sided. The sentences I added to this article already existed on Wikipedia's Gordium article. Therefore I did not initially create anything here, if you try to ban me from this topic, your are making an ill fated and innapropriate mistake, that will have Wikipedia consequences. You people can not think outside of the box. Please think clearly before trying to piss me off more. Imagine that ever time you try to assume good faith another smarty comes along and pokes you. Cornerning me just gives evidence to what I have said before about equal representation of editing, and making a POV encyclopaedia is not the way, excluding somewhat unreliable sources is not for us to decide, because there are better encyclopaedia's out there that include all the information. Yet, here information is limited because of certain revisionist policies begun by Wikipedia's new police force. If this is really happening, then God help us all, thank you. Ev, if you want to ban me from a certain topic, say it to my face (talk page), not sneak it somewhere on a deletion page, unless you want this to be secret? I would not be surprised if you got this idea from a certain user... Do not worry I still assume good faith, inspite of your arrogance about the situation, (like not knowing that I copy pasted existing text from the Gordium article, and I actually wanted to save it, but I too could not find any sources for it, which means it is not OR on my part, and I was not the actual creator of the article) so please read the page carefully before pointing fingures, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My comments at the AfD discussion were rather misplaced, as in principle comments at that venue should focus on each entry's merits, and avoid such digressions. It was only my intention of not becoming directly involved in this whole affaire (and in subsequent discussions that could take place elsehwere), and the fact that ChrisO had already mentioned the general situation in his comment, that led me to state there my opinion on that general situation, "for the record" as it were (so that others can cite it at will).

Far from "keeping my opinion secret by whispering it in an obscure deletion discussion", I expected all the main participants to read it, including you (rather obviously given your level of participation in that discussion).

Now, regarding the "Siege of Gordium" entry (and looking in detail, for absolute clarity), the sentences you added to this article did not already exist on Wikipedia's article on Gordium.

Using one sentence from the article on "Gordium":

The garrison stayed there until the last months of 334, when the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city.

(despite the fact that anonymous Wikipedia entries by themselves are most definitively not reliable sources, but mere guides pointing to certain bibliography)

...you started an entry framed as the "Siege of Gordium" with one sentence (diff.):

The Siege of Gordium , which was part of a low key siege at the city of Gordium in which Alexander the Great captured, and according to myth cut the Gordium Not.

...without having any source that mentioned such thing (that a siege took place, much less that it was "low key"). Not even the sentence from "Gordium" mentioned a siege. It was just a product of your imagination.

The sentence was then further developed into (diff.):

The Siege of Gordium , which was part of an infamous siege at the city of Gordium in which, in the absence ofAlexander the Great, his commander Parmenion captured the city.

...now adding that it was infamous! (in other words, notorious). And, again, without any source whatsoever to back up those claims. And so it remains to this day.

Our policies are clear. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. – The Verifiability policy states that "[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

If even now you're unable to follow these core policies when dealing with one single sentence taken from an easy-to-check Wikipedia article, I tremble at what could take place with the whole Google Books library at your disposal.

I'm sorry to be blunt, Ariobarza. But please understand that here, unproperly conducted research implies that other people have to set aside a lot of their time to rectify articles' content, so that they comply with our policies. Ultimately, we're always talking about time... about knowledgeable persons who have to divert their valuable time from other, more productive -and/or enjoyable- occupations. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ev, you might want to take a look at this: [12]. With that kind of attitude I really don't see how Ariobarza's continued presence benefits the project. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I came here to tell Ev about it - it looks rather like a threat. Ev, what do you think? dougweller (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza said: "I warn you [Ev] to stop [considering a ban on me] before I am forced to expose you." 09:01, 19 Nov. 2008

Compare that with his earlier comments elsewhere: "I am GaThErInG a list of so called sins similar to what a certain user [ChrisO in 28 Oct. 2008 ?] had for me on my ANI page that I was later blocked for. [...] I will decide this once and for all with comparison of FACTS on the ANI page, and upon seeing the truth, it will be hard for anyone to not to realize it." 19:40, 17 Nov. 2008

I read it as a threat of simply mentioning "facts on the ANI page", where my/our misguided actions/evil machinations would be exposed for the whole community to see. – It's just Ariobarza's version of the otherwise common "stop or I report you to ANI/3RR/AIV". – During my quick review of Ariobarza's editing after reading ChrisO's comments at the AfD for "Siege of Gordium" I saw that he tends to express himself in this rather florid style (which in certain circumstances can be easily misinterpreted).

