User talk:Ev/Archive 3

Hello!!

I see that you are editing lot of articles that i helped. Tell me, is there any thing that i am not doing good, so you must fix? And, yes, tell me what is that, so i can do it better! Greetings!!!

Tadija (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tadija, I have noted your presence in Kosovo-related articles. :-) From what I have seen so far, there are a couple of things worth mentioning:

• Please, do not "move" articles by cutting & pasting, as you did when copying the content of "Bogiçevica" into "Bogićevica" instead of using the move function or requesting a move.

  When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is very undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons.

• In the lead sections of Kosovo-related articles, when mentioning the Albanian and Serbian names in parenthesis, try to place the names in alphabetical order: the Albanian one first and the Serbian second. By following this simple and "neutral" convention, we aim at reducing sterile edit wars over which name takes precedence in the listing (none really does).

If I see anything else, I will bring it to your attention. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, i will try my best. I just want to make all happy, regarding NPOV, and after all, my personal view too! :-) All best!! Tadija (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

But that is pointless, and not NPOV! Article name is our guide, and with that, it is written in other languages, there are no need for 2, 3, or 4 names! There are only one name! Only London, and 100000 other names of that place!

And yes, it can be compared! Like Belgrade. There is no Belgrade or Beograd. Just one. Tadija (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, others would argue that mentioning both names in the leads is the most neutral approach, and that mentioning the Serbo-Croatian only is biased towards Belgrade's position. After all, the Albanian names are also used in some English-language publications (although less frequently than the Serbo-Croatian ones). – There's no need to mention more than one name, but in the particular case of Kosovo it is probably better to mention those two (not three or four).

You're right in mentioning that (per our naming conventions for geographic names: "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title") article's titles are our usage guide. However, in the first sentence of the lead section alternative names can be mentioned, as their are seen as a desirable part of maximizing information available to the reader (see Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names).

The difference between London, Belgrade and the towns of Kosovo is that English-language publications refer to the first two cities as London and Belgrade respectively, always, without exception. – That is not the case when it comes to Kosovo, since some English-language publications use the Albanian forms instead of the Serbo-Croatian ones (cf. English-language publications using Peja instead of Peć, or Podujeva instead of Podujevo). Our articles' leads merely report this double usage, while the titles and subsequent usage in the rest of the articles use the form most common in English-language publications only (in our examples, Peć and Podujevo).

Of course, if at a future time some English-language publications start to refer to London or Belgrade by any other name (be it Thamesville, Beograd or anything else), then the lead sections of those articles should report that usage too.

Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Italics

Hi, I've seen you've put 2 original names in italics in the list of national libraries (Kosovo and Northern Cyprus). I have nothing against this typographical and stylistic change BUT:

• it should be applied to the rest of the list (big work of questionable benefit).
• the results with non-Latin scripts is unknown and might be counter-productive.

I suggest you remove the double apostrophes. Best Clpda (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Clpda. While changing some instances of Kosova into Kosovo in various articles I added the italics to the non-English names in Latin script of that section quite automatically, without really thinking about it (or about consistency within that article). My apologies for that.

By the way, the current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting incorporated the mention that "[t]ext in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page" following my proposal. :-)

In any case, here are the two internally consistent versions of "List of national libraries": the one without italics, and the one with italics. Since you are the one maintaining that entry's quality, I leave the choice between the two at your entire discretion. :-) - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt reply and action! First, I'd say that I don't contest at all the change from Kosovo to Kosova. The future will tell us which form dominates and WP will just adapt!

About italics and your updated version (big work indeed!), I wouldn't revert such a change without a little discussion. Italics generally suggest a quote, a translation or any other kind of external source. In this respect, the translated names of the libraries would rather be better candidates to italicization than the original names. Out of simplicity, I would come back to non-italicized texts at all levels (OK: exceptions). Best Clpda (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting mentions that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages", but also that "[a] proper name [in other languages] is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to".

The lead sections of articles on "non-exclusively-anglophone topics" usually include relevant alternative names in foreign languages, which are commonly italicized, to the point that our {{lang}} templates for languages written with Latin characters already include the italics by default:

{{lang-fr|Bibliothèque}} gives you "French: Bibliothèque".

{{lang-de|Bibliothek}} gives you "German: Bibliothek".

{{lang-it|Biblioteca}} gives you "Italian: Biblioteca".

Thus, some (although not all) of the articles on each national library that use English translations as their titles currently give the local names in italics, as in:

"The National Library of Algeria (in French: Bibliothèque nationale d'Algérie, in Arabic: الجزائرية الوطنية المكتبة) found its..." [1]

"Library and Archives Canada (in French: Bibliothèque et Archives Canada) is a..." [2]

"The Royal Library in Copenhagen (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) is the..." [3]

"The National Library of Estonia (in Estonian: Eesti Rahvusraamatukogu) is a..." [4]

"The National Library of Ireland (Irish: Leabharlann Náisiúnta na hÉireann) is a..." [5]

"The National Library of Latvia (NLL) (Latvian: Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka (LNB)) is..." [6]

"Poland's National Library (Polish: Biblioteka Narodowa) is a..." [7]

...in my personal opinion, marking a very practical visual distinction between Wikipedia's passive voice in English and interesting details about other languages (in this case, the "original" names in the local languages).

But, really, it's entirely up to you. Your reasoning is sound too. If you consider that our anglophone readership would be better served by not using italics in that entry, go ahead and revert my last edit. :-) And thank you for keeping an eye on that article's quality. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Košare - why do we bother

Hi Ev! I see you're a glutton for punishment when it comes to patrolling the Kosovo pages. I started to try to raise the standard on this article by asking for WP:RS and all I got for my troubles was repeated assertions that a Serb-language documentary made by a state-sponsored journalist fit the bill. Over the following weeks I've watched both sies playing every conceivable tune on the info box data - everybody won the battle, casualty figures rise and fall by orders of magnitude... There's nothing encyclopedic about this article, it's just a forum for propagandists and revisionists. Can't we just delete it until someone comes up with some reliable sources? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Timberframe. :-) Indeed, could we... ? I would really, but really love to delete that particular entry, and a substantial part of all the entries on genocides, massacres, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of most of those entries do not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors trying to make them compliant with our content policies.

Based on our deletion policy, the English-language Wikipedia has a deletion process that includes articles for deletion. That it would be the proper venue to propose that entry's demise.

Since you have already looked into at least some of that entry's details, I would ask you to write a rationale for deletion to present to the rest of the community (in this case, probably mentioning a lack of reliable sources to verify the entry's content). – If you wish, I will be more than happy to help you with the bureaucratic steps ot articles for deletion, and to counsel you about the deletion rationale. :-)

Simply write why you think the entry merits deletion; why you think Wikipedia would be better off without it. If you wish, you can draft a rationale in your user space first (e.g. at User:Timberframe/sandbox), to polish it without time constraints, and then copy it to the page where the actual deletion discussion will take place.

In any case, I'm at your service. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tadija

Hi, please watch Tadija closely. I think what he is doing is totally unacceptable: [8][9][10]. The above examples are from Commons (which is not a language-specific project by the way, and where all languages are welcome in description). He seems to be engaged in a very similar activity here. Also I don't think that this [11][12] is civil. What Tadija have done on Commons is much closer to vandalism than that. Colchicum (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) And marking substantial POV edits (such as removal of alternative names) as minor is not a good thing either. Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colchicum. I have been keeping an eye on his edits (although clearly not as closely as I should have), cleaning-up assertions of Serbian sovereignity he often adds to articles.

For his actions at Commons, it would be better to raise the issue with a Commons administrator. I'm afraid that, not being active there, I'm not familiar with how these issues are handled.

For the moment I have only explained to him the meaning we give to the word "vandalism" and the proper use of the related warning templates. But I will review his latest edits, and keep a closer eye on him from now on. - Thank you for brining this up, Colchicum. Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My friends, there is a lot of word about me, but it is not that much terrifying as you represented. First of all, i must ask you to understand my position. As all of you know, i am from Serbia, and my extended family member was brutally killed by Albanian terorist, member of KLA. I am sad that you think that my minor edits are threat to you, and your NPOV, commons, administrations, etc... About all of that i surely know much more than any of you, but those edits are moves of the despair! Ev, you are from Spain, i suppose? Imagine that some other people enter Catalonia, by long years settle and live there, and one day, Catalonia is out of Spain, you cant enter, all names that you give to Catalonia is renamed, all of your people there is killed or expelled, And there is no Catalonia any more, now it is something different, something from outside.

Regarding this edit, "Ura e Fshejte" is Albanian name of the bridge, renamed year ago, and it is not Drini, it is Drin.

Regarding this edit, category is empty, and i forgot to put redirect code. But this was definitely done, by me, or someone else.

Regarding this edit, it is Šar mountain, not sharr, and it is as much winter in Serbia, as it is in Kosovo.

Regarding this edit, you all know what is right name of the articles, so it in unneeded to talk about this any more.

Regarding this edit, well, it is not too bed to inform that it is not good to edit wiki, if you are unaware of your edit ideas.

