This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
If you can help out with these, it would be much appreciated.
-- ChrisO ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! The move was urgent and that's why I made such a change. -- Getoar ( talk) 05:50, 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 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)
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)
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)
Np. :) -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I couldn't resist the temptation. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Thank you,
-- Avala ( talk) 19:36, 3 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. |
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)
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.u toronto 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks on the Etruscan statue ID. Pure brilliance. Donald Hosek ( talk) 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
That list is very handy ;) Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please make an update. 84.134.102.27 ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"? 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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... -- C D 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here's some more cookies to keep you happy. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 ?
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.
From my mistake we learn that the article should clarify that "northeastern Thailand" is a specific region, and not a generic geographical area :-)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Are you the one who "reported" me to Moreschi for "edit-warring"? -- alchaemia ( talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record: no, I did not reported you for edit-warring. - Regards, Ev ( talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)).
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) |
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)
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
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
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
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
Hi, as you are maintaining the public watchlist, are you aware of this bot (transcluded here)? Colchicum ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ev, please.
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
If you can help out with these, it would be much appreciated.
-- ChrisO ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! The move was urgent and that's why I made such a change. -- Getoar ( talk) 05:50, 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 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)
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)
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)
Np. :) -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I couldn't resist the temptation. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Thank you,
-- Avala ( talk) 19:36, 3 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Hús ö nd 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. |
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)
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.u toronto 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks on the Etruscan statue ID. Pure brilliance. Donald Hosek ( talk) 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
That list is very handy ;) Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please make an update. 84.134.102.27 ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"? 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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... -- C D 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here's some more cookies to keep you happy. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 ?
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.
From my mistake we learn that the article should clarify that "northeastern Thailand" is a specific region, and not a generic geographical area :-)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Are you the one who "reported" me to Moreschi for "edit-warring"? -- alchaemia ( talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record: no, I did not reported you for edit-warring. - Regards, Ev ( talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)).
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) |
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)
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
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
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
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
Hi, as you are maintaining the public watchlist, are you aware of this bot (transcluded here)? Colchicum ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ev, please.
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |