User talk:Ev/Archive 1

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.

Welcome!

Hi Evv, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.

Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.

How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.

Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.

Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.

Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.

Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.

Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 19:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

laskaris

yes, they should. but, as long as there is no article about the dynasty, i would let it go to Theo II. Maed 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferick RfC

I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request on Kosovo

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is going to be a rather complex one due to the large number of users involved. I would prefer to simplify the evidence-giving stage to make it easier for the Arbitration Committee - how would you feel about giving a joint statement of evidence? I'm happy to make a start on such a statement, which you'd be free to add to or modify as you wish. -- ChrisO 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, go ahead with it. Evv 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the joint statement of evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. -- ChrisO 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

getting things right

Yeah, i realised that was what he meant, just thought I'd do a little creative quoting. Seriously though, if the intro ends up just the way it is now, that's fine by me. I really just think that if there's a little compromise, things will settle down. In retrospect, using the term 'contested' is probably pushing it a little - after all, all parties involved signed up to UNSCR 1244. It just bugs me when people refuse to discuss compromise, although this is no doubt due in large part to the lengthy and annoying argument which seems to have gone on long before I even knew this article existed.

As a side note, however, I really do think there's a moral responsibility to get things right in wikipedia, especially now that it's creeping up the rankings for google searches on just about anything. Of course, who determines what's right is going to be another interesting issue... Happy Wednesday to you too.Davu.leon 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered in Davu.leon's talk page. - Ev (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi Evv,

I just noticed a new series of reverts had started on Kosovo. Although I understand your good intentions, I think it is better not to revert too much at the moment. The abitration is still going on and more people than regularly are therefore monitoring Kosovo. Just let them for now, there is not much harm it that. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, thanks for mentioning it anyways. :-) I wasn't going to revert a third time, and was instead opening the Kosovo talk page (in a new attempt to ask Dardanv & Kushtrimxh for discussion instead of reverts) when I saw that orange "new message" notification. Thanks again. Regards, Evv 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

DardanV is doing the same thing he tried on in April. See my latest statement at the workshop. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

That section has been reworded.. On the other hand I am new to Wiki and haven't followed the discussion page about this issue.. On the other hand, pls also note that the section talks about the stumbling blocks in the candidacy of Turkey to join the EU; human rights and Cyprus are mentioned in the accession reports, where as this isn't.. There has not been a formal demand from the EU and the European Commission in the candidacy process, and thus it would not be considered as a stumbling block since the EU has not made such a formal demand. I am not beating around the bush, it could be considered as such in other issues, but not the one about Turkish-EU relations (please note that the EU is a seperate identity than the states that compose it, therefore the section is named as such, not Turkish-European relations).. The same goes for proximity to the Middle East and poor economy.. These are not found in any of the EU accession documents.. They talk about market reforms, yes, but not a poor economy.. Same goes for Middle East, what is the proof that it is a stumbling block in the accession process? I know that it is a factor in the sense that there are issues arising from it, but it is way too much of a blanket statement to be included in that part.. Cheers! Baristarim 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking a stand on this issue, it can be mentioned in other articles, but here it is not appropriate, it gives the impression that recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a prerequisite of Turkey's adhesion to the EU, whereas it isn't.. Some people might want it to be so, but until there is a formal demand from the EU, it is not the case... I will also like to mention that the resolution in question was non-binding.. Baristarim 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkey

The edit war over the inclusion of the genocide in Turkey-EU relations seems to be continuing. Could you help us reach consensus? Yandman 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You can contribute to the RfC at Talk:Turkey#Request for Comment: Sanitization of Turkish history. Yandman 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Detector

Hello detector. How you know thate it was Hipi Zhdripi [1]? Who gives you the right to write something in name Hipi? ChrisO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Much to your credit, Hipi Zhdripi, you don't deny being the one making those comments, quite the opposite: you often sign "Hipi" and let other people answer addressing you so.

I attributed the comments for clarity, as stated in WP:SIG:

Signing ... posts on talk pages ... is not only good etiquette; it also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things. Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing as it helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a work.

Regards, Evv 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics in Cyrillics

Is there any agreement on removing italics from Cyrillics, or is it just your personal preference. If latter, please add them back - style issues like that need to be agreed in advance. Zocky | picture popups 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just my personal preference (in Greek too). I didn't found anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type, nor consistency in the articles, so I decided to be bold and "increase readability".

You're right: I'm stopping and raising the issue in:

I will revert everything if it results in adopting italics for Cyrillic & Greek. - - Regards, Evv 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.

ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .

Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A friendly little reminder

When you reverted to Shugo255's version of Poland you actually restored some vandalism, since Shugo255 is as much a vandalism account as Racejr. Scobell302 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. That's precisely why I should avoid multitasking. Sorry, and thanks for bringing it up. - Evv 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

This is the first I've given out, so hopefully I'm doing it right :)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. This Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality, everything from making sure articles follow the Manual of Style to attributing unsigned comments and formating in the talk namespace. // Laughing Man 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Open letter

Evv, Deiz, Calton and Luna Santin I really appreciate the help and support that you were doing lately on my articles but honestly there is no need for that. I would like to advise you people to take care for articles like Ratko Mladić, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and others like them and help the general readers know the truth about their miserable massacres that they did to kids and insistent people in Bosnia and Kosovo .

There is not just Mr. Abazi’s article that has been vandalized by you but all the Kosovo famous and honorable people including the history of Kosovo. It has been so clear that all the editing that you people have done about that Country is just to make a bad propaganda now that finally Serbia will lose for ever Kosovo in its final status which for sure would be Independent country as it disserves.

I understand your feeling because you are grown in the communism system where everything was leaded by the dictator and you were their kids doing the same they did with people from Kosovo. Even now through the internet you wana talk about us believing in your fathers lies that Kosovo is yours. 7 is the century that we accepted you in that region to work, clean for us and 7 [2007] is gona be the number that you gona say Goodbye for ever to Kosovo. Listen people Wikipedia is free and you can create any network to put adds and protected your fake ideas but please put ones your finger in your head and ask your self how can this be yours when there was never more than 10% shkije - serbs in there And what right do you have to talk about it when you may have never been there and when the whole world knows that Kosova/o is not Slavic place . Tell your fathers that All the churches and abbeys where owned by chthonic Albanians before 1200 and Vatican has the property papers for that. Accept the truth.

For the end. There wouldn’t be any other respond on this desiccation page or any other like this from me. I just needed to tell you this. You can take it off if you feel like some none Balkan people will read this little truth.

You do what you can to lie and I do what I can to tell the truth with my articles.

Beni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.55.31 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Beni, I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, starting with Verifiability and Assume good faith. - Regards, Evv 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

hahahaha. WHAT EVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.55.31 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Italicizing foreign terms

Hi, Evv! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. I assume that you are italicized the words "guberniya", "uyezd", "volost", etc. per the "Foreign terms" clause of WP:ITALICS. That clause, however, states that one should avoid italicizing the terms that appear in "an English dictionary". While I understand that a specific dictionary is not specified in the guideline (perhaps, it should be), I want to point out that words such as "guberniya", "oblast", and "raion" are present in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged, while "volost" and "krai", if I am not mistaken, are featured in OED (I don't have access to the latter dictionary at the moment, however). What gives? I'd appreciate your comments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ëzhiki... I'm repeating the exact same mistake I did with "Italics in Cyrillics" (see this talk page, five sections above). Despite being aware of the good rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary, I acted based just on what I percieved to be common usage and on my personal preferences. Only those two criteria led me to italicize "guberniya", "uyezd", "volost", "lost", "dvors", "voyevodas" and "knyazes", while leaving "ukase" unitalicized.

I think that some further clarity should be added to the good rule of thumb, on the lines you mentioned: indicating if appearance in one single dictionary is enough (mentioning which dictionaries would qualify), or in five, many, most, etc. And then creating a Wikipedia:List of foreign words to be left unitilicized (to be kept fully protected), to make sure I don't make a similar mistake again :-) I will bring it up to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#List of foreign words to be left unitilicized.

In my native Spanish we have the Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española, despised by many but very usefull to simplify some rules, including those of Scrabble :-)

Of course, as I said on the "Italics in Cyrillics" case before, if it turns out to be a mistake, I will fix all the mess I caused and remove italics in the places I found some of those words already italicized. Thank you very much for bringing up the issue. Once again, I apologize in the hopes of having learned my lesson this second time around. - Best regards, Evv 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Evv, but there really is no need to apologize. I am just as clueless about what would be the best. Problem is, there are so many words of foreign origin in OED and even in Unabridged Merriam-Webster, that using them would effectively rule out italicizing all but extremely esoteric words. I'll follow the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#List of foreign words to be left unitilicized, though; thanks for pointing me there. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

Could you add the language infoboxes to your userpage, so other editors know what non-English sources you can read and translate?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. - Evv 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Ev/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation :-) Although I should point out the fact that almost all my "contributions" are marked as minor, and are but tiny details indeed: it's the rest of you who're doing all the real work :-) Regards, Evv 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seleucia and BC vs BCE

Hi. Any chance of getting you to delete your comment about BC vs BCE from the discussion on the proposal to move the Seleucia article? Don't get me wrong; this is only a polite request, not an attempted command or anything (which I could not enforce even if I were inclined to make). But your remark really is not relevant to the topic rightly under consideration there, and it is liable to encourage others to likewise give attention to a tangent. Actually, I'm thinking of asking the others if they'd agree to nuke all of the BC-vs-BCE stuff now in the move-proposal discussion. For starters, though, would you? Pretty please? -- Lonewolf BC 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course :-) Next time don't even ask: just remove any such obviously off-topic remark I sometimes do. - Best regards, Evv 12:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. Had to ask, though. Some folk are mightily touchy that way. Cheers. Lonewolf BC 16:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Misery?

FYI, as discussed on the Lost talk page regarding that move, now that the move discussion there is closed I've listed Misery as a move request as well. --Maelwys 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice :-). - Evv 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a again

Hi, could you please add your opinion here. I made a new poll to clarify things and try to find a consensus. Cuñado - Talk 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on that discussion :-) Regards, Evv 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio

Hi!, Great stuff, although your fourth test was for the Croat for Giorgio Giulio, rather than Giulio Clovio - but I think the point is very well made anyway.

If you fancy another one (!), Talk:Juraj Dalmatinac is similar, has some of the same cast, & is more evenly-balanced, three ways. If not, well I'm not surprised ....

All the best, Johnbod 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) In the fourth searches I used Juraj Julije (Croat for Giorgio Giulio or George Julius) because the presence of the "ć" character in Juraj Julije Klović affects some searches, (like the one in Amazon.com, where searching for Juraj Julije Klović or Juraj Julije Klovic gives zero results, despite the existance of one book using "Juraj Julije Klović"). The idea was to demostrate that the ratios weren't being altered by the "ć".

It didn't occur to me to search for Julije Klovic also... I will do it in a few moments, to complete the picture.

Regarding Juraj Dalmatinac, I guess it would be a good example of why not to rely on these "simple test", and use only serious sources instead. I will do the searches later anyway :-)

Best regards, Evv 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well - JD has gone to Giorgio O - 2nd best, as your excellent figures show, but progress I think. Thanks again, Johnbod 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had asked the WP:RM administrators to relist the move request instead of closing it. The closing administrator, Wknight94, decided to move the page anyway because a further move to Giorgio da Sebenico would not require an administrator's help, and we could do it ourselves. He explained so at WP:RM and encouraged us in his RM-closing comment to "go ahead" and continue the debate on Orsini or da Sebenico. So, it's not settled yet :-) Best regards, Evv 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Haradinaj article

Hello Evv. Before reverting the Haradinaj article again, please take some time to look at BBC, CNN, Reuters, or any other contemporary English language writing on Kosovo. I believe it is now clearly the case that English usage favours the Albanian version of placenames for Kosovo, not least because they utilise the same script, without bothersome approximations of Cyrillic.