Having said that, I agree with you, ChrisO. Ariobarza's editing, attitude and general perception of things are clearly detrimental to the collaborative writing of an encyclopedia (and would be so even if he's restricted to talk pages). – I will draft a concise banning proposal -linking to the previous ANI discussion- and show it to you both for further imput before presenting it to the community. - In any case, thank you both for letting me know. :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem again

I don't mean to bother you, but I really do need some help in dealing with some nationalist POV biased anti-serb mapping here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg As we see, they are trying to keep bad maps up in use. That's just not good. We have maps from national geographic and from belgrade university. I think that your input could perhaps help bring about that hell of a discussion page to an end sooner. (LAz17 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

Sorry for not answering before; I have not been editing during the past three weeks. I see that the discussion is now at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Image discussion Bih 1991.jpg. I will take a look at it during the week. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

		Happy Thanksgiving!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving! Hopefully this one has made your Thanksgiving Day better. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mister Alcohol :-) Ev (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One question

Why is North Albanian Alps (it is a newly created term I think) more common in english language then Prokletije?

SummitPost.org,as a mountaineering internet site uses only term Prokletije [13],while there is no use of a term North Albanian Alps [14] (only 1 for Albanian Alps),so I think it should be renamed acordingly.

Also,a deal was made on talk page of Šar mountain about using of term Kosovo and not Kosovo (Serbia) with a special note.From a serbian point of view,this is not neutral,but okey.My point is that I expect you to react in these cases ([15],[16],[17],[18],etc...).

That`s all from me,for now. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 17:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Crni. I really don't know whether North Albanian Alps is more common in English-language publications than Prokletije. I have seen both names used more or less indistinctively, but I wouldn't know which one is more common, or more recent. For example, North Albanian Alps is used by the Britannica article and the National Geographic Society map The Balkans (December 1999).

All articles mentioning this mountains saw constant changes between the Serbo-Croatian & Albanian names (Prokletije & Bjeshkët e Nemuna). After the article itself was was moved to Bjeshkët e Nemuna, I decided to move it to North Albanian Alps instead of reverting it to Prokletije for two reasons:

• I felt that both North Albanian Alps and Prokletije were more or less equally compliant with our naming conventions, but the first had the advantage of being in English.
• I hoped that using a name in English, being neither in Albanian nor in Serbian, could help to stop the constant reverts across so many articles. And it appears to have worked. :-)

Of course, I could be wrong, and perhaps Prokletije is more common in English-language publications than North Albanian Alps. I will look into this at a later moment.

As for those diffs., I did not react to those edits (or any other made during the last three weeks) simply because between work, travels & social life I have not been active in Wikipedia: I expect to have more time this week. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza's topic ban

Please read the entire message with an open mind, so Ariobarza does not have to repeat it.

Hi Ev, talk about deconstructive comments. I thought we had put this issue behind us. Since November 2008, I have quietly gathered sources, and minded my own business. And now you want to propose a topic ban on me? This is dissapointing. First of all, for the Siege of Gordium I have giving up, and no longer care if it happpened, because overall consensus of the users here determined probably nothing happened, and I have even agreed with them, so Siege of Gordium is over (I was not the originater of the idea, like I said a thousand times, I copy pasted the info, added 1 sentence from the Gordium article itself). And at the end of the deletion debate, I agreed to delete Siege of Gordium. This is the last sentence I said at the deletion debate; Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

For Battle of the Tigris, this issue was between me and ChrisO (which I now Do Not have anything against or any problems with that user), it is not your business, I suggest not to involve yourself in this highly sensitive article which I am sure you know nothing about. I NOW have damning evidence of what I said before as the mostly the truth, yet now that I am so close to presenting the evidence, you come up with a topic ban for me, nice job.

I consider your proposal to be highly rude and disheartening at this time. You are attempting to waste my time and others for the next month over a topic ban debate on me. I am tired of waisting my time on quite frankly stupid (I don't care anymore, I said the word stupid, big deal, I am guilty as charged) and endless debates with revisionists with no lives, other than to waist others time.

Misrepresenting the issue, and presenting false information is not helpful here. I {suggest} if you have a personal grudge against me to say it to my face on my talk page. And not spread "Off with Ariobarza's head" pamphlets around the town. You stalking my movements on Wikipedia to see if I am breaking the rules has itself inspired me to leave Wikipedia. Coordinated group personal attacks on me shows how much Wikipedia is in danger of developing close nit gangs within its topics.

Of course its not Wikipedia's fault, its the fault of users that don't know squat on a subject, then when they see something they THINK is OR SYN, they jump on that user without looking or researching the evidence for it. So when Ev assumes its OR SYN, and later gets proven wrong (this time by another user who presents the evidence), Ev develops a grudge, and revenge sets in when out of nowhere a topic ban on Ariobarza pops up! A coincedence?