Regarding this, and this edit, i undo it. It is written as Medieval Monuments in Kosovo, but in SERBIA! this must be here. This monasteries was built by our medieval kings and emperors, and it is the heart of Serbia historical memory. But it is in Kosovo, too far for us to reach now. It is not sincere to delete Serbia here. Just look the flag.

Please, be carefully. There is much more than little things you see, miles and kilometers away. If you have any problem with me, or my edits, talk to me. We will surely find solution. Only if you are willing to seek for it.

Pozdrav (Regard in Serbian) from Tadija (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that your edits are a threat to me or to Wikipedia (nor are they terrifying :-). I apologize if my previous words gave you that impression.

Although I do not pretend to understand exactly how you feel about this whole situation (especially considering that you have lost loved ones; you have my sincere condolences), I do get a general impression of your position. – Do consider, however, that probably the same circumstances also apply to some of our Albanian editors. Perhaps so you can understand their edits better.

In any case, being emotionally involved in a situation does not excuse infringing our policies and guidelines. Quite the opposite in fact: it means that you have to be even more aware of your own biases and possible misconceptions, and work harder to work collegially. – I for one simply do not edit subjects about which I have strong feelings, because I doubt I can put aside my own strong biases (and because I would get angry in the process :-).

I will not comment on your edits at Commons.

Your edit at Peć itself was correct, of course. The edit summary you used was not. As I mentioned above, it's by no means certain that those edits were vandalism. You should have restricted yourself to described your edit, without commenting on the IP's intentions. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please, take a look at my own contributions. You will see that I seldom use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, except in cases where "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" is the only possible explanation I can think of.

You're correct also about the benefits of informing editors that their edits are inappropriate. However, plastering three warning templates in their talk pages is not the way to do it. Instead, explain politely to the editor what he did wrong, and what policies or guidelines he could read to avoid commiting the same mistake.

As for the Medieval Monuments in Kosovo, their naming must conform to the source used (UNESCO itself). The facts that Kosovo is considered by some as an integral part of Serbia, and that the monuments were built by Serbian kings in lands that at the time were part of the medieval Serbian kingdom must be mentioned in an unbiased manner in the article's body. But directly asserting current Serbian sovereignity is not a neutral approach, so it's out of the question. Our neutral point of view policy is not negotiable.

As you can see, we are simply talking, and I have little doubt that we will find a mutual solution that is in accordance to our policies and guidelines. – By the way, I'm from Argentina. Pozdrav :-) Ev (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Liburna

Recently you've added detail about Alb coin and liburna on it. Why do you think it's important for that article? Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Liburnians (diff.). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arvand rud

Why does the text "misrepresent the sources" in your view? --Wayiran (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is explained at Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Avesta (permanent link). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already read that, can you please specify exactly what is your problem with the source? The source supports it very well in my view. Are you saying "Arang" was the name of another river and it is unrelated to this Shattalarab, so it should not be covered in this article? --Wayiran (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Iranica does not support that wording. Only snippets of its articles, read in isolation from the rest of the text, can be misinterpreted to say what you propose to add to our article.

In that talk page, Fullstop and I are saying two things:

• We don't really know if the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta was any actual river at all. If it was a real river, it was one located in eastern Iran, the geographical area in which the events of the Avesta are located. So, if it was a real river, it was not the Tigris, and much less so the Shatt al-Arab.
• It appears that, in the Middle Ages, Persian writers identified (either by error or deliberatedly) the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta with real rivers: sometimes with the Tigris, in other ocasions with the Nile, or with the Orontes. That fact is interesting, and can be included in Wikipedia. But it is related to the Tigris (and the Nile, and the Orontes), not to the Shatt al-Arab; thus, it belongs in the article on the Tigris (and the other rivers).

Best, Ev (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass rename of FYROM to ROM

What exactly are you doing[13] ? Has there be a decision on the issue?--Avg (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there has: the community has long ago agreed on a set of policies and guidelines that ought to be followed. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people might say you're simply not respecting that there is a straw poll on this issue open right now.--Avg (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those people would be right: we don't hold polls to decide whether to follow our policies or not. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've mentioned this issue here. --Avg (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Avg. :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming issues

Hello to you Ev. You may be interested in a recent conflict into which I stumbled, regarding names of football players and inclusion of their ethnic/birthplace spellings. I see you have intervened in these issues in the past. There are two Kosovar Albanian footballers, Mehmet Dragusha and Armend Dallku, whose Serbo-Croat names I have added just as you have seen the same on Ramush Haradinaj and Bajram Rexhepi. Likewise, two Turkish brothers from Switzerland - Hakan Yakin and Murat Yakin - have a need for their Turkish names on a similar principle. They are Swiss subjects but their backgrounds should not be ignored. You know that I have never conspired to remove information from this site, and I believe that two forms are better than one; it is good to include any relevant variation, even though the one we actually use for the title may itself be the subject of controversy. You recall when we once were part of a side who argued to include diacritics on tennis players; but even then, the opponents of diacritics never suggested "leave out local names from the whole article!", they would have met with more sinister opposition if they did. If you get time, do you think you could assert yourself here, your contributions would be much appreciated. One user, Matthew hk, is fine. He is well established, but the other, is an anon. What can you say about an anon?? Either way, you'd be more than welcome in this ongoing dispute. I wish for it not to get out of hand, and your non-Balkan background means that nobody can accuse you of excercising a bias. Thanks Ev. Evlekis (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say that their background is somewhat out of place here. Unlike the Yakins, they have never been Serbs or Croats. And, after all, what are your sources for "their" Serbo-Croat names? Colchicum (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, an anon's opinion is as welcome here as yours or mine. Colchicum (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the issue is being discussed at WikiProject Football. I will repeat this comment there.

In a quick Google search I found the Serbo-Croatian forms of their names mentioned in B92 articles in Serbo-Croatian, but nothing in English (some mentions of Dalku looked like simple typoes). In these cases, mentioning the alternative names in the first sentence doesn't appear to be of much value to our readership (relevance being the basic criterion of our Lead section guideline).

But I see no problem in including the alternatives names & short explanations somewhere else, either in the article's body or, probably better, as an unobtrusive footnote (as Evlekis proposes at WikiProject Football). Something along the lines of:

Mehmet Dragusha¹ (born 9 October 1977 in Pristina) is an...

Footnotes:

1. In Serbo-Croatian, the official language of Yugoslavia, his name is rendered Mehmet Draguša. (cf. link to B92)

What do you think ? It's probalby better to continue the discussion at WikiProject Football. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, the anon who revert-warred you on the Greek portal pages was banned user SotosfromGreece (talk · contribs). Enjoy rolling him back with impunity. :-)

(Heck, I was considering giving you the rollback bit just so you'd enjoy it more, until I realised you're actually an admin ;-) Somehow I never noticed...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :-) I mentioned in my RfA that I intended to do very little admin work, but for a variety of reasons I'm doing even less than what I originally envisioned. So, unless they happen to see the icon in my user page, there's a good chance people don't notice that minor detail. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Template: Kosovo Municipalities

Hi Ev,

Regarding the Template:Kosovo municipalities page, I noticed you have edited the template in August with the reason expressed in your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Kosovo_municipalities&oldid=234575174. That is, you have removed 'redundant double names [...] thus creating a more comprehensive article' to keep up with English usage. That seems reasonable, until one thinks about the nature of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. That is, an encyclopedia has to bear the truth and expose it. I am referring to factual truth. Consequently, names in that template should be displayed in the Albanian language followed by the Serbian one because both are official. If you want Wikipedia to be comprehensive, then go ahead and change the page names from Serbian to Albanian, given Kosovo's status and recognition. Otherwise, if you want a simple and easy-to-read WIkipedia, then these edits and your reasoning on those edits could very well apply to the Simple English Wikipedia, for those people who cannot cope with good standing reading of encyclopedias. I believe you understand my point. --_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 03:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Arber. Yes, my full edit summary reads: "removed redundant double names, keeping only those in common English usage the articles use, thus creating a simpler, more comprehensible version, easier to use & understand by English-speakers".

We try to provide comprehensive information to our readers -including the different names by which these places are known- in our articles. Navigation templates, on the other hand, aim merely at facilitating navigation between those articles, and not at providing detailed information. They aim at being comprehensible, understandable, easy to use, not comprehensive.

Keep in mind also that the official status of the names or languages (or of Kosovo itself) has little bearing in how we communicate information to our anglophone readership. Instead, we use the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. In the case of Kosovo, for the moment most anglophones are more familiar with the Serbo-Croatian names.

In any case, in my book, simplicity tends to be a good thing. :-) Morover, simplicity does not necessarily entail lower quality. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. What the English-speaking world knows is the Serbian version of the geographical names because of the history we all (supposedly) know. However, I doubt that the American officials use diacritics (cf. Pristina). Maybe the names will change in the future (and logically they should, given the majority language). Anyways, this encyclopedia will reach a transit point - let's wait and see when that will occur.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I can imagine that Kosovo's declaration of independence may well induce a change in English usages, with the Serbo-Croatian names being phased out and the Albanian ones adopted. If/when that happens, the English-language Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before.

The use of diacritics is a different matter: On this issue there is no agreement yet among Wikipedia editors, and thus no clearly established guidelines, with the issue being decided on a case by case basis.