I agree with you that the articles with Serbian placenames should be changed to reflect common usage, but I am far less experienced than you at editing Wikipedia, and not sure how to go about it. Perhaps you could be of assistance?

Sorry if some of my earlier reverts on the article in question were a bit heavy-handed - I actually really appreciate many of the small changes and improvements you've made, but the simple fact is that Serbian placenames simply are not in common English usage any more. Also, small points, like the fact that Haradinaj's party is called the Alliance for the future of Kosova, not Kosovo, combined with a headache that made me somewhat irritable, contributed to my own hasty reverts.

Hope this sounds reasonable to you. Davu.leon 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Davu, first of all, I'm sorry for any brusqueness my edits may have conveyed. And you don't have to apologize: the impersonality of internet -eliminating gestures and tone of voice- combined with the short amount of text allowed in edit summaries -further constraining expression- make some degree of irritability almost inevitable when dealing with such topics. The same happens to me all the time :-) From what I have seen of you in Wikipedia so far, I have absolutely no problem assuming good-faith on your part in every instance.

I find that instead of edit-warring in every single article containing certain names or words, the appropiate thing to do is discussing the issue in the main article dealing with that contentious name or word, and then, having solved the problem at its root, proceeding to modify all other articles in accordance to the result.

The same is valid to Wikipedia policies: instead of trying to edit articles in ways contradicting Wikipedia policies' you dislike, the correct thing is to attempt to change the policies themselves, and only after archieving that modify all articles accordingly. This includes, of course, the current policy on following common English usage.

Those twin ideas were behind my "controvertial" edits :-)

Haradinaj's party: I didn't revert your edit immediatly, but only after checking two things:

1. That the Wikipedia article is called Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (not Kosova).

2. The usual simple tests :-) -considering only English-language results-

Google Print: Kosovo (18 books) and Kosova (3 books).

Google Scholar: Kosovo (47 results) and Kosova (3 results).

Amazon.com: Kosovo (8 books) and Kosova (3 books).

The New York Times: Kosovo (8 results) and Kosova (1 result).

So, it was only after these two comprobations that I decided to revert back to Kosovo.

Albanian & Serbian names in current English usage: we disagree here, since I believe that we haven't yet reached the tipping point in which Albanian names replace Serbian ones as common English usage. I base my opinion both in what I see on TV (CNN & BBC) and on printed media, as exemplified in "simple tests" like the one on the AAK above. -- As an example, I recently proposed to move Suharekë to Suva Reka.

But of course I could be wrong on both counts :-) If you really think that the Albanian names have become common English usage, I will be happy to help you organize a proper move request via WP:RM for any article you want. The formalities themselves are fairly easy, and are clearly explained in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a (possibly) controversial page move. Of course, the important thing is to present a compelling argument in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions (as examples, I just started a move request in Talk:Ivan Duknović, and there's a second one in Talk:Giorgio Orsini).

If you disagree with the underlying naming conventions, the proper steps would be to propose a change to the naming conventions first, and only after that change is approved request the move according to the new policy :-)

In principle, I will !vote against such moves to Albanian names :-) But you may be able to convince me that I'm wrong on this. Anyway, I will be only too happy to help you on this. - One detail: probably it would be better to move one page at a time, instead of proposing to move ALL Kosovar cities at once... partly because of the time it would involve to prepare a case involving all cities. But if you're up to it, you could propose a general move also (see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Multiple page moves).

But while those articles remain in their current place (i.e. with Serbian names), in accordance to the two main ideas I mentioned at the beginning, I will continue to edit other articles to reflect this. -- Of course, I won't do it during a move request, for such a thing would be seen as rude and pushy. For example, I modified articles mentioning Suharekë only after the move request to Suva Reka was closed.

Just one final comment: I don't have anything against Albanians, but restrict myself to upheld current Wikipedia policies and consensus on article's names. If any of those policies or consensus on article's names changes, I will respect the new situation. I would do the same if Germans start replacing Germany by Deutschland or Cologne by Köln all across Wikipedia before moving the main articles accordingly. Happy new year :-) Best regards, Evv 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Evv, thanks for being reasonable, (as always,) but I still believe that English Language conventions now lean towards Albanian spelling. I'll have a look at what you've pointed out, and try to provide enough examples to change the article in question, and then subsequent articles. As far as the name of Haradinaj's political party, I will happily provide you with ample evidence to prove that he chose to call it the Alliance for the future of Kosova. As I type, I am looking at the official AAK diary, and I can assure you it is spelled thus. This is not a matter of common usage, it is a verifiable fact. For this reason, this is the only edit I will make immediately; I will wait until I can convince you to re-insert the Albanian placenames, or to list them beside their Serbian counterparts.

Thanks again for being civil and reasonable. Davu.leon 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Davu, I have no doubt that Haradinaj choose to call it the "Alliance for the future of Kosova" in English: I take your word that it is a clear verifiable fact. As such, this fact (i.e. that Albanian politicians use "of Kosova") should be included in the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo article, with a proper citation (that AAK newpaper would do just great :-). But, in my understanding, for the purposes of article naming and usage throughout Wikipedia, common English usage (which appears to be "of Kosovo") trumps whatever name a foreign political party chooses for itself in English. The issue, however, should be discussed at Talk:Alliance for the Future of Kosovo. If discussion there leads to the page being moved to "for Kosova", I would help to modify all articles that mention this party in accordance to the page move :-)

Regarding the "Albanian or Serbian names" issue, I find that a "Dečani/Deçan" (or vice-versa) double naming impaires readability and clarity, but in some instances I'm open to name the Albanian versions in a different format:

...finished High School in Đakovica (Gjakova) and graduated ...

In my humble opinion, this format is clearer and allows for the reading to flow easier.