If you do not stop (what I consider a personal attack from you), I will never stop until your true intentions are exposed, possibly an RFC for your other menions too. You spending months on this issue to get me banned from the topic shows how determined you are to get rid of me, actions speak louder than words.

Me being not in contact with my Unofficial mentor or continueing making deleted articles in my userspace is not a violation of any law here. So with the little good faith I still have in me, I ask you to abandon this inapropriate proposal, you must either present the ancient crimes I commited here (which everybody got over) or present new evidence, which does not exist.

I am not saying you have a grudge against me, though it is a possibility. Anyways, I urge you to please stop this, and if you have any concerns with me, to come to my talk page so we can work something out, can we agree? Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ariobarza, I don't have anything against you. Far from it: the clear enthusiasm that transpires from your edits immediately generates sympathy. – I'm fully aware that the very action of making this ban proposal is rather rude, and I apologize for it. That's the very reason why I didn't find the will to write it on 19 November 2008 or during the two following days.

I have not been stalking your edits or spending months on this issue to get you banned. Far from it: I drafted the proposal yesterday in the lapse of about two hours. – The timing (writing it yesterday instead of in late November) is due to my not editing since 21 November 2008, for personal reasons.

The ban proposal is not based on issues with specific articles, but mainly on your general inhability to comply with our core policies on verifiability and original research (which are indispensable to contribute content to Wikipedia), and the drain of volunteers' time & energy that this situation entails for some of our knowledgeable editors.

You have been explained these policies often enough, but you appear to be unable to grasp the concept. I don't think that me explaining them yet again at your talk page would change that (if i did, I wouldn't be proposing any ban). - Regards, Ev (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not my fault that certian users think I am doing original research, they lack knowledge in the area, and think every claim is unbelievable, history is history, sometimes the sources are old, but if it is not contested by new sources and its reliable then its okay to include them, this was part of another point that I want to make about history articles, citing old sources, we cite Herodotus, his source is 2,500 years old, but a 100 year book of modern history then should be of no problem, and that if (refer to what I said above). I have not done OR for almost 3 months now. I put information there so I could later back it up with references. I know [this] mistake has caused others trouble (not the trouble you saw in Battle of Opis, but deletion articles), and I already said I was sorry and have made some improvements. But now, I HAVE the missing evidence that will shouw WHATEVER I said about Battle of the Tigris was true. The end. I cannot allow you to take this chance from me, no matter how nice you try to act, and say your intentions are good, I can see through your real intentions. I little good faith left in me for your actions, so I ask you stop. Your only going to waist more time here. You need to get a life, you have too much free time. YOUR NOT HELPING WIKIPEDIA. Bye! And no thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Unwise Move

This is highly unwise of you. Spreading blatant misrepresentations of events and misleading evidence is not good. Did you even bother to check if I had any sources for the battles in my userspace. Don't make yourself a liar. Check the damn sources on the page before you put it on my BAN page. If you do not give this up, I will be forced to contact a higher office in Wikipedia. Or an RFC on you. Cease to assist, close the page, and I will forgive you. This is not a threat, but your last warning. Just know that everything was going fine until you came along, good job. They said I could edit in my userspace, but now I am getting banned for it. Do I have to die to produce Battle of the Tigris, is that what it takes?! Respond on my page. Badbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

To be honest, I only checked a couple of the Google Books links from User talk:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, and since those indicated the use of Cyropaedia (again, personal interpretations of primary sources from Antiquity), I assumed that to be the tone of the rest of the sources, and of your use of them. - You can prove me (and others) wrong by drafting a well-sourced User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris. - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, but remember, only 2 out of the 5 sources are Cyropaedia esc. The others concern what the meaning of the inscription of the battle means when translated. Secondly, I might just rewrite the whole Battle of the Tigris into Mystery Battle article, and represent what Each translator specifically said concerning the tablet. That is why I said you making a full ban on me at this time is not good, because I just started. And frankly I have done nothing wrong for 3 months, and thought after my block was over, it was over, but you seem to like to renew old hostilities. I ask you, do you at least agree to let me rewrite it, and just in case I my account dies, to perserve my contributions on Wikipedia and expand on them. That is my farewell proposal. Thats the thanks I get for making 3,000 contributions to Wikipedia. What a shame. So do you agree with the upper part of this message, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Sorry, I got confused with User talk:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort, which I also checked yesterday, and mixed the two.