• Some editors think that diacritics should never be used, because they don't exist in what we may call the "English alphabet" and because they cause some technical difficulties when doing web searches.
• Others see diacritics as just another case where the core criterion of common English usage applies: diacritics should be used only if they constitute the usual, standard spelling in English-language publications.
• And yet others (like me) think that, given the technical limitations of an "English alphabet" that doesn't have them, the use of diacritics by a minority of highly reliable sources is enough to justify it's use in Wikipedia as "a more perfectionist and educative way to display the name" (just as Britannica and the National Geographic Magazine do in the case of Priština).

But, as you can see, the issue is not clear-cut.

In any case, remember that the reason many of us have for using or not diacritics is not related to taking sides on a ethno-political conflict, but is based on our perception of how Wikipedia's readers are best served: as I mentioned before, I think that diacritics are "a more perfectionist and educative way to display a name".

For the purposes of an encyclopedic article, I prefer to use "Priština" over "Pristina" for the same reasons I prefer to use "Hashim Thaçi" over "Hashim Thaci", and "çiftelia" over "ciftelia". (Of course, because now the article title is "Pristina", I no loger use my preferred "Priština" in articles). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, an encyclopedia should be comprehensive, and not a nihilist source of knowledge. That is, I do not base my judgments on ethnic and/or political premises, but on rational, scientific ones. My name contains two special letters, ë and ç, and whenever I have sent out applications to North-American or British institutions, I never used those two special characters, and that is acceptable as per the English alphabet. However, an encyclopedia should not be constrained to that. For the case of Kosovo, Albanian and Serbian versions should be displayed. The official names are, nowadays, expressed in Albanian both in Kosovo (see institutions) and in Albania (surely). I think the right way to do that is to display both, but that would be quite awkward for some reader in another lost part of the world (say, Yukon Territories). Anyways, transliteration is dependent upon knowledge of historical facts... Till the next! --_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Macedonia naming dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Yannismarou. - Ev (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aknowledged. - Ev (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and "Northern Epirus"

Hello, Ev! While browsing several articles related to the Greek minority in Albania, I noticed the existence of the following template: Template:Northern Epirus, where I have started a discussion in which interested arbitrators might continue. In addition, I noticed (and removed) the terms 'Northern Epirus' and the related templates from those articles because the region is unrecognized and may imply irredentism, to some extent. Neither Albania nor Greece do officially acknowledge the existence of policies related to "Northern Epirus". In addition, I noticed those articles have been unmonitored for some time. The existence of the template in encyclopedia articles may provide false or inaccurate information to external readers in two ways. First, a reader with less knowledge about the history of the region will learn that a region named 'Northern Epirus' exists and covers most of Southern Albania, which is false. Second, a reader may draw conclusions aided by the premises in those articles which are inaccurate.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 04:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arber. To comment on the template I would need to read more about the topic first (my knowledge about it is restricted to the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Versailles). I have just added the template to my watchlist, and will keep an eye on the discussion.

Removing instances of "Northern Epirus" such as this one is absolutely necessary; well done. "Northern Epirus" can be mentioned in our articles as a political or descriptive term, but only where appropriate and with the needed contextualization (who uses it; what is meant by it). Its use as a plain geographical reference is clearly inadmissible. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Re. Kosovo-Serbia naming

Hi again Ev,

I have been editing a number of articles related to biographies of Serbian faculty of the University of Pristina in Mitrovica. You can find these articles at my contribution page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ABXDataLogic, from item 22:59, April 22, 2009 (hist) (diff) Marko Savić ‎ (→Teaching career: - rmv diacritic from Pristina) (top) to item 07:59, April 22, 2009 (hist) (diff) Faculty of Arts of Priština ‎ (updated article to reflect status quo of Kosovo) . User Andrija reverted those changes. I did undo their changes today.

As you may be aware of, since 1999 the Serbian entity moved the university to Mitrovica and it offers instruction in Serbian language only and the faculty members are all Serbian professors, while the University of Pristina in the capital city offers instruction in Albanian language.

Now, I don't know if I am violating the NPOV. Maybe you might want to take a look at those articles and Andrija's and my rationales for editing them accordingly. Thanks! --_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Those articles should have been moved & edited for consistency when "University of Pristina" & "Pristina" were moved. I will restore most of your edits, and comment on a few exceptions in a little while. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the articles I have checked so far I have restored your edits, with three exceptions only:

• Removing the caron of š in Categories (e.g. Category:University of Priština faculty) should be done only after a new one (e.g. Category:University of Pristina faculty) is created.
• For some reason, {{coord missing|Kosovo}} does not work. {{coord missing|Serbia}} should be used until the issue is fixed.
• I kept the address the Faculty of Arts of Pristina (in Zvečan) probably uses. The note indicating Kosovo's convoluted situation should be enough to clarify to our readers the otherwise odd address.

I will finish with the others tomorrow. Best, Ev (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. Thanks. I would like to keep articles (where I have a relatively sound knowledge) as fair as possible by avoiding contextual and factual errors. I am also aware that an article which allegedly satisfies Serbian or Albanian viewpoints has displeasing effects on Albanians and Serbians, respectively, given the Balkan attitude, and that's probably why the Balkan fever is virtually present in Wikipedia. While I would like to see Pristina referred to as Prishtina, a Serbian person might want to use the diacritic in the name. This will never have a compromised solution, not here and not in real life, and that's an ultimate truth. Later!--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 01:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick Wikipedia search for articles containing Pristina with the diacritic 'š', and I edited many articles accordingly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ABXDataLogic). This may create an "undo storm". Therefore, I suggest the following: We should place a note on TaskForce Albania and WikiProject Serbia acknowledging the fact that, where appropriate, Pristina should not be written as 'Prishtina' or 'Priština', but its common English name should be used.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be keeping an eye on edits re-inserting "Priština". If you think that notifing the WikiProjects would help, go ahead. :-) But perhaps it would be better to wait a little while to see if those edits are reverted. In these cases, where the issue is as straightforward as applying our current editorial policies, sometimes it is better to avoid starting potentially chaotic discussions before a real problem emerges. :-)

If you notify the projects, the rationale for using "Pristina" in all articles instead of "Priština" or "Prishtina" is quite simple: to comply with the naming conventions for geographic names, which currently state that "[w]ithin articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". That is also the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency.

In other words, the name used in the article on the city (currently, "Pristina") should be used consistently across Wikipedia. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

s/š - c/ç

Ev, hello. I want you to explain me who is this possible? Someone is now deleting all of PriŠtina to Pristina, regarding NPOV, and etc, and someone else is changing Hashim Thaci to Hashim Thaçi! If we look at the publications, there are no need ç in majority of them!!! This is complete disregard of NPOV and all else! I ask from you to fix and stop Priština situation, or i will fix all of ç situations... That is the best of me?! Tadija (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tadija. The rationale for using "Pristina" in all articles instead of "Priština" or "Prishtina" is quite simple: to comply with the naming conventions for geographic names, which currently state that "[w]ithin articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". That is the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency.

In other words, the name used in the article on the city (currently, "Pristina") should be used consistently across Wikipedia.

The same principles apply to mentions of Hashim Thaçi: the idea is to consistently use across Wikipedia the same spelling used in the article on this person (currently, "Hashim Thaçi").

In short: names or spellings are decided on the main articles, and then used consistently across Wikipedia. You can always propose changes in the talk pages of the main articles themselves, but the rest of Wikipedia should simply mirror the title of that main article. - You can imagine how chaotic Wikipedia would be if all names & spellings would have to be agreed independenlty in each individual article, repeating the exact same discussion in every talk page, instead of having a single centralized discussion in the main article only. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv / Kiev

Hi Ev! I'm sure you were fully aware before you started on your campaign to remove all references to Kyiv from wikipedia that you were courting controversy. Your edit comments justify this action as: "to reflect common English usage & for consistency with the article on Kiev". For your information, Kiev is the Russian version of the Ukrainian name Kyiv and was enforced on Ukraine, and by extension the rest of the world until independence in 1991. Since then the Ukrainian language and the use of Kyiv - both in Cyrilic and Latin scripts - has gained wide useage. While it is not yet as widely used as Kiev it is sufficiently common to warrant it remaining unmolested where it occurs in wikipedia. Furthermore, where in WP:NCGN does it say that names used within article must be consistent with other article names? Note that WP:NCGN relates only to the naming of articles, not to the naming of locations in other articles; your use of this policy seems inappropriate. The Kiev page itself has a whole archive of unresolved debate as to which version should be used for the page title, and for the uninvolved the choice is largely immaterial since both are offered in the opening sentence and a redirect exists to accomodate the alternative spelling. "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. So what is the purpose of this campaign? -- Timberframe (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Timberframe. I knew that those edits would be perceived as controvertial by some (mostly Ukrainian) editors who prefer the form Kyiv. But those edits constitute a straightforward application of our editorial principles (as described in our policies & guidelines), and their purpose is to bring our articles in line with those principles.