In any case, for this matter and any other that may come up in the future, I'm always aware that I could be wrong (for I am wrong much more often than I like to admit :-), and thus I'm always open to be persuaded to do thing differently. - I can't emphasize this enough: I'm not interested in articles using Serbian or Albanian names, but merely in reflecting common English usage.

English is not my maternal language, I use Spanish most of the time, and I could be seeing at too narrow a picture to gauge common English usage. My believe that Serbian still contitutes the norm may lead me to fail to recognize Albanian names used in the BBC, hearing/reading Gjakova but thinking that it was Đakovica or Djakovica :-). In your case, your direct involvement with Kosovo, and your constant reading of English-language publications directed at people in Kosovo, may have produced a similar distorting result in the opposite direction, away from the wider English usage :-)

Either way, the proper form to resolve the issue is to deal with the main article first, and only then proceed to modify all other articles accordingly. - So, name an article you want to move first, and let's try to do there a better analysis of current English usage. I guess that Alliance for the Future of Kosovo would be a good start :-) - Best regards, Evv 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Common English usage?

How can Priŝtina be common english usage, when the letter ŝ does not exist in the standard english alphabet? It should be either Prishtina or Pristina in order to reflect common english usage.--Thomas.macmillan 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.macmillan, Prishtina or Prishtinë are the Albanian names; Priština is the Serbian one, adopted in English usage but usually simplified as Pristina (without the š) for the very reason you point.

Now, whether Wikipedia should use the simplified Pristina or follow Britannica's example and use Priština has been debated without clear results at Talk:Priština.

For the moment I'm not changing any Pristina into Priština, but when finding the Albanian forms Prishtina & Prishtinë I do change them into Priština for consistency with the main article on "Priština". - I hope this clears the issue :-) Best regards, Evv 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I have changed some Pristina into Priština, but only in some articles in which both forms were being used, and for consistency within the article, of course. - Evv 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On Nicholas von Renys

Hello Evv please read the additions and suggestions I have made to Nic Renys [2] Thanks Labbas 8 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have that page on my watch list, and had noticed your post already :-) Best regards, Evv 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hello Evv. No problem, you can move my comment.--RedZebra 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice on some recent edits

Hi Evv, I have tied to NPOVise these two articles: Gornje Obrinje massacre and Podujevo massacre. I would appreciate a second opinion and help expanding them, time given. I think the first one has got potential as it was the reason argued for the deployment of the observer missions in Kosovo. Thanks, Asterion^talk 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Asterion, to be honest, I have little interest in venturing in articles on massacres, attrocities, invasions and even battles and small incidents: I restrict myself to give my opinion on move requests and on very minor details, dealing more with style than with actual content. My contributions to Wikipedia are usually marked as minor for a good reason :-) Besides, in this specific case, I don't know anything at all about both incidents.

I will look at both articles later today, and maybe I find that I can be of some help after all :-) but keep your expectations as low as possible. I will comment further after seeing the articles. - Best regards, Evv 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Just give it a quick read and tell me if it sounds NPOV to you. I only wanted an opinion from someone I consider neutral and uninvolved too. Best regards, Asterion^talk 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a quick read I can do right now :-) Checking whatever sources are listed, etc, I will do only later tonight. Give me a few moments. Evv 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

lol I thought that I would find two huge articles full of quotations and months of edit-warring behind them... this is what happens when I give generic answers before actually checking what articles are like :-)

You did a good job, especially considering the pamphletary material you found there :-) On the Podujevo massacre, I'm not sure about using "the mass killing of" in regard to 14 people. But I really don't know which are the parameters for using mass, either legally or colloquially (not even sure of the Spanish usage). - I will see what I can do about sourcing tomorrow. Best regards, Evv 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It reads better after your edits. I copied the mass killing bit from wikipedia article on massacre. As you said the definition is debatable. I would rather rename it to Podujevo killings but the current title seems to be more popular. Not sure what to do, maybe just better to wait and see what some other editors think. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it... after all, you did the real work :-) Leaving the issue to other editors more familiar with the usage of such terminology sounds more than reasonable. - Regards, Evv 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That piece of unit from you know where

Evv, I appreciate your input to solve the naming issues regarding that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie, even though I got irritated by, well, what I would perceive readiness to learn and quickness to endorse the most recent proposal (not adding links to protect the innocent). In that context, I'm even more puzzled by your "Survey" which is supposed to be none yet. Two experienced editors fell for the familiar format and voted. After I had edited the layout, you (re)inserted contradicting instructions: "Do not vote yet :-)" "Add #Move or #Keep...", and "Do not vote yet :-)". As for your preselection of options, I was disappointed considering the effort that was put in by yourself, and I'am even more so after you confirmed them. Why not putting up only one option, the option that will get overwhelming applause from the usual suspects within a few hours? Everybody involved could then enjoy the weekend without wasting more time on that issue. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matthead, on the first count, that happened before the "Do not vote yet :-)" notes were there. I restored the original format to have a very clear image of what we're talking about... to see exactly how complicated or intelligible the move request would be like.

Regarding my preselection of options, the modification of that preselection is exactly what the discussion on the format is for... to decide how best to present the move request once we file the formal proposal in WP:RM. My proposed format is by far not my preferred option: I also think that a much simpler format, ideally a single candidate, would be much better.

The problem is that, mainly because of having only a couple of English-language sources to guide us by, choosing one single candidate is proving very difficult. - I am nor sure about Cracow grosz or Kraków grosz myself. And I know that you don't want any of those :-) My idea when presenting that original proposal was to trim it down to a more managable two or three candidates in the course of the discussion.