I had checked Kuhrt (only a general commments on the scarcity of sources for the period) & Dandamaev (mentioning that in 539 BC the Persian army may have been used in irrigation projects along the Tigres, nothing about a battle), but not Rawlinson or Olmstead. In any case, the fact that I did not find anything on this supposed battle in the books I have at hand, the deletion discussion, your general use of primary sources there & elsewhere, and even the general tone of the entry make it at the very least highly suspicious.

As for the ban proposal, you'll probably do better arguing at the administrator's noticeboard, where the rest of the community will see it too. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I served out my block, I have not made any major edits since my block, I only edit in my userspace. And you have to wait until the end of the week to see if Battle of the Tigris is good. I will not be forced to produce a good article in my userspace ASAP. No one can force me to do that. And I read the earlier comments on your page with ChrisO. I said if you continue to do this, I will not accept. I did not say I was going to do something drastic. There is absolutely no reason for me to be banned now. I have done nothing! Lets get something strait, mono E mono, this proposal I am about to make is now between me and you, [If I promise to only edit in my userspace for the next 3 months, will you drop the ban on me?] Please respond on my talk page. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

First of all, we're all unpaid volunteers here: no-one is forced to write content, much less to do it quickly. I would never demand such a thing from you or anybody else.

What you have done wrong, and quite consistently, is failing to constrain yourself to work within the bounds of our editorial policies on verifiability and original research; policies whose correct application is indispensable for writing content in Wikipedia. – The real problem is that the failure to follow these principles means that other editors have to spend their valuable time double-checking every single edit you make, and arguing about them.

As for alternatives to a ban (be it working in userspace for three months, for a year, or any other possibility), I can't take it upon myself to accept such a proposal without imput from other editors, especially from those active in Near Eastern & classical history topics. Because if I did I would be discharging in them the workload of looking through your userspace work, with all the time & patience that it would require. As I have mentioned before, ultimately we're always talking about administering the time & effort of unpaid volunteers.

For those reasons, I would again advice you to argue your case at the administrator's noticeboard, where the rest of the community will see it too. Mention there any alternative proposal, where those directly affected by the outcome will see it and give their opinions on it. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Public watchlist

Hi, as you are maintaining the public watchlist, are you aware of this bot (transcluded here)? Colchicum (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not... thank you, Colchicum ! :-) Ev (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now you know. There is also a large archive of about 340 titles at User:AlexNewArtBot/KosovoSearchResult/archive1. Colchicum (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That archive shows up quite often when I check incoming links to new articles, but I didn't know what it was, and never gave it a second thought. Thank you again. - Ev (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Šarplaninac

Ev, please.

Standard neutral mention of Kosovo alone [status up to the reader], with cautionary note

Mention of Kosovo alone is not neutral. Yes, I know it's the same as Šar Mountains. But it's not neutral there either. And now I see you are spreading it to other articles.

Could you answer me this: if mention of Kosovo alone (with cautionary note) is neutral, why would mention of Serbia alone not be neutral too? Nikola (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because mentioning Kosovo alone does not necessarily imply independence: it can be interpreted as either the mention of an indepdendent country or the mention of a Serbian province under UN administration since 1999. - The note helps to highlight the issue; and we should expect that once a reader becomes aware of the situation for the first time, he will be able to see all subsequent mentions of Kosovo as that ambiguous "country or Serbian province, it's up to you".

Of course, until the reader is made aware of this issue, he may misinterpret the mentions of Kosovo alone as assertion of independence. But in my personal opinion that's a small price to pay for conciseness in countless articles mentioning Kosovo.

On the other hand, mentioning Serbia alone unequivocally implies Serbian soverignity over the place, without any other possible interpretation. And that's a no-no per our attempts at neutrality.

Having said that, we all obviously need some general agreement on the issue, as you proposed at WikiProject Serbia. Perhaps we could put toghether a few of proposals (listing pros & cons of each), and then present them to the community in a specific sub-page in either of the two WikiProjects involved (advertised via request for comments & some minor spamming) ?

In any case, I don't know how active I will be on Wikipedia for the rest of December and during January. You may have already solved the issue by the time I return. :-)

Which leads me to size the opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas. Enjoy the holidays, Nikola. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

File:Christmas tree.gif		Merry Christmas!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hopefully this one has made your Christmas better. Cheers, and Happy editing! MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Ev (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!		Happy New Year!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy New Year! Hopefully this one has made your New Year better. Spread the harmony by offering this greeting to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Mister Alcohol/HappyNewYear}} to their talk page with a friendly message.)

Thank you :-) Ev (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4