• Although our naming conventions are mainly intended for choosing titles, they do relate also to the names used within articles. Their main criterion of using the names "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" describes our general editorial approach to names, and is not restricted to titles only.
• Our naming conventions for geographic names currently state that "[w]ithin articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title".

  This point used to be more clearly worded. Until early February, the 3rd general guideline stated: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." This clearer explanation was altered by a single editor, apparently without discussion, and will probably be re-introduced soon.

  In other words, the name used in the article on the city (currently Kiev) should be used consistently across Wikipedia. – That is also the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency.

You said: The Kiev page itself has a whole archive of unresolved debate as to which version should be used for the page title.

The long discussions at Talk:Kiev & Talk:Kiev/naming do not represent an unresolved debate, but a few editors' insistence in using their preferred name despite it being disfavoured by our current naming conventions. - The fact that Kiev is the name "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is obvious to any dispassionate anglophone.

You said: the choice is largely immaterial since both are offered in the opening sentence and a redirect exists to accomodate the alternative spelling.

The choice between the two names in other articles is not immaterial, because one of them is widely recognized by our intended readership, while the other one remains an obscure reference to many anglophones. It's the principle of least astonishment. - Our readers should not be forced to follow a link to discover that Kyiv is an alternative name for the city they have always known as Kiev.

Besides, redirects are an aid to navigation and searching, not a way of circumventing our current naming conventions. This specific one exists to assist any reader searching for "Kyiv", or any editor who mistakenly writes Kyiv instead of Kiev. It is not there to allow for the use of a name disfavoured by our current naming conventions.

You said: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.

That is true. My edits, however, do not change a controversial name to another; they change a sometimes obscure name to the one "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and they provide to our readership the benefits of internal consistency within a reference work. - To the dispassionate anglophone, there's absolutely nothing controversial in that.

By the way, the Russian name of the city may have been enforced in Ukraine itself, but there was no similar imposition of Kiev on the English language. Instead, the adoption of one name -and not the other- was due to obvious historical circumstances: the fact that Kiev was under Russian control since the mid-17th century until 1991.

This usage may change in the future: Kiev may be phased out and Kyiv adopted as the name commonly used in English-language publications. If/when that happens, Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before. – We should not diminish our hability to communicate with our anglophone readership to cater for the whims of a few editors who dislike the current usages of the English language. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explicitly state your position or renaming the "traditional" English name "Tallin" into "Tallinn" in the late 90-ies. After that explain how that is different from Kiev/Kyiv case.--Andriy155 (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case of Tallinn, but it shouldn't be different from the case of Kiev. Whatever name the people of both cities & countries wish to use is mostly irrelevant. The only significant parallel questions to answer are:

• What name would the greatest number of English speakers most easily recognize ?
• What name is commonly used in English-language publications ?

Whatever the answer to those questions is, that decides what name is used in the English-language Wikipedia (at least until our naming conventions policy is modified).

Remember that Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

Of course, languages change with the pass of time. Today we usually speak about Beijing instead of Peking. Perhaps the same thing will happen in the case of Kiev, and at some point the form Kyiv will become the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. If/when that happens, the English-language Wikipedia should reflect that change, and use Kyiv. But not before; Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of certain names by the English language. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ev, excuse me, but now your contributions are only Russification of Kyiv. In my mind, better, if you see for acts of vandalism, if you wishn't write new materials for Wikipedia. Excuse me again, that I wrote some agressive words, but I really sadness--Noel baran (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noel :-) With my contributions I do not "Russif[y] Kyiv"; instead, I bring our articles into line with the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies (in this case, mainly Wikipedia:Article titles & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which indicate that all articles mentioning the Ukrainian capital should use the same form used as title in the article on the city itself - i.e. Kiev). — If you have any doubts regarding these policies, I will be happy to clarify them. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ev, just wanted to let you know I'm also disappointed about the renaming, it's offending to some Ukrainians. I understand your point though. We'll probably have to wait until it's solved on the Kiev article and then change it back on all the articles you edited. --MournerV (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MournerV :-) I'm fully aware that these editions may offend some Ukrainians, and believe me that I'm sorry about it. However, in such cases the people who deeply dislike the names commonly used in the English language will always be offended...

• Using the name "Persian Gulf" will offend some Arabs, although using the alternative "Arabian Gulf" will offend some Iranians (cf. Persian Gulf naming dispute).
• Using the name "Shatt al-Arab" will offend some Iranians, although using the name "Arvand Rud" probably will offend some Arabs (cf. [14] & [15]).
• Using the name "Kosovo" may offend some Albanians, although using the alternative form "Kosova" will offend some Serbs.
• Using the name "San Sebastián" will offend some Basques, although using the alternative name "Donostia" will offend some Spaniards.
• Using the name "Macedonia" will offend some Greeks, although using the provisional reference of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (or "FYROM" for short) will offend some Macedonians (cf. [16]).

...and that without considering the fact that trying to "force into an English-language encyclopaedia a local name not commonly used in the English language" may end up offending some anglophones. :-)

In any case, as you well pointed out, the proper place to propose the adoption of the form Kyiv in the English-language Wikipedia is Talk:Kiev/naming. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

@Ev. I have also noticed your compaign to change Kyiv to Kiev everywhere in english Wikipedia. Why are you doing this? Kiev is an archaic spelling of Kyiv which is used now because of long forceful domination of USSR( and thereby Russian language) in Ukraine, which caused many English-speakers to spell Kyiv incorrectly. It seems like you might be a Russian who does this from some personal dislike to everything Ukrainian, and as such ,it is absolutely wrong and dishonorable. Your are causing further continuation of misspelling Kyiv in English speaking Wikipedia, and this is wrong. Concerning all of your arguments, stated above, I totally disagree with your logic. When you change Kyiv to Kiev everywhere, where new articles are written, you bring additional disambiguation. As you see, there is a REDIRECT page from Kyiv to Kiev, so people who click on Kyiv will anyway reach Kiev article, so why changing all of the new article with Kyiv? Let them be, the redirecting from Kyiv to Kiev exists for the sake of getting everyone to the same page, but it's wrong to change all new articles containing Kyiv just because, quating you: My edits, however, do not change a controversial name to another; they change a sometimes obscure name to the one "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and they provide to our readership the benefits of internal consistency within a reference work. If you believe that there should be Kiev spelling in English, write your point of view in Kyiv/talk page and don't change new Kyiv-entry-containing articles. Rkononenko (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rkononenko. My edits' only intention is to bring our articles into compliance with the content policies of the English-language Wikipedia (in this case, mainly Wikipedia:Article titles & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which indicate that all articles mentioning the Ukrainian capital should use the same form used as title in the article on the city itself - i.e. Kiev). — If you have any doubts regarding these policies, I will be happy to clarify them.

In any case, far from being archaic, the form Kiev continues to be the one commonly used in English-language publications, and thus the one our articles should use (in accordance to the above mentioned policies). See the last proposal to use the form Kyiv. — If, at some point in the future, the form Kyiv replaces the form Kiev as the one the greatest number of English-speakers would most easily recognize, our articles will reflect that shift in usage. Not before. — But the proper place to discuss this issue is at Talk:Kiev/naming. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi again! I tried to follow your example with Hakan Yakin but I made a bit of a mess of it. If you could, you don't mind fixing it do you. Thanks a million. Evlekis (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote's format tweaked as requested (diff.). Best, Ev (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

problem with pec

Why are you putting back those old false figures that allude that there is 170,000 people in the pec municipality??? Go to page eight here, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACL544.pdf ,and we see the other estimates on the wiki page, it is totally ridiculous to say that their population in the municipality doubled in a couple years. Wtf?????? Just ask yourself where the logic is, it most certainly is not with the numbers there. (LAz17 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)).

Hi LAz17. I restored the ca. 170,000 figure because it is the one mentioned in the reference used (the OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile of Peć, of March 2009). I added that figure in November 2008, using as reference the April 2008 municipal profile, which gave the same figure.

You provide above a Catholic Relief Services' report of the Youth Securing the Future project (. pdf document), from ca. February 2008, which gives a different figure of 91,112 inhabitants, based on an OSCE municipal profile of 2005. – I don't know what this difference means, but I note two points:

• The Catholic Relief Services' report & our article on Peć rely on numbers from the same organization: the OSCE Mission in Kosovo (more specifically, both rely on the OSCE's municipal profiles).
• The Catholic Relief Services' report uses OSCE data from 2005, while our article uses OSCE data from April 2008 & March 2009.

I can imagine four different explanations for this significative discrepancy of 91,000 vs. 170,000:

• The municipality's population almost doubled in three years.
• The OSCE made a mistake either in their 2005 municipal profile, or in both their April 2008 & March 2009 ones.
• The Catholic Relief Services misinterpreted the OSCE's 2005 data.
• Perhaps the OSCE's municipal reports from 2005 gave numbers for both the whole municipality (the town of Peć and the 95 villages) and for the town of Peć alone; the CRS used the number for the town alone, but listed it as "municipality".

To me, the last option looks like the most rational explanation, but I simply don't know the facts. Do you ?

On the other hand, both in the comments above and in your edits to the article you appear to affirm that the CRS's 2005 data is correct, while the OSCE's April 2008 & March 2009 data provide "false figures". Do you know for a fact that this is the case ? If so, do you have any sources with which to back that claim ?

Note that the USAID's Local Government Initiative entry for Peć municipality mentions that "[t]he current population is estimated at 113,500 inhabitants", while their infobox mentions: "Population: 114,000" (these figures would represent a more reasonable growth from a possible 91,000 in 2005.).

The USAID's Local Government Initiative entry for Peć municipality links to a Profile of Peć (.pdf) from December 2004, prepared by a certain Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Developement (KIPRED - www.kipred.net). In page 3, it gives the following populations figures: "1953: 53,280 – 1961: 66,656 – 1971: 90,124 – 1981: 111,071 – 1999: 113,000 – 2003: 115,000 – 2004: 125,000".

I'm still looking for other sources. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible for such drastic expansion of populations. It means that one of the estimates is wrong. I am sure that the latest data is wrong, as it is impossible for such big increases. Pec was the area that suffered the most in the 1999 war, the city was the most destroyed city, there simply is not enough infrastructure to sustain such a huge population. 115,000 is a good estimate. Now we wonder why would there be higher estimates... the reason is because the people who estimate use projections, so they take into account the drastic growth of the past, so they assume that this drastic growth continues. The conditions that these projections ignore is the war and emigration that has affected most municipalities in Kosovo. Here's something, link. This report is longer and more detailed. More effort was put into it. (LAz17 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).

What you provide now is the OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile of Peć of May 2006 – we're mostly dealing with the same documents by the same organization: the OSCE's municipal profiles. :-) As you note, these older OSCE profles were more detailed; I always wonder why they switched to the current format.

That May 2006 municipal profile mentions that the "municipality is divided into 28 territorial communities, comprising a total of 95 villages, with an approximate population of 125,000." — However, the "Table 1.1: Ethnic Composition, Including IDPs" give an estimate figure of 91,112 inhabitants (noting that in early 2005 the actual number of people registered in the municipality was of 81,026, but that it was believed that many people had not officially registered).

So, in short, so far we have the following:

KIPRED's municipal profile (December 2004): 125,000.

USAID's Local Government Initiative (date unclear, but mentioning outdated local government members -the current "official" mayor is Ali Berisha- and linking to KIPRED's profile of December 2004): 113,500 in text and 114,000 in infobox.

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (May 2006): ca. 125,000 in text and 91,112 in table.

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (April 2008): ca. 170,000

OSCE Mission in Kosovo's Municipal profile (March 2009): ca. 170,000

The European Centre for Minority Issues - Kosovo (ECMI Kosovo), which is both a non-governmental organisation registered and located in Kosovo and a branch office of the European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI - www.ecmi.de), does not provide any figures in their entry for Peć (after May 2008). Instead, they limit themselves to mention that "[a]ccurate population statistics are not available for Kosovo. The numbers presented here are approximate estimates by the Local Community Office, cross checked with OSCE Municipal Profiles and Civil Society", and link to a comment on statistical data.

I guess that in our entries we should add a clear mention of this situation to the demographics sections of all municipalities of Kosovo. I will be thinking of a proper wording (and adequate sources).

For the specific case of Peć, we still need a more recent source giving different numbers from the OSCE's 170,000. I'm still looking. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re

If I'm not mistaken, we generally agreed on Template talk:History of Kosovo that "Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo". Now I do expect resistance from guys that maintain Kosovo is a fully recognized independent country that spans the entire region (Albanian POV), however, I do not think there's any argument that hasn't already been thoroughly discussed. It objectively makes little sense to entitle articles as if the whole thing isn't a hotly debated issue. As far as the simple territorial situation is concerned, the region of Kosovo is significantly larger than the Republic of Kosovo... I digress. If there's a misunderstanding, or if you recommend such a course of action, I'll revert the moves... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Being bold about one move is fine, and even encouraged; but when it comes to the potentially controversial move of various articles placed on probation by the Abitration Committee, previous discussion is always the best course of action.

I see your point, but I'm not sure of need (or benefits) of those moves. As for "Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo", that's not entirely the case. Depending on whom you listen to, Kosovo is:

• An independent country (formally known as the Republic of Kosovo).
• A Serbian province (formally known as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija).
• Something in between (a UN or EU protectorate ?).

It's the context that clarifies which of those meanings is being applied. So, sometimes "Kosovo = Republic of Kosovo".

For example, in the case of the "Foreign relations of Kosovo" entry, is it necessary to disambiguate its title by adding "Republic of" ? Can it have any other meaning than the independent country ? A Serbian province does not conduct foreign relations with other states.

In any case, there's no need to revert those moves immediately, and they may make sense. Just try not to make further multiple moves in delicate topics without first discussing them, or at least announcing them a couple of days before. - I will give it more thought later today. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pec

Actually those two citations were to different urls, even if the content of them was substantially the same. --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, in the britannica.com urls the number is the what marks each entry (in our case, .../448273), with the title of the entry added afterwards for clarity only. When the article used Peć the "full" url became .../448273/Pec, and now that it uses Pejë, the "full" url becomes .../448273/Peje. – Notice that .../448273/Koala, .../448273/Wikipedia & .../448273/Random all lead to the same entry, and all become .../448273/Peje.

Thank you very much for commenting at Talk:Peć. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv vs Kiev

Here is some web-sites for your information: [17], [18], [19] check the Article 20 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and a bit more here [20]. Those people who try to edit the wikipedia article about Kyiv are Russians and they are simple trying to get rid of traces of Ukrainization worldwide. When I try to argue with them they show me some stupid articles that they googled. Those are mostly from the newspapers like the Komsomolskaya Pravda which is basically a pulp fiction.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Aleksandr. The names used in our articles are determined in accordance to Wikipedia's general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names. – Please, read them carefully. They do not ask us to follow any city's or country's constitution or government. Instead, their main criterion is that we "should prefer [the names] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". In our case, that means Kiev.

Furthermore, the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names currently state: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." — So, as long as the article on the city itself uses Kiev for its title, all other articles should use Kiev too.

Remember that for the specific purpose of article naming (and the subsequent consistent use of names in other articles), the names used, desired or promoted by the local populations (be they Ukrainians, Italians, French, Chinese or Martians) are mostly irrelevant. We only care about what names are commonly used in English-language publications. — This is so because we are interested in communicating information efficiently to an anglophone readership, by using the names with which they are most familiar.

Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

Political or diplomatic considerations have no bearing on what names we use. Our Neutral point of view policy is clear on this: it's "Article naming" section currently states that "[w]here proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."

Of course, languages change with the pass of time. Today we usually speak about Beijing instead of Peking. Perhaps the same thing will happen in the case of Kiev, and at some point the form Kyiv will become the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. If/when that happens, the English-language Wikipedia should reflect that change, and use Kyiv. But not before; Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of certain names by the English language.

By the way, if you want to change the current naming conventions of the English Wikipedia, you're free to propose your desired modifications at the appropriate talk page (for example, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions :-) However, while the current conventions remain in place, they should be respected: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But do your realize that promoting the name of Kiev instead of Kyiv in a encyclopedia will lead to further confusion of that issue? Why? Simply. Of course, people who know nothing of Ukrainian culture, language, and history care less in that regard, yet the others who also familiar with English language will be puzzled. First of all the this ecyclopedia contradicts the Laws of Ukraine and second of all promotes further illiteracy. What about the scientific and cultural perception? The Academy of Science of Ukraine officially declared the usage of Kyiv, which was later accepted by the Ukrainian parliament and other official institutions around the globe. Now you advocating the issue of numbers by googling which does not really justify anything. How about check the quality of the articles instead of simply calling numbers? Are we to accept quantity over the quality? I believe that encyclopedia ought to follow the correct promotion of the concept definition otherwise it looses its sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand you position. However, your approach differs from that of Wikipedia's current editorial policies. You perceive Kyiv as the correct name, and Kiev as incorrect. Wikipedia's editorial policies don't make such active judgments, but ask us to limit ourselves to passively reflect the common usages of the English language.

As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

Of course, you can propose changing our current approach at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). If you obtain there a consensus to change our naming conventions from "prefering the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (reflecting common English usage)" to "following Ukrainian legislation", then Kyiv would be used in our articles. – But as long as our naming conventions remain in their current form, they should be followed: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand you position. However, your approach differs from that of Wikipedia's current editorial policies. You perceive Kyiv as the correct name, and Kiev as incorrect. Wikipedia's editorial policies don't make such active judgments, but ask us to limit ourselves to passively reflect the common usages of the English language.

As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is. Of course, you can propose changing our current approach at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). If you obtain there a consensus to change our naming conventions from "prefering the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (reflecting common English usage)" to "following Ukrainian legislation", then Kyiv would be used in our articles. – But as long as our naming conventions remain in their current form, they should be followed: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here it clearly states to use modern names Wikipedia Rules. The Ukrainian government officially changed the name in English and I believe it needs to be respected and, thus, officially used. Kiev name is a historical name of the city that was occupied when Ukraine was conquered by Russians in 1920.
• The Wikipedian article also mentions to allow the name changes following the Cold War mentioning date of 1993, but not binding to it. After the Ukrainian Academy of Science confirmed the correst transliteration of the name, the appropriate Law was passed in parliament justify that change.
• Please note, it was not a simple invention by the President of Ukraine, but rather that issue was addressed among cultural, historical, ethnographical, linguist, and other scholars. Then it was addressed to Verkhovna Rada. That took some time and was only officially recognize in 1996.
• Suprisingly, over 10 years have elapsed since then and everyone fails to mention that fact coming up with various crazy ideas. Of course, there will be little or no traces of such name while googling, because no one really enforces that. All of the previous scientific works were written in Russian as the use of Ukrainian language was not allowed for that matter. The name was simply transliteration of the Russian name for the city.
• Another similar case is with the city of Lviv which was founded by the Ukraine-Ruthenian prince as Lvov in the name of his son. That became an accepted name in Russia and Poland. But the name officially was changed to the modern Ukrainian language and, thus, now it is called as Lviv. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first point refers to the "Use modern names" section of our naming conventions for geographic names, which you are misinterpreting by reading some of its sentences in isolation from the rest of the conventions.

The section currently states that "[f]or an article about a [city] whose name has changed over time, use the modern English name [...], rather than an older one." – Here is the problem: by "modern English names" the convention refers to the name commonly used in modern, contemporary English-language publications (in our case, Kiev); it does not refer to "the current official name according to that city's (or country's) government" (in our case, Kyiv).

Our articles use Istanbul, Volgograd & Saint Petersburg instead of Constantinople, Stalingrad & Leningrad not because the local authorities changed their names, but because common English usage itself has changed.

This point is detailed in the section's last paragraf about "Mumbai", which states that "[the city] officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Our choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, however, but depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our guidelines on National varieties of English." (emphasis mine; and of course, English is not an official language in the Ukraine).

Let me emphasize it: The choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, but hinges on whether English usage itself has changed to adopt the new official name. — The government of Burma officially adopted the name Myanmar; however our article follows common English usage and is under the title "Burma".

You said: The Ukrainian government officially changed the name in English and I believe it needs to be respected and, thus, officially used.

That is your opinion; which differs from our naming conventions' approach to the issue. Therefore, it is irrelevant for the specific purposes of name usage in Wikipedia articles. – Of course, you can propose (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)) to change our naming conventions to match your opinion that the "official names" chosen by each government need to be respected.

You said: Kiev name is a historical name of the city.

No, it is not. Kiev continues to be the name commonly used in English-language publications, and the one the greatest number of English speakers most easily recognize.

You said: [Kiev] was occupied when Ukraine was conquered by Russians in 1920.

Actually, the city had been under Russian control since the mid-17th century, not just since 1920. – But who governed/governs, ruled/rules, occuppied/liberated it doesn't matter for the issue at hand. :-)

Your second point refers to the "Widely accepted name" section of our naming conventions for geographic names, which again you are misinterpreting by reading one sentence in isolation from the rest of the conventions.

That section currently mentions the need "to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected" (emphasis mine). — Again, this is not about governments officially changing names, but about some of those changes being adopted in common English usage.

In other points, you argue again about Kyiv being the correct, legal, official form. However, our naming conventions rely mainly on "common English usage", and refuse to even contemplate the issue of "correctess". – Again, feel free to propose (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)) changes in our naming conventions to contemplate your opinions on the issue.

In the case of Lvov/Lviv, once more what matters is not whether the name was officially changed to the modern Ukrainian language, but whether that change was adopted (or not) in common English usage. If most post-1993 English-language publications use the name Lviv, then the article is named correctly, irrespective of the name's official status in Ukraine. If most post-1993 English-language publications use the name Lvov, then the article should be moved to "Lvov".

In any case, the central place to discuss the issue of "Kyiv vs Kiev" is Talk:Kiev/naming, while proposals to change our naming conventions should be made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my annoyance, but just to make it clear. First of all, this statement [Kiev] was occupied when Ukraine was conquered by Russians in 1920. you pulled out of context which can be interpreted as my limited knowledge of my native history. In truth it could be the subject of a debate. But, let's not accented upon that. The modern or contemporary for that matter English has cases of use the name of Kyiv in publications and news media although not as wide as the other variation. Nonetheless Kyiv continues to spread and gets accepted. The article mentioning Kyiv discrimitively comments to that version. What is the purpose of those commets beside their implication that Ukrainian culture has no historical background?

Second of all, Lviv was written in Roman alphabet as Lwow from XIV through XIX century and was well established way of spelling until the Soviet hegemony, Kyiv on the other hand was transliterated into Kiev in mid of XVIII if not XX. Until then it was spelled with the Polish transliteration which gets accepted in English "painlessly".

And last, you mentioning of English in Ukraine are right that English is not the official language in the country (and never will, hopefully) and not even the secondary. Nevertheless, that does not mean anything beside, maybe, some weird implication regarding the education in Ukraine. :) Yes, I am sensative when it concerns my native land. My bottom line is that the conventions that you are refering me have different ways interpretations. It seems to me as we are pursuing different ideas. I am implying that the name was changed and you are suggesting that the name was re-transliterated. I guess if the name have changed into Novokyivsk then your arguement would be dropped as in case of Stalingrad and Sverdlovsk. Am I right? :) Is it possible, at least, to get rid of the comment about the Monopoly which implies that spelling of Kyiv being influenced from the outside? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no annoyance in this. :-) Three points:

• If the name of the Ukrainian capital were to be changed to Novokyivsk or, better yet, Aleksandrgrad, the name used on the English-language Wikipedia would depend on whether that new name is adopted in common English usage. If after the official name change to Aleksandrgrad most English-language publications continue to refer to the city as Kiev, Wikipedia would passively reflect that common English usage and continue to use the name Kiev.

  However, if at any point in time this common English usage changes to anything other than Kiev (be it Kyiv, Novokyivsk, Aleksandrgrad or something else), then the English-language Wikipedia would passively reflect this new common English usage, and use that name instead of Kiev.

  In other words, our naming conventions ask us to restrict ourselves to passively reflect the usage attested in most English-language publications (our reliable sources). If they change, so do we. — Etymology, history, politics, diplomacy & correctness are not issues our current naming conventions contemplate. Actual usage in English is the key.

  Personally, I think that Ukrainian editors would do best by letting this whole naming issue in the hands of American, British & Australian editors. If at some point the latter feel that any form other than Kiev is the one they recognize more easily, they themselves will propose to change that article's title.

  The city's general importance, rich history and magnificent cultural & artistic heritage assure it constant mentions in English-language publications. If at some point I start to see more mentions of Kyiv than of Kiev in the newspapers, TV, magazines & books I read, I myself will propose to change that article's title. :-)

• These conventions have only one correct interpretation (although perhaps they lack clarity, and could use better wording). Feel free to consult about it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). The regulars there will tell you the same things I'm mentioning here.
• Personally, I would remove that rather ridiculous mention of Monopoly without a second thought. However, my involvement in that article has so far been limited to the attepts to change its title to Kyiv (issue discussed at Talk:Kiev/naming).

  If you want to make any change to that article's content, simply propose it at Talk:Kiev (although we editors are encouraged to be bold, the manner in which this whole issue affects some people's sensibilities means that discussing there first is probably the best course of action).

Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that I should be consistent with the naming for the city. However the article mentions the usage for the city's name as I write. So, why do you keep on changing the names when it is an accepted usage in the international community and mentioning something about the consistency? Please, refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Divided usage which states that there are no particular rules as long as it is the least surprising to the reader. So, the people who study the international laws and will be researching about Ukraine have potential in running into a great degree of confusion while observing the official documents that have spelling different than wikipedia does. Would not you agree? Now, who else might be interested in the study of the Ukraine's capital and not be aware of potential difference in spelling usage? Not that many. The articles that I wrote pretty much based on history. The usage romanized version of Ukrainian spelling of most city's in that country in that period is missing as the Soviet censorship got rid of them. I am simply following the scientific transliteration and the transliteration that was officially accepted by the parliament of Ukraine in that regard as they were used in actual official documents. I do not really see in wikipedia when people actually agreed on a particular usage of the form that you are promoting. I will be awaiting your explanation. Respectfully, Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is based on the title of our articles. Yes, the body of the article on the Ukrainian capital mentions both forms (Kiev & Kyiv), since both are used in English. However, it's the article's title that is used as basis for internal consistency within Wikipedia. — Our naming conventions for geographic names currently mention this in their 3rd general guideline: "3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." In the case of the Ukrainian capital, this means that "[In] all articles [mentioning the Ukrainian capital] the same name as in the title [of the article on the Ukrainian capital] should be used consistently throughout the article." — There are two main objectives behind this idea: to offer our readers the benefits of internal consistency and to avoid having to repeat the naming discussions ad nauseam in every single article mentioning a certain place (instead, we deal with the issue in one single place, and then automatically apply the result of that centralised discussion to all articles).

Divided usage does not apply to simple mentions of the city, because in the case of the Ukrainian capital a) there's no "evenly divided usage" (Kiev clearly remains the form most anglophones would most easily recognise) and b) "other guidelines do [...] apply" (namely, our policy on article titles & our naming conventions for geographic names, with the issue specifically addressed in its 3rd guideline). — In any case, someone studing international laws and researching about Ukraine is probably aware of the little naming issue; and if not, he will learn about it soon enough. :-) And better to "greately confuse" that specific subset of users, and not the majority of our readership for which "Kiev" remains the most recognizable form.

You said: I am simply following the scientific transliteration and the transliteration that was officially accepted by the parliament of Ukraine in that regard as they were used in actual official documents..

The English-language Wikipedia does not use scientific transliterations, forms accepted by any parliament, used in actual official documents, or whose usage is accepted in the international community. We follow common English usage (per our policy on article titles), and reflect it consistently in all our articles (an issue specifically addressed in the 3rd guideline of our naming conventions for geographic names). — Of course, you're free to propose changing the way we approach these issues at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).

You said: I do not really see in wikipedia when people actually agreed on a particular usage of [Kiev.]

The usage of "Kiev" for the Ukrainian capital was last agreed upon in October-November 2009 (permanent link). The issue had been addressed previously in July 2007, September 2007, February 2008 and September 2008.

You said: ...the form that you are promoting.

I'm not promoting any form. Wikipedia is not a place to promote the usage of certain names/forms. I merely attempt to assure that our articles comply with our current policies & guidelines.

Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Related argument I can draw with usage of the Ukraine which was accepted before the Independence of the Ukrainian SSR. Most of members of wikipedia acknowledge that it has nothing to do with politics or history. However, if you are to ignore, that does it make the encyclopedia scientific? That only reflects a total ignorance as Ukraine was accepted throughout the English-speaking community while being totally disrespected within. Respectfully, Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see I am not the only one who vouch for such spelling on your talk page. Maybe you ought to listen to those petitions. Your statement about some accepted usage or whatever you call it either shows disrespect to the official request that was made back in 1991 by the government of Ukraine or your fellow wikipedians prefer to follow it. In my opinion and because wikipedia does state that it is free the naming policy should be left open as long as it has some academic or official grounds and it is not offensive to general public. The spelling of the name was accepted by the government of Ukraine which is elected by the population of nearly 50 million people. Are to ignore such representation and follow some newspaper articles written by who-knows-whom? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aleksandr, our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names ask us to reflect common English usage. For the specific purpose of choosing names in the English-language Wikipedia, official requests by any government are just as irrelevant as etymology, history, politics, diplomacy & correctness. — Of course, you're free to propose that such official requests by governments be taken into account at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). — The repeated complaints only show that some editors either don't know, don't understand or don't want to follow the current policies & conventions of the English-language Wikipedia. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

hey

Er, just a heads up on this... perhaps your input could be helpful. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina (LAz17 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

I noticed your comment yesterday, after returning from about a week of absence, but had no time to check the entry & deletion discussion at the time. When I did today, it was already closed. Sorry. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Peja, Kosovo

Funny how you have nothing against trolls claiming that Peja is in "southern Serbia" yet you vigilantly "correct" the name according to your own bias any time someone dares to name it by its original and most widely used name. See here. [21] Pathetic. --alchaemia (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alchaemia, there are three points here:

• That edit to the article on Peć was made on 4 June 2009, and you fixed it a mere 12 minutes later. Notice however that I did not edit Wikipedia between 30 May and 7 June (both dates included); I was travelling. — Please, do understand that, having a life outside of Wikipedia, I do not edit it every single day.

  In any case, even if I was editing on 4 June, you couldn't really blame me for not reacting in less than 12 minutes: you cannot reasonably expect me to spend the whole day slavishly refreshing my watchlist over & over again, to fix improper edits within minutes. — Please, understand that I can not "correct" any improper edit without actually noticing it first.

• When I notice similar edits replacing "Kosovo" by "Serbia", I do revert them. See the following examples from late May 2009 only: 18 May, 18 May, 18 May, 18 May, 19 May, 19 May, 19 May, 19 May, 20 May, 20 May, 20 May, 20 May, 27 May & 28 May. — You can read my general opinion on the issue at Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo (it's a long discussion).
• I do not change mentions of "Peja" into "Peć" to reflect my own bias, but to maintain our articles' compliance with our general naming conventions & the specific ones for geographic names.

  In any case, Peja is most definitely not the "most widely used name" in English-language publications. Peć is (with or without diacritics). — Of course, if at some point in the future Peja becomes the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, I would support moving the article to reflect that change in common English usage.

  Furhtermore, for the purposes of our naming conventions, whether Peja is the "original name" or not is absolutely irrelevant: our articles use the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, not the "original names" or "true names".

Best, Ev (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love it if you showed me some proof that Pec is more widely used than Peja without resorting to Google hits. I genuinely wish to be convinced that Pec is more widely used and, by extension, Djakovica instead of Gjakova and other names of towns and mountains in Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Peć#Neutrality tag (permanent link) I already showed you sources mentioning that Serbo-Croatian names in general (and even "Peć" in particular) are the ones commonly used in English-language publications, and the ones the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize.

Or simply go to your local library, bookstore & newspaper stand and check what names are used in English-language publications. — This usage is pretty obvious for anyone who has read US & UK books, newspapers & publications in general about the region.

Consider also the fact that, as far as I am aware, in every Kosovo-related move request done so far the community has either clearly decided to use the Serbo-Croatian name (with or without diacritics), or at least reached no consensus to move the article to an Albanian name.

At the same time, I have yet to see any evidence showing a single case in which a name other than the Serbo-Croatian one (with or without diacritics) is the one more widely used in English-language publications, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent policies on Kosovo place names

I have come to the conclusion that you are biased as far as Kosovo place names are concerned. You are supporting to keep the name Kosovska Mitrovica when it is clear that the whole English world uses Mitrovica, including BBC, AP, AFP and other news outlets. I can not call it anything else than dubble standards applied by you and this ruins your whole integrity as supposed "neutral" editor.--NOAH (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NOAH, this must be a misunderstanding. Could you please indicate where do I support to keep that article under the title "Kosovska Mitrovica" ? You can read my recent comments on the issue, on the 20th, 27th & again 27th of May 2009. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you changed your mind and I may have accused you wrongly og supporting pro-Serb names. This should not have happened and I apologize. --NOAH (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, apology accepted. Just one detail: when did I change my mind ? As far as I can remember, I never supported the use of "Kosovska Mitrovica" instead of "Mitrovica, Kosovo". In fact, I don't see any significant difference between them, and would be more or less equally satisfied using one or the other.

Morover, for the purposes of the English-language Wikipedia, using Kosovska Mitrovica is no more "pro-Serb" than using Mitrovica, Kosovo is "pro-Albanian", as both forms are widely used in English-language publications. Only Albanians & Serbs see the names in that antagonistic light. For the dispassionate anglophone, these names have no such inherent bias.

Sometimes I wish both Albanians and Serbs would stay away from all these naming discussions, and leave the issue in the hands of their non-emotionally-involved colleagues. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree when you say "non-emotionally-involved colleagues" but it is not possible right now when both nations are trying to push their point of view but it is clear that Serbs are in majority here at Wikipedia. I accept I am from Kosovo and Albanian but I have always tried to maintain NPOV. Sometimes articles contain so much bias that when you edit and try to bring it to neutrality is may see as pushing pro-Albanian way. I have and will continue to support NPOV on Kosovo. Wikipedia is a gift to humanity and it does not deserve to be abused to spread propaganda. --NOAH (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Naming conventions policy

Please for policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions namely:

Add redirects

”Following linking conventions as well as naming conventions is more likely to produce working links to the article expected. A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). “

Bobanni (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In every case where a subject is known under more than a single name or spelling, redirects are created, to aid readers and editors to reach the article in question. In the specific case of Kiev, that has meant the creation of over 20 redirects, including:

• one from Kyiv (which exists in its present incarnation since 2006).
• one from Kyyiv (which exists at least since 2003).
• one from Kiovia (which exists since 2007).
• There was another redirect from Kijów at least since 2004, but that entry became a disambiguation page in January 2009.

However, since we have the article at Kiev, and a redirect from the alternative form Kyiv was created years ago, so that anyone typing either "Kiev" or "Kyiv" reaches the entry on the city, what would be accomplished by having a redirect from "Kyiv(Kiev)" ? How would such a redirect aid our readership or our editors ? - Best, Ev (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial names

Please follow policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions namely:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others. Bobanni (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Divided usage

Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the Olympics inTorino, following official handouts. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

Google hits are an unreliable test, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 1803 for one variant and 1030 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not our business to predict what term will be in use; but to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. If Torino ousts Turin, we should follow; but we should not leap to any conclusion until it does.

When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version. If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Bobanni (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Curri, Sejdiu, Thaçi etc.

Just to say thanks for restoring the birthplace information on the above listed individuals. The articles are all on my watchlist too, so I would have also reverted the clown who amended the content into the "more preferable" version among many. I know from your user page that you are not a native speaker of any of the Slavic languages, so you wouldn't have spotted a recent act of cheeky vandalism. This revert by me yesterday [22] seemed to pass the initial censors - the "Recent Changes" police - because nobody examining the revision would have been familair with the fact that the key word used by the user (govno) means "shit" in Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian; obviously this was someone who doesn't like Hashim Thaçi on personal grounds. The reason I'm explaining this to you is because: as you also keep an eye on the Thaçi article, you may be interested to know that such an edit is not constructive should it appear again. I am sure it will, because that is the nature of some people. All the best. Evlekis (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Evlekis :-) I do not have those articles in my own watchlist, but they are incorporated in the public watchlist of the WikiProject Kosovo [23], which I maintain. In this specific case, I noticed your revert before I had checked all edits done during the weekend. I did wonder what that odd word (which I took for a standard suffix) would mean: a simple diminutive, or a more nuanced pejorative ? *sigh* I still keep hoping for more delicate, imaginative & even polite forms of vandalism... Best, Ev (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

Hey Ev, I was editing and working on Montenegrin article lately to candidate it for featured article. I will add some more pictures in politics and maybe do some edits and thinking of making it candidate for featured article. Do you think it has a chance? See it here. Best regards! Rave92^(talk) 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rave. I have only glimpsed through the article, and in any case I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the country to be able to judge the neutrality and comprehensiveness of various sections. However, there's one key criterion whose unfulfillment immediately becomes apparent: 1(c) well-researched. The sources used as references are mostly web-sites, and indicates the lack of "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic" (my emphasis). In other words, a lack of books by subject experts: nothing in the article indicates that it reflects modern scholarship on Montenegrin topics.

For comparison, check those articles on countries that currently have featured status: Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Peru and Turkey. See the kind of references used in those entries. – See also the kind of questions and constructive criticism carried out at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.

Having said that, keep up the good work. God knows Wikipedia needs more Montenegrins adding their unique perspective to our articles & discussions. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I intend to do so. Best, Ev (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

KLA terrorists

Hi again Ev. Regarding this edit, [24]. I don't think it will survive as there are too many frequent visitors to that article who believe that the KLA should be labelled terrorists. I agree with your statement about the BBC source, I did even try to restore your version but Cinema C reverted me as he did you. We may have to adopt a more flexible position on this one. How about, "at the time, it was considered..."? I just don't want to see an edit war. Evlekis (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the references didn't match with the content of the article Orthodoxy in Albania?

Why do you think the references didn't match with the content of the article Orthodoxy in Albania? I checked the sources and they all look fine...Explain me, cause I've already seen my article once deleted...and I've got no desire to see this again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabioAbazaj (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Please, Ev, help me, i am realy trying, there are 10000 sources, and he is still doing some nonsense.

Talk:Adem Jashari

Tadija (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica/Kosovska

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

krajina towns problem again

The user Spellcast has been trying to remove the krajina towns page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Towns_in_the_Former_RSK&action=history . Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

Semi/protected?

Hey Ev, what's up? Could you please request a semi-protection for the Montenegro article as it is usually vandalized by non-registered users (IP), and I am not sure how to convince admins. Have a nice day! Rave92^(talk) 05:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Adem

Ev, i need your opinion. Please, we have problem with one article, and your voice will be useful.

Adem Jashari, and Talk:Adem Jashari.

Thank you, and i wait for your words.

Tadija (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Title Namimg

I noticed you mentioned the naming of Mitrovica on the talk page, could you please give your opinion at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica#Mitrovica? Regards IJA (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Ev! I saw that you were active last few days. Just wanted to ask you did you retired from Kosovo related articles? I still remember your fantastic skills regarding editing instructions, and i cannot say that someone else advised me the same as you! :) I will be happy to receive your reply. --Tadija (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tadija. :-) It's been a long time. In June 2009 I took what I expected to be a short break from Wikipedia. Then I spent some time in the Spanish version (my native language). But lately I have been very short of free time to dedicate to this hobby, and I didn't want to re-enter controversial topics without knowing how often I would be able to contribute/participate/reply. I hope that in the the next couple of months I will be able to return to a more normal rutine, and visit this virtual version of the Balkans once again (as well as finally answering to those old messages above :-). - Best, -Ev (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GREAT!! I am so glad you are here! Well, it is so quite here now regarding Kosovo, almost all of problematic editor from the past has been blocked! It was suck a roller coaster that you missed! :) Good for you! When you acclimatize, i will ask from you to help accepting WP:MOSKOS guideline. As that is the last thing that we need to make this articles great! All best! Be good. We will be in touch! :)

P.S. You proposition, kosovo-note, is still used! :) --Tadija (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo note

Hi, Ev. You are good? Just wanted to ask you something. See this, please (diff) Isn't this highly POV? Isn't this the main reason for creation of Kosovo-note? If this escalate, it would be bad. Please, can you do something about it? All best, --Tadija^taking 10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tadija. I'm fine, and hope you're too. :-) I have re-added the footnote (diff). The standard footnote is intended as a non-obtrusive way of informing our readership of Kosovo's rather complicated situation, thus avoiding long explanations in the body of each article. Since the existence of different views on Kosovo has to be mentioned in an entry on the Constitutional Court of Kosovo (cf. Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader), the footnote is the simplest way of ensuring that the issue is addressed. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ev. As always, you fixed the problem in your own cool way! Just to let you know, i may ask for your great advices in the future, as always! :) P.S. Will not be boring, promise! :) :) All best! --Tadija^taking 11:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, Ev. Can you please see this delete request.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian colonisation of Kosovo

In the sea of nationalist votes from both sides, i will believe in your's. At least one neutral. Thanks in advance. --Tadija^speaks 12:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was closed at 08:36, 19 April (UTC), while I was still soundly asleep. I have seen the now-deleted article, and based on its last version and the comments made in the deletion discussion, I would have advised its deletion.

I did not check all the sources provided (many did not mention page numbers; the importance of citing books properly should never be forgotten), but it was clear that the article lacked a main non-partisan & good-quality source specifically focused on the phenomenon of "Albanian colonisation of/immigration to/settlement in/arrival to Kosovo". That is, at the time of its deletion the article lacked the necessary firm backbone on which to build it. — Assuming that there are good sources on which to base this article, we should take into account that while more mundane topics are treated more leniently and often allowed to have articles anyway, in the case of these controversial topics such "eventualism" has proven time & again to be a recipe for disaster (in time & effort lost by all editors involved, and in the quality of the content our readers get).

In any case, there already are various other entries in which to include such content: "History of Kosovo", "Demographic history of Kosovo", "Albanians in Kosovo", "Serbian–Albanian conflict" and even "Serbs in Kosovo". Even assuming that there are good sources on which to base this article, we can afford to be picky and demand that a new entry on such a controversial issue be of good quality from the start. - Best, Ev (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man. When you explain it like that, it sound good. --18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

You are invited to join the discussion here. Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there, and will follow the discussion. Best, Ev (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, long time no see. Given your experience in the Kosovo area, it would be good to have your opinions about the suitability of this barnstar: Template:Kosovo je Srbija. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Barnstar requiring some discussion. Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Knepflerle, I hope you're fine. That thing could serve as a textbook example of creating the wrong editing atmosphere and even a "battleground" mentality. I would gladly ignore all rules and delete it myself right now, if I had the time to reply to any subsequent concerns. Instead, I'm leaving for a much more pleasant afternoon at the Book Fair. :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That confirms my gut feeling about this template, so I've taken it to TfD for wider discussion. Enjoy the fair! Knepflerle (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did, thank you. I have commented at the TfD discussion. - Ev (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Britanica re-named their article and so did the CIA World Factbook

Why shouldn't we change North-West Frontier Province's name here at Wikipedia? Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Help needed

Sorry, sir for disturbing you, but you are the one who already clearified the situation once, helping all editors involved in the quick and hidden "move-and-erase" performed by User:DIREKTOR on House of Cerva, do you remember? Well sir, since that day i also crated about 6 articles, spending lot of time and working very hard for looking for reliable sources, translating passages and quotes from Italian or uploading brand new images on commonsand wiki. Yesterday, late afternoon, I was just performing my last edits on those articles when the same well-known user decided to start his personal moving campaign. Without any respect for my efforts and above all without any care for any pursuit of consensus, he deliberately moved the articles House of Bucchia and House of Bobali under the slavicized titles he personally choose. I tried to oppose, asking to discuss prior for every move (remembering he's used to act this way) and as answer to my request e reverted my change more than three times, few seconds after each edit or move I did. Many others users are really distressed by his way to act. He had the same unacceptable behaviour few days before: when he moved deliberately Fausto Veranzio into Faust Vrancic, the slavicized form (only after having changed all related links in other articles). Even that time he didn't care about the consensus, in fact he unleashed protests from many editors, and imposed the community to ask a regula requested move.

I'm now compelled to ask your help sir, as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism.2C_editwarring_and_automatic_deliberate_redirect_on_House_of_Bucchia_.28and_several_others.29 and because you already met this situation, so you can better and easier decide how to reach a resolution.

Thanks for your past help and for helping me and other editors involved in this new and hopefully last bad situation. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kosovo-note

Template:Kosovo-note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Sulmues ^(talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

invite to discuss Kosovo geographic names

I am working on a list of issue and a stragtegy for the names of places in kosovo , User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages I would like to invite you to take part and comment, have seen your activity of kosovo articles in the past. Thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---