In any case, there's no rush to do things. We can still enjoy the weekend and spend the next week doing the hard job of selecting the simplest format we can agree on, and only then file the simplest possible move request we can agree on at WP:RM (c.f. Prague groschen, where I'm patiently giving a few days for other editors to give their opionions before before filing a move request :-) Best regards, Evv 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, the talk page there is disconnected from the article, see my request to get that fixed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Talk:Prager Groschen → Talk:Prague grosh -- Matthead ^discuß! O 11:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

lol Keeping an eye only on the talk page, I hadn't noticed where the article was. Thanks for pointing me there. Regards, Evv 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I think you made a mistake in counts: Searching for "Kraków grosz" or "Krakow grosz": 0 books. but The Polish Way: (...) ...with the introduction of the Kraków grosz in 1338. In the...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No mistake there :-) I found that book at Amazon.com, and listed it as 1 book in English (mentioned below) in the "Amazon.com test" part. The Google Print search doesn't mention any book at all.

Anyway, all the books I considered relevant from all those searches are shown in detail below, under "Books in English". - Best regards, Evv 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo/Kosova

Could you take a look at Racak incident. It is very clear that the article right now is POV. Maybe you could help us to make it NPOV. Read what I have written in the talk page. I hope you do not have any prejudices against Albanians as many others here have.--Noah30 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence :-) I'm sorry, but I prefer to avoid getting involved with articles on massacres, war crimes, recent battles and similar incidents. In those cases, I restrict myself to the article's name and minor style details (including following common English usage in the text).

I did take a quick look at the article, and didn't find it POV. People were killed; some claim it was a criminal act, others a legitimate police action, with all opinions blurred in the propaganda generated by all sides: by Albanians, Serbians and foreign powers preparing to get militarily involved in the region. I find that the article accuratedly reflects this situation.

I will pay a little attention to the article, but don't expect much. - In any case, from what I've seen of him so far, I consider Asterion a neutral editor, and I fully trust in his judgement on the issue. - Best regards, Evv 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the discussion later today. Thanks for bringing this to my attention :-) Best regards, Evv 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but there is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. --Bob 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Although not participating much, I am following the discussion, and believing that all the main points have already been mentioned I was waiting for the next logical step to be taken. Once again, thanks for the message :-) Best regards, Evv 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms has been initiated, a comment/statement there would be appreciated. I know that you already participated in this discussion before, and it is probably getting tiresome by now, but it is apparently the next logical step, although it might be moved to mediation. Thanks in advance. --Bob 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firdaus_76

To be honest, I don't know much about the situation, but a brief glance at Special:Contributions/Firdaus 76 suggests this user may be actively vandalizing pages by changing spellings and removing any references to Serbia or Yugoslavia. You seem to have made some edits to the same pages, so I thought I'd point it out to you. - TheMightyQuill 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Apparently another nationalists unable to comply with current Wikipedia policies... *sigh* I will leave him a warning, asking him to discuss such changes first. - Best regards, Evv 10:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo

Sorry, Evv, I couldn't resist. I'm sure you'll agree with me though, that Nikola's post was mostly worthless. I really think that condensing the Kosovo article is a worthy project, and I'll try to step back from that one now, as I'm sure there's a few editors who don't want to hear anything from me on the subject, right or wrong. I hope we can avoid this devolving into another argument for argument's sake, and sorry if I've caused you true neutrals another headache. :) Davu.leon 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, as I said before, I too loose patience much too often... a few hours ago I wrote an edit summary along the lines of "reverted nationalistic POV edits", while the adequate thing would have been a proper description of the content change. Just try to resist the next time: have a drink before posting :-) And I'm not sure if anyone can remain "truly neutral" after following these articles for a few weeks.

To be honest, I haven't read much of Nikola's comments or your answers, but just glimpsed enough to fear flaming and thus posting that call for civility.

In any case, I assume that you know much more about Kosovo's recent past than me or other "internationals" who only read about it or watch it on TV. So, your continued involvement in the discussion will be much appreciated. Keep a low profile if you wish, but don't hesitate to comment or at least mention if you agree or disagree with the article's content, and with the proposed changes to that content. Even the most modest of participations, writing "I agree with NN on this" now and then, helps to generate consensus and avoid bias. - Best regards, Evv 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evv, thanks so much for your calm and thoughtful contributions. Your cool-headed and sage interventions are always appreciated! I'm curious: what is your link to the Balkans? Have you lived or worked there? Envoy202 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) But as I said before, all the real work there is really being done by the rest of you (among which you deserve a special mention).

What made me pay attention to the Kosovo articles was mere curiosity in how Wikipedia handles editing on such highly emotional topics. It's interest in Wikipedia editing processes more than interest in Kosovo itself.

I don't have any "real" connection with the Balkans whatsoever, and I haven't ever set foot there. I mainly care about the examples of Byzantine & Medieval architecture and frescoes found in the region (Caričin Grad, Nerezi's St. Panteleimon, Studenica, Zara :-)

However, I also remember watching NATO's daily press briefings on CNN back in '99. Ever since, I remaind interested not so much on the fate of Kosovo itself (on what kind of independence it would gain), but on the abstract issue of "sovereignty in our times": the process which leads to the final status and the precedents it would set in international law, including the general perceptions of "how the Balkan Question is handled in the current century". - Best regards, Evv 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

talk page magic

Can you please work your magic and try to make sense of threading on Talk:Republika Srpska? :) The latest conversion threading regarding national symbols are so disjointed and signatures in wrong place, etc. I started trying to clean it up but gave up after short while when I realized how bad it got. If you don't bother I'll understand since it's such a mess, so no worries :) // Laughing Man 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done :-) Evv 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Evv, you never cease to amaze :) // Laughing Man 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

It's probably just a coincidence, but whoever appears on Kosovo, Republika Srpska or Srebrenica articles sooner or later gets his username changed :-). Duja► 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL In this case I'm just changing to Ev (one single "v"), my preferred nick and the one I use on meta and other wikies :-) Best regards, Evv 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent

Cheers for that. Yes, please do erase the redundant section, and any parts that are cluttering up the (already overlong) Talk:Kosovo page. Again, great, and no doubt under-appreciated work. Thanks again. Davu.leon 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I erased the redundant section. Again, don't hesitate to rename the sections or modify the general format. Best regards, Evv 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re. University of Prisšhtina

Hello Evv. I will decline to reopen the poll, I found a consensus towards moving the article, and among those willing to move it, University of Priština was clearly the favorite choice. Yes, I know that move debates regarding Priština and other Kosovo-related names always prompt mild clashes between Serb and Albanian Wikipedians, resulting in an ethnically divided poll. However, as administrators clear the backlog on WP:RM, we often have to focus only in the outcome of the debate, rather than in outside issues. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Evv

I have made suggestions on the Pro Abanian and Serbian link sites. Would appreciate you comments Buffadren 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice :-) In any case, I do have that article in my watch list: I always read what is posted in that talk page. - Best regards, Evv 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BG name

I would say 'you're welcome' in Spanish, the problem is I don't know how to ;-) --Domitius 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijesti on Haradinaj

Yeah, I looked for an online English version but couldn't find it. I have a translation that a friend did for me but I guess it qulaifies as 'original research.' I'd try asking Nikola but I'm guessing I'm not his favourite person here on Wikipedia. Davu.leon 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with using non-English sources when English ones are hard (or impossible) to find. And if you have trust in your friend's translations, so do I :-)

My edit summary was mainly intended to cast doubts in my own edit (Was "Ristović u spužu" the correct title for the ref ? Was the date of publication easy to find ? Could it be used to source the date of the accident too ?), so that someone else would correct my possible mistakes. – But now, reading it again, I clearly see how it could be read as questioning the validity of the source itself. My apologies for that lack of clarity; I will try to be more carefull in the future :-) - Best regards, Ev 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

River incident

Perhaps it is worded too strongly but the river incident is important to explain how things sparked off. There is doubt about the facts and even one child that survived supposed though the UN said they were not chased. Others say there were and the family have been pressed by UN etc. Either way it should be mentioned.Its not a minor event...I am happy to have you phrase it if you like Buffadren 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary states, I removed the text because it was unsourced. – The current Attribution policy clearly states that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true", then going on to say that "any unsourced material may be removed".

For uncontrovertial text I simply add the {{fact}} tag, but when it comes to "the alleged chasing of four Albanian children into a river where they drowned" I prefer to have the sentence well-sourced or not at all.

In any case, I would prefer to have any new wording discussed at the article's talk page. My personal feeling is that the issue should be explained in detail at the 2004 unrest in Kosovo article, but that it doesn't merit a mention in the brief summary of the main Kosovo article. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied these comments in the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have got this from the BBC. Perhaps I will find some more [[3]] Buffadren 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied in the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Full article's talk page discussion here. - Ev (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab

I don't understand what to do with the new format on the talk page. Where do I vote and where do I write?--Conjoiner 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have added my voice to the discussion. By the way, I noticed there was an IP address for one of the non-votes. This one has only had one previous edit and that was vandalism [4]. Is it OK for this person to participate when they appear to be a vandal and are anonymous?--Conjoiner 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my edit on the Shat al arab talk page --Aziz1005 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know you liked it :-) Actually, I should have asked your permission first... sorry for that. - Best regards, Ev 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser

You should ask for checkuser for GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and NovaNova. They all have the same style, use the same or extremely similar argumentation and they share a similar interests in articles and often are present toghether in many edit-wars. I am convinced they are the same person. Due to the ammount of disruption, incivility and sockpuppetry indef. block for this person would be most appropriate. --EppurSiMuove 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi EppurSiMuove, nice nick :-) As far as I can remeber, I only interacted with these users in the articles on Giulio Clovio and Giorgio da Sebenico, and thus I haven't seen enough to form an opinion on the issue.

You seem to know more than me about them, and I'm really not interested in spending time going through their contributions and "investigating" their behaviour in other articles. But I'll keep an eye on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove, in case my experience with them can help in one way or the other (that is, to confirm or rebut any allegations made about these users).

In any case, thank you for leaving me this message :-) Best regards, Ev 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, avoid posting public slanders on a talk page!

Please, bear on your mind that a talk page does not serve for the purpose like this one here [5]! Your claim about someone as being a sock puppet of soneone else, must be substantiated by following official Wikipedia policy!

I've deleted your 'contribution' on the talk page. Your attempt to put it back will be ultimately reported as a Wikipedia incident.--Giorgio Orsini 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... this must have been just a simple confusion: I didn't write that unsigned comment; instead I merely attributed it with the precise intention of clarifying its authorship and thus avoid this kind of misunderstandings :-)

We all make such mistakes (and I think that I make them more often than the average person), but nevertheless I will ask you to please take a closer look at the talk page history next time, before posting warnings in my talk page. - Regards, Ev 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As you both have I expect seen, I have reverted it back, because (I think) this is procedurally correct (especially in that it should not be Giorgio who removes it), and "without prejudice" as it were - no support for the statement is intended. Whether the comment being anon. makes any difference, I must admit I don't know. I'll copy this to G's page. Johnbod 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have any problem with the removal of such comments from article talk pages (see "removal of text" & "removing uncivil comments"). I limit myself to attribute the ones who are not signed, like in this case, but if GiorgioOrsini wants the comment removed that's fine with me :-) Regards, Ev 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok will remove - I was looking round for the policy. Better I do it than G anyway. Johnbod 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. Anyway, something tells me that he wouldn't hesitate a single millisecond before reverting that talk page :-) Regards, Ev 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVAS

You're spamming different talk pages with a partisan message, begging people to support your position on a dispute. This is unacceptable behavior, I invite you to remove the partisan messages or make them nonpartisan by rewording them in a neutral manner, without advocating one side of the dispute. --Mardavich 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I only informed about the move request in three different forums:

Those three forums are "neutral", and my intention in posting there was just trying to get other neutral editors involved in the discussion. I hope that a wider participation will allow us to archieve a clear consensus one way or the other.

In my message I made my position on the issue very clear, but I only begged people to "take a look at the issue", not to share my opinion or to support my view on it.

By mentioning that "I believe the issue to be a simple, straight-forward case of reflecting the common English usage clearly exemplified by the examples of usage", I hoped to encourage editors not willing to read long discussions to also take at least a quick look at the issue (maybe some of them will end up participating in the debate :-).

Of course, if the administrators decides that those messages constitute canvassing, I will reduce them to a simpler announcement. To that effect, I've copyied this post at the administrators' noticeboard also. - Best regards, Ev 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Arvand

The next step would appear to be an RfC on disruptive user conduct. We need to restrain some nationalists, or Wikipedia will gradually become worthless. If you write one, let me know; I expect to be able to endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have been telling myself that "tomorrow I will read about exactly how those RfC on user conduct work" for about a month now, without actually doing it. I do understand their general purpose and place within dispute resolution practices, but I'm not yet familiar with the details needed to file one properly. I will try to muster enough strenght to read about it today :-)

I share your opinion on both counts, but I still hope that, at least in the case of some users, this whole thing is just a sincere misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'll give the article's talk page another chance.

In any case, I will let you know of any such action, and probably ask your opinion before taking any formal steps :-) Best regards, Ev 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Bratislava

Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tankred :-) After seeing your notice notice at the WP:NCGN talk page I have Bratislava on my watch list. I didn't took part in the poll before because a public holiday kept me away from everything. - Best regards, Ev 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Skadar Lake → Lake Scutari

I have made the move.

I found that I cannot protect against editing without also protecting against editing. Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthony, again. And don't worry about it, I learned about the existance of move protection only last May, and had no idea of such limitations :-) Best regards, Ev 10:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Albanophobia

You comments about Albanophobia were very biased. I was really surprised to read that you wanted deletion of Albanophobia but not Serbophobia, despite tha fact everything was sourced. Only shows that all your edits here with changing official names (e.g. Democratic Party of Kosova) from Kosova to Kosovo are biased.--Noah30 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But, have you not read my comment there ? I do want the deletion of Serbophobia too, along with that of all the other 'anti-X' articles. My comment in the discussion, by agreeing in full with Fut.Perf.'s arguments (diff. & diff.), clearly indicates that I want all those articles deleted, and all of them for the same reasons.

I wasn't aware that those discussions were taking place until I heard of the sentencing of Milan Martić on June 12, 2007 (BBC). Upon checking Wikipedia, I found the article on "Anti-Croatian sentiment", which was being considered for deletion. But half the discussions of that deletion series had been closed two days before:

18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC): Serbophobia (diff.).
19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC): Anti-Romanian discrimination (diff.).
19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC): Anti-Hungarian sentiment (diff.).

Thus, I only commented in the three discussions that hadn't been closed yet, Albanophobia, Anti-Bosniak sentiment & Anti-Croatian sentiment, which were closed the very next day. Since then, I have begun to check the list of articles for deletion, to make sure that I don't miss the next bunch of 'anti-X's presented there.

About the article being sourced... no, it wasn't. Read carefully about synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Each individual element may have been sourced, but the article as a whole lacked any serious academic reference to the phenomenon in general, one that framed all the individual elements mentioned into a single, coherent argument.

The article on "Serbophobia" at the time of its nomination for delation was just as bad (diff.), but the version that survived the nomination is probably acceptable (diff.).

Finally, far from being biased, my edits follow our current naming conventions: that articles should reflect common English usage, and use the same names that our English-speaking audience would be used to see in books, newspapers, magazines & when watching the news on TV. - Regards, Ev 05:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

UNDERSTAND, nothing to discuss. The official name is Demcratic League of KosovA. You are making POV edits. --Noah30 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, Noah30, screaming, refusing to dialogue and crying "bias!" is widely regarded as the most appropriate, professional & civil manner of approaching editorial disagreements. - Ev 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Something you like to edit

A Serb wikipedian is writing Kosovo and Metohija instead of Kosovo in the Serbia-article. Would you like to take a look? I have reverted his edits twice until know.--Noah30 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite seems to be happening: the more-or-less "stable" version uses the full name "Kosovo and Metohija", and you are changing it to the short, common form "Kosovo", and being reverted afterwards (diff. & article's history).

As Nikola Smolenski mentions in his edit summary, the full name of the province should be used where such use is expected. Currently, the long form "Kosovo and Metohija" is being used two or three times in that article. Is it being used properly in those two or three cases ? I'm not entirely sure.

In the lead section, as part of the historical introduction, I simply don't know.
In the Cities section, I guess that either form could be used.
In the Administrative subdivisions section, I think using the full name is entirely appropiate.

Bear in mind that there's a difference between the English forms "Kosovo" & "Kosovo and Metohija", and the non-English forms Kosova & Kosovo i Metohija.

In any case, the issue should be discussed in the article's talk page, to establish a clear consensus one way or the other, and thus ending these constant reverts. - Best regards, Ev 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The full name is Kosovo. UNMIK who administratse Kosovo have decided that the full name is Kosovo and not Kosovo and Metohija. Kosovo and Kosovo and Metohija means the same. The use Kosovo and Metohija every time the mention Kosovo. I don't undertstand anything now. You say we can not use Kosova in the name of a party despite the fact party's name in English uses Kosova. Where is the logic in this?????? --Noah30 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica uses also only Kosovo, See 1 --Noah30 17:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For Belgrade, the province's full name is Kosovo and Metohija. So, in an article about Serbia, I would expect this fact to be mentioned, especially in Administrative subdivisions section. Would it be better to say something along the lines of "Kosovo (known in Serbia as Kosovo and Metohija)" ? Perhaps... as I said above, I'm not entirely sure :-) Personally, in this specific case, I would prefer to use the full name, as a more "official" presentation; but I don't feel strongly about it, and I could be easily persuaded to use "Kosovo" alone. In either case, a brief mention to this whole naming issue would be helpfull to the reader... or a longer one, as a footnote... or a link to the "Names of Kosovo" article. Anyway, the place to discuss the issue and present arguments is really that article's talk page :-)

The other issue. The Serbian name Косово и Метохија or Kosovo i Metohija can be translated to many languages: English (Kosovo and Metohija, or Kosovo and Metohia), French (Kosovo-et-Métochie), German (Kosovo und Metochien), Spanish (Kosovo y Metonia), Albanian (Kosova dhe Metohisa), etc.

Now, according to the naming conventions of the English Wikipedia, in those cases in which this "full" (at least from Belgrade's perspective) form is appropriate, each language does probably better by using its own translation, the one that most speakers of that language would be familiar with.

The same applies to the political party. The Albanian name Lidhja Demokratike e Kosovës can be translated to many languages: English (Democratic League of Kosovo), French (Ligue démocratique du Kosovo), German (Demokratische Liga des Kosovo), Spanish (Liga Democrática de Kosovo), Serbian (Демократски Савез Косова or Demokratski savez Kosova), etc. These are the forms most speakers of those languages would be familiar with.

Of course, you can always make different translations, keeping either the Serbian "Metohija" or the Albanian "Kosova" forms. But those are not the forms most spakers of a language would be familiar with, and thus would not comply with our current naming conventions. In English, I prefer to use "Democratic League of Kosovo" over "Democratic League of Kosova" in the exact same way in which I would prefer not to use "Kosovo-et-Metohija" in French, or "Kosova dhe Metohija" in Albanian, or "Liga Democrática de Kosova" in Spanish, or "Demokratische Liga des Kosova" in German.

People can translate everything as they like, we're all free to do so :-) , but, to our intended readers, some translations are more familiar, more intuitive, make more sense than others.

In the same manner, I support using "Kiev University" instead of "Kyiv University", the name used in the institution's official web-site: because for most English-spakers "Kiev" is immediately recognizable as a major European capital, while "Kyiv" is a strange form, one which I wouldn't know how to pronounce.

Is it clearer now where the logic is ? Following our current naming conventions, it's simply to use the "logical" translation, because it makes more sense to our readers, and because it's also the one they're more familiar with, for it's the one they're most likely to find when reading books, newspapers, magazines or watching TV. - Best regards, Ev 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia vs Russophobia

Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?--Mbuk 07:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mbuk, real life kept me away from Wikipedia for just over two months. I wasn't aware of the deletion discussion. In the end, it all comes down to whether the phenomenon has been the subject of serious academic research, and thus to the existance or not of reliable sources with which to write the article. - Best regards, Ev 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Order

Please do not change the already closed debate even if you add a few spaces only. It must be kept as it is. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be an excessively literal interpretation of the requirement to not modify closed discussions ? My edit didn't change anything, but merely improved readability by correcting a minor detail in Dekimasu's closing edit: he overlooked the fact that he didn't left a space before your original question/proposal. — Anyway, I will do an effort and abstain from edit-warring over it, at least for the next minutes :-) Best regards, - Ev 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD about the Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia

Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

After giving my opinion (not vote) on the subject, I'm following the discussion and reading all comments posted there, including yours :-) Best regards, Ev 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's about time...

...that Wikipedia gets another admin, named Ev. I must say I'm impressed with your cool-headedness, civility and knowledge of policy, especially taking into account the hot and rugged terrain. (And it's not entirely selfless proposal, as the WP:RM, which I often handle, tends to get so backlogged that we'd really use some help from someone familiar with WP:NC. If you agree, I'll fill in the proposal tomorrow or day after; from then on, it's up to you to answer the question and list it on WP:RFA. Duja► 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your confidence, Duja, but no, I would do a lousy admin: one prone to jumping to conclusions and with much less patience than the impression I may have given you. I'm pretty sure I would "grossly abuse admin tools" within the first two hours of having them (provided that I am able to understand how to use them in the first place, for when it comes to computers I'm a very slow learner). Ev 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that the worst skeleton you have in the closet? Wha'd'ya think, that admins are angels that can fit on a tip of the needle in an infinite number? Bah. Adminship is a "no big deal", and more an issue of trust and experience than a badge of honor. You don't even have to use tools (I know a couple of admins that don't) -- tf you do something useful with them, the better. Duja► 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

lol It's what I consider the worst issue :-) for my silly rants at AN, AN/I & talk pages, and constant edit-warring (some of which the troll in me has really enjoyed) are not that significant.

And to be honest, it had not occurred to me that I would not have to use admin tools. In that case, having the possibility of lending an occational hand with article's moves sounds good :-) Ev 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My involvement with Wikipedia is basically restricted to a few naming issues; and for this last month every instance in which I have wished to be an admin was only to be able to abuse those privileges, be it in "conflicts of interest" or by "biting newbies/teenagers" :-)

In any case, I appreciate the offer. I guess that I will spend the rest of this wiki-week asking myself whether I would do anything different if I had the possibility to do so :-) All the best, Ev 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I take that as a yes or as a no? If the former, I'll create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ev during the day; you will have plenty of time to think about it, no need to rush, or you can even decline the offer, in which case nothing will have happened. Duja► 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was originally intended as a "no", but after your last comments, having realized that it wouldn't entail any significant difference, consider it changed to a "yes" :-) Best regards, Ev 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. You have a couple of days to fill it in or reject. I won't be around during the weekend—feel free to list it yourself when and if you decide. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate for the procedure details. Regards and good luck. Duja► 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do it this afternoon or tonight. Enjoy the weekend. - Ev 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. user:GB-UK-BI

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I was not familiar with Gon4z. Thank you for the info, Noclador :-) Best regards, Ev 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Carlossuarez46 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both for these messages & that edit :-) Ev 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! :) SQL ^{Query me!} 07:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Ev 13:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice Name

Since I saw your name in The Wikipedia Signpost (congrats, BTW) I had to drop by and crack this joke:
Hi, Ev. -- Hi Ev 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

lol Hi, HiEv, and thank you :-) Regards, Ev 15:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, using your criteria & process for now. Nice job :-) Ev (talk) 19:41, 4 February 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.