User talk:Ev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will respond here, on my talk page, unless you request otherwise.


If I left you a message in your talk page, you can answer there: I will see it :-)
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] There is no conterdiction

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

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


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

Hi 07fan. I (almost) always look what I revert to, and I did look in this case. I had seen you revert 99.238.138.108's edit, and your modifications to the paragraph. It was not intended to be a blind revert :-)
When reviewing the changes, and aiming at brevity & simplicity, I thought that:
  • the addition of "the confluence of the Shatt al-Arab" was unnecessary just two paragraphs below the mention of "[the Shatt al-Arab is a river] formed by the confluence of the Euphrates and the Tigris";
  • describing it again as a "waterway" was also redundant, since both the first and second paragraph mention that it is one;
  • I preferred mentioning it as simply "Arvand", instead of the full "Arvand Rūd", because the article in Encyclopædia Iranica used only "Arvand" too (as does the verse of the Bahman Yast mentioned in the article's talk page). To avoid possible conflicts, I wanted the sentence to reflect as accuratedly as possible the wording of the source used.
On the other hand, now that I think of it, I like the change of "for" by "specifically to designate".
Sorry about being lazy and just reverting all... I was tired of writing the explanations to the anon, and hoped that just adding "respectfully" to my edit summary would magically make all what I mentioned above clear to any reader. I humbly apologize.
Do you think that we could use my version, with the sole addition of the "specifically to designate" part ? - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but I think "the confluence of the Shatt al-Arab" is is a good addition within the context of the paragraph, I fixed everything else.--07fan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep it then. Thank you for doing all the work :-) And, again, my apologies for not communicating properly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:On moving a page (Istok)

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

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

[edit] cyrillic names

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

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

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for dedicating the time necessary for re-starting the project in the right track, ChrisO :-) For starters, discussion there may well prove to be the solution to many of the recurrent edit wars over style issues.
For the time being I will concentrate in populating the public watchlist, following your example as to the alphabetic order. Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosova: disambiguation page or redirect?

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

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

[edit] Quick heads-up

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

Hi Knepflerle :-) Thank you for bringing this up, I will deal with them.
There's no consensus yet on how to present articles on Kosovo, althought ChrisO mentioned that he wouldll "put together a manual of style for Kosovo placenames along the lines of WP:MOSMAC".
Your suggestion to work out clear guidelines at the Kosovo WikiProject is the obvious course of action; but to be honest, I dread to face the cascade of nationalist rants it will most certainly entail. *sigh* I will give it a try :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem ;) I don't envy the task of sorting it out (from which I happily recuse myself from lack of expertise/axes to grind). Looking at [6] this is happening sporadically form many different IP's, so it's going to keep people busy for a while. Hopefully at least if they are directed to the central scuffle over drafting a guideline they can argue there in a contained environment and it'll keep the heat and reverting off the articles! (And we might even get a happy simple Gdańzig-shaped rule in the end). Thanks and best of luck, Knepflerle (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo municipalities

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

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

[edit] Albanian/Serbian Naming Convention: Kosovo

Dear Ev,

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

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

[edit] Gjakova

Dear Ev,

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

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

[edit] Jebem ti srpsku majku

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

I do not understand Serbo-Croatian. Please, write in English. - Regards, Ev (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the Yugoslav lexicon of swear words gave me an idea of the general meaning of the comment... - Ev (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Kosovo

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

I do not mean to canvass here, but what do you think about certain Kosovar place-names being written in Albanian instead of Serbian.
First of all, I’d prefer Kosova (with the accent on the second syllable) because that’s how the overwhelming majority of the population says it (and not only Albanians). However, I am skeptical of a possible change on this aspect.
Second, the name of capital should be Prishtina as it would reflect both the primary official usage and the English pronunciation/spelling (no English speaker gets it right the first time they see Pristina, but they get Prishtina). In any case it should not be Priština with the diacritic.
Third, when it comes to towns like Skenderaj (Serbian: Srbica) and Drenas (Sr. Glogovac), one should note that the names have officially been changed just like in the case of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City). There are virtually no Serbs living in these towns and it’s unnecessary to use the Serbian names, given that they do not constitute any historical significance in the English language (like the case Germany vs. Deutschland). English speakers even adopted the change from Constantinople to Istanbul, despite the heavy use of the earlier name.
Fourth, many Wikipedia editors have told me that it is our aim to use the most frequent English names on all articles, but so far this rule has not been respected. E.g. Priština is less frequent than Prishtina and it is used on Wikipedia articles. The use of Serbian names over general English usages or the Albanian names as primary official ones is purely POV.
Finally, this is one of my main Wikipedia concerns I and would like to initiate a change through a balanced and neutrally-monitored discussion.--Getoar (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] University of Priština

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

Actually, I don't regard the university as an institution in Serbia anymore. The addition of {{Serbian universities}} was just one of the many mistakes I constantly do in Wikipedia: I simply hadn't noticed the template's title ("Universities in serbia"). - Thank you for pointing it out. I have removed it now.
As for splitting the article, for the moment I think that it would entail more problems than it would solve. Right now the article has much more content on the pre-1999 situation and the details of the ulterior coexistance of both paralell institutions than content about the current work of each one of them.
A split would leave us with three articles: a long one on the whole history and current odd situation, and two small ones on each institution, with odd names for disambiguation (University of Priština in Priština, and University of Priština in Kosovska Mitrovica ?). - Or with two articles, which would for the most part repeat the exact same information, and would differ only in the short description of the current organization & statistics.
Of course, an article split will eventually happen. But I don't think this is the right moment yet: with the current content, I think that our readership would be best served with this single comprehensive version. With time, as the article evolves, a point will be reached in which our readership will benefit more from something more than a single article, and everyone will support splitting it in some form or another.
Well, that's just my opinion, of course :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Please, take a look at the article on the University of Prishtina. I have been participating in the discussion, and this is one effort to provide concise and unbiased information. This is different from the heavily disputed, uneven, biased and non-wikipedia University of Pristina. I've kept the history section short, following the example of Uni. of Vienna and Uni. of Texas at Austin. I am hoping to remove the biased information and redirect the page to Univ. of Prishtina. The Serbian institution could have a separate page with a different name (referring to Mitrovica somehow).--Getoar (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're just in time to catch me in a brief pause from a wikibreak, Getoar :-) I will take a look at those articles tomorrow. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names of cities in Kosovo

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

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

[edit] Hey

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

[edit] Consenus breached, need support

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not, why on Earth should the flag or any of the information mentioned in the infobox be removed from the article ? It just doesn't need to be repeated in an infobox that appears to be causing much more problems than it is worth. Instead, everything would simply be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the article. For instance, the flag could be displayed in the section dealing with the 2008 declaration of independence.
After the article is finished we can spend a whole month discussing in detail what kind of infobox to use to summarize the article. We could also just restore the current one, but placing it in the 2008 UDI section instead of the top of the page. Or do something else.
The main point is that there's no need to have an infobox, and if it stands in the way of having a meaningful collaboration in one single, unified, comprehensive article, I share Fut. Perf.'s view that it's better to remove it. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] "That hellish infobox"...

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

Although I see the problems the infobox may cause to some people I think it would be wrong to just avoid them instead of solving them together. Avoiding would neither help the article nor the reader. --Tubesship (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL That a picture is worth a thousand words remains as true as ever. And if the results are this good, let's hope that a perfect future doesn't include learning to resist to such impulses :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way you are maken this

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

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

[edit] tr.wikipedia

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

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

[edit] question

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

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

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran, after considering the region's issues and conditions of the region, decided not to recognize the independence of Kosovo.[1]


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

Thank you,

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

Hi Avala. I only glimpsed at the talk page discussion before making the edit to the Czech Republic. I'm sorry, but real life is demanding my attention for the next few hours. I will look into it when I get back home. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed an alternative. - Regards, Ev (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Mareklug also agreed so it's safe to add it. Being successful at this, please take a look at India request as well. I am sure you could find a solution easily there as well. Thanks. --Avala (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure :-) I have made the edit for Iran (diff.). Regarding India, I have declined the request, because the comments by the Indian Ambassador merely repeat, almost verbatim, the official position of India as stated in the February 18 press release of their Ministry of External Affairs. The comments would add nothing new, except for indicating that India's position has not changed between February 18 and the end of March. Besides, having already an official press release from the Ministry of External Affairs, an interview to an ambassador is comparatively insignificant. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's necessary to tread carefully, Avala. That is your personal conclusion based on the absence of a particular statement from the news excerpt published by B92. Remember that to comply with our Verifiability policy, a position must be directly, explicitly, unambiguously supported by the source. So, for the specific purposes of Wikipedia, an ambassador not mentioning something in (part of) an interview does not support, prove or disprove anything regarding what has been left unmentioned.
Right now, the article has a solid source: an official press release from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. To change anything from that original statement, we would require a source of similar quality that directly, explicitly, unambiguously informs of a change or clarification of India's stance on the Kosovo issue:
  • Another press release by the Ministry of External Affairs.
  • Analyses from reputed political analysts discussing India's position (preferably emanating from academic circles).
Of course, finding proper sources is often the most difficult part of editing an article.
In any case, a country is not required to "actively not recognize" another state, something that could have undesired consequences. It's often simpler to avoid taking any formal decision whatsoever... and that's what India and the majority of the world are doing right now :-) Even if it had made up its mind already, India is unlikely to go public on that decision.
India has good reasons not to recognize Kosovo: it has its own problems with separatism and territorial disputes, and, as the ambassador said, Kosovo "can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world", including those in India itself. I don't expect it to recognize Kosovo anytime soon.
Anyway, let's remember to stick to what our sources state, and avoid inserting our own interpretations. It's not as easy as it may sound, since we homo sapiens are defined by our hability of thinking for ourselves and interpreting the information we recieve. In Wikipedia we're asked to do something contrary to our very nature :-) If you only knew how many times I have raised my fist to the air and cursed the No Original Research policy... - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regards,

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

We're basically on the same page, Avala :-) But I can't emphasize enough the need to stick to what our sources state. Even if India (or any other state) may indeed have a more complex reaction than just a single -and rather boring- official statement, we can't add anything if we don't have good sources with which to back up the facts.
In the hypothetical case that no other reliable source (official or otherwise) discusses India's position(s) for the next six months (or years), then per our Verifiability policy there's simply nothing we can do about it. But rest assured that any "normal" reader will understand that India didn't ignore the issue, but just decided to remain "neutrally ambiguous" instead and not choose sides.
I mentioned at the article's talk page the possibility of mentioning Swarup's comment to indicate that India's official position remains unchanged as of late March. I'm not particularly fond of such an addition, but I understand the idea, and I can live with it.
However, Swarup merely repeats what the official press release stated before, to the extent of using almost the very same wording. There's no need for the article to mention the exact same thing twice, quoting first the Ministry of External Affairs and then one of its employees:
It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties.MoEF
In late March Ajay Swarup, Indian ambassador to Serbia, reiterated India's full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and belief that solution must be found through peaceful dialogue.Swarup
That repetition is actually irritating :-) Adding "In late March the Indian Ambassador to Serbia, Ajay Swarup, confirmed his country's stance on the issue." instead would avoid the repetition and even enhance clarity.
What do you think about it ? - Ev (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks,

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

Good, I have proposed the addition at the article's talk page :-)
The issue of sources is, as you well said, basically one of common sense. I agree that there's nothing wrong with B92 in general: the merits of their report should be examined on a case by case basis, as with any other news media. However, we would do well in relying on non-Serbian/Albanian sources whenever possible: it would mitigate possible perceptions of bias and simplify the editing process.
I'll check out that Georgian gaffe later tonight :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree with you that in this particular case, using B92 shouldn't be a problem. However, it's only fair to wait until an agreement is reached on the issue of "local" sources. A confirmation of a previous statement is not that important anyway.
LOL I have not being following those details :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks

The link was a good idea.

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

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

Hi Beamathan, and don't mention it :-) It's not really necessary, but I like to keep links to deleted sections in talk pages, to avoid confusing some readers.
As you already figured out, the link is just a permanent link to an old version of the talk page, and it says so at the top of the page. "oldid" means just "old ID", or "identification of old version stored in the article's history"; and as most IDs, each one has its own number, in this case 203184480 is the "ID" of this particular version. Look at any page history (for example, that of Talk:Kosovo), and place the cursor over the different dates of each version: you will notice that each old version has its own identification number.
When looking at the page history, you can choose to watch differences between two versions of a page, or just any old version individually. — By the way, take a look at the "toolbox" at the left of your screen: the last option generates a permanent link to the version of the page you're currently watching.
These possibilities explain part of the importance of preserving page histories, and moving pages properly instead of performing evil cut-and-paste moves :-) The other reason is to comply with the GFDL license.
The hash (the symbol #) allows to link to a specific section of a page (be it a current version or an old one). Thus, Talk:Kosovo links to the talk page in general, while Talk:Kosovo#The Infoboxes links to the particular section titled "The Infoboxes".
Finally, to "archive" (actually, remove) a section like we did with "When you need relevant data to Kosovo oand Serbia", simply delete the text of the section and replace it with a permanent link to an old version of the page, like this. — For archiving talk pages in general, take a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. If after reading that page you still have any doubts, don't hesitate to ask me :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Very helpful. Thank you. Beam 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to be able to help :-) Ev (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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

[edit] Kosovo and the disputed territory debate.

Hi,

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

Hi Jawohl. The countries/parties that dispute it are Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo itself (or, if you prefer, the Serbian state and the local Albanian population in the process of being organized as a Kosovan state with the help of UNMIK): both claim sovereignty over that territory. The current introduction explains it by mentioning that "the [PISG] declared the territory's independence as the Republic of Kosovo[, an act] strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which continues to claim it as its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."
Yes, the introducion could be improved. I am keeping an eye on that article and horrible talk page. I'm having little time today, but I will try to comment if I think I can help. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Incivility at Talk:Kosovo

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

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

[edit] Saudi Arabia - edit request

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

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

[edit] B92

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Mareklug. I'm sorry for the delay in answering you; I have not been active on Wikipedia lately. Thank you for your kind words :-) However, given that I have been editing on this topic since July 2006, a simple look at the sorry state of most Kosovo-related articles proves just how small my contributions to Wikipedia actually are.
As you asked me, I have taken a quick look into that B92 article, "UN: Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route" (26 March 2008, source: Tanjug), and your fact-checking. Your analysis seems to be correct. First, the B92 article appears to mix two different UNODC reports:
  • The wording "The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released a new report" seems to refer to the UNODC Annual Report 2008 (.pdf file, ca. 2 MB) published in 10 March 2008.
  • However, the comments and quotations in the article appear to be exaggerations and distortions of the 2007 World Drug Report, page 83 (.pdf file, 7.45 MB), published in 26 June 2007.
A comparison:
B92: UN: Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route
NEW YORK -- The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released a new report.		 2007 World Drug Report, page 83:
Concerns about cocaine along the Balkan route
It warned that the axis between South American drug cartels and the Albanian mafia have reached "alarming proportions", while reports by several intelligence agencies show that Kosovo is a distribution center on the crossroads of global routes and pathways of drug trafficking. While most cocaine shipments from South America continue to be directed towards western Europe (more than 99 per cent of European cocaine seizures), some shipments to East Europe and the Balkan countries have been noticed by enforcement agencies.
This presents reason for concern, primarily because of the new pathways of drug trafficking, and "inclusion of cocaine in the range of products offered by the groups that are active along the Balkan drug route", the UNODC annual report for 2007 said. This raises concerns about the development of new traficking routes and/or the incorporation of cocaine into the range of products offered by traditional heroin trafficking groups operating along the Balkan route.
The Albanian mafia has recently begun taking over the control of ports in Romania, in addition to the already solid network existing in Albania and Montenegro, the report said. Some cases of cocaine shipments via the Black Sea to Romania and via the Adriatic Sea to Montenegro often organized by Albanian criminal groups, have already been observed.
The rest of the B92 article offers many other claims, without even clarifying properly if they are supposedly mentioned in any UNODC report or are a collection of totally independent claims (this second option looks more probable). So, the article's title appears to be a misleading merge of the UNODC resport/s ("UN:") with an unrelated claim ("Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route") which supposedly comes from "a report presented to the U.S. Congress". *sigh*
This horrible article doesn't change my general impression of B92 as a rather "normal" news source. In any case, the reasons to avoid using Serbian and Albanian sources in that article go beyond their reliability: by mitigating possible perceptions of bias such avoidance provides better content to our readers and simultaneoulsy facilitates the collaboration among aditors. — By the way, I had seen your comments regarding the maps at Commons.
For the last two weeks, real life has kept me away from the endless discussions of Kosovo-related articles. I expect to remain fairly busy for three more weeks, and to tell the truth I'm enjoying the wikibreak :-) I wish you the best of lucks in bringing some sanity to those crazy articles. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary

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

Also if you would be so kind, a consensus has been reached on the US [9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ijanderson977. For the last two weeks, real life has been demaning my attention. I expect to remain fairly busy for three more weeks, and to tell the truth I'm enjoying the wikibreak :-) - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Kosovo/Kosova

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

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

[edit] Thanks

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

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

[edit] reply (my talk page)

You're most welcome.

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

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

[edit] Thank you

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

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

[edit] Diacritics

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

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

[edit] International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

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

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

[edit] Spot Welders - please advise

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

Hi Shamus00. So-called "red links" to subjects that deserve an encyclopedic article are fine, and even encouraged :-) See when to create red links.
The problem with that article is the general tone in which it is written. Similar to an advertisement, it extols the virtues of the company instead of describing its history and activities with a more sober (and clear) language.
To get an idea of what Wikipedia articles aim for, take the time to read our (rather longish) neutral point of view policy and the much shorter style guideline on the perfect article – and do take a quick look at the other writing guides linked to at the bottom of that page, especially the one on writing better articles.
To see those principles applied to an actual article, take a look at Panavision, which appears to be the only featured article dealing with a company related to the film industry.
To get better advice from wikipedians more familiar with this topic than myself, do not hesitate to contact those working in the WikiProject Films and its filmmaking task force – either posting a comment at the task force talk page or contacting any of their members individually.
I hope this can get you started :-) Let me know if I can help you in any other way. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosova - Kosovo

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

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

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

I do understand the situation. The political party is named Aleanca për Ardhmërinë e Kosovës in Albanian, and translates its own name into English as "Alliance for the Future of Kosova" instead of "of Kosovo" (as can be seen in its official website). Obviously, the party itself prefers this form, and foreign embassies diplomatically use their preferred name :-)
However, the English-language Wikipedia does not name its articles according to the subject's perferences. We don't do diplomatic lingo :-) Instead, following the principle of least astonishment, we simply reflect the names commonly used in English-language publications. In the case of this political party, English-language publications generally call it "of Kosovo", a more intuitive and consistent form, and therefore so do we.
For a similar situation take the case of Kiev. The Ukrainian government prefers the form "Kyiv". However, despite that fact, in the English-language Wikipedia we call the city "Kiev", because that form represents the current common English usage. — See the latest proposal to rename that article into "Kyiv".
Of course, if at any future time the form "of Kosova" replaces "of Kosovo" as the common English usage, our article will be renamed accordingly. — The same is valid for Ukraine's capital: if the form "Kyiv" ever becomes the standard English usage, that article will be renamed accordingly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the Persian name of Shatt al-Arab

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

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

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

Alborz, let me quote the entire paragraph:
"Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article."
Yes, the naming conflict guideline allows the use of synonyms, and even two terms, names or forms. But it most certainly doesn't allow the use of any synonym or alternative name or form: it's simple common sense that in the spirit of our general naming conventions (especially the issue of writing in English), the idea is to allow the use of more than one name or form in common English usage.
In other words: if English-language publications commonly refer to a certain subject by more than one name, you can use any of those names in articles, or even give two, for clarity. — However, this is not the case of our waterway: Shatt al-Arab is the clear standard English form, used most of the time, while Arvand Rud is the little-known Farsi name seldom used in English-language publications. In such a case, the English-language Wikipedia should simply use the standard English form (Shatt al-Arab), the only one the vast majority of our readership would be familiar with.
In the few cases in which the Farsi name is relevant we should mention it once, along the lines of "the Shatt al-Arab waterway (Arvand Rud in Persian)". But in the vast majority of our articles such an addition would be nothing more than unnecessary clutter.
And rest assured that the omission of the little-known, seldom used Farsi name will not cause any confusion in our English-speaking readership :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, the naming conventions policy does deal primarily with article's titles. However, those titles are the basis for the subsequent consistent usage in all other articles. — This is a matter of common sense actually. After all, our goal is to communicate facts in English to English speakers. When a standard English name exists for a place, it is obvious that it should be used when writting an English-language text which aims to follow the common usage of reliable English-language publications (as the English-language Wikipedia does). In short, we use English.
The naming conventions for geographic names state this rather obvious fact quite clearly in its third general guideline, and I quote:
1. The title:
2. The lead:
3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article."
In other words: The same name as in the title of the main article (Shatt al-Arab) should be used consistently in the text of all other articles using the name in question.
The only exception allowed is for the use of alternative names in specific historical contexts. Like the rest of our naming conventions policy, this exception is based on our core criterion of reflecting common English usage. — If, when referring to a specific historical context, most reliable English-language publications use a certain name (different from the modern one), we follow that usage too, and use that name consistently when dealing with that historical context. — For example, articles dealing with the 2nd century should use Ariminum instead of Rimini, those dealing with the 14th century should use Constantinople instead of Istanbul, those dealing with the 18th century should use Pressburg instead of Bratislava, and those dealing with 1945 should use Stalingrad instead of Volgograd. In all these cases, you can rely on redirects or use the [[Bratislava|Pressburg]] function.
The main issue is that, in using those alternative names, we're merely applying our core criterion of following common English usage - we simply do as most reliable English-language publications do.
For the case of our waterway, of course we can use (or mention) any name other than the standard English one (Shatt al-Arab), if and only if this alternative name is commonly used in English-language publications, either generally or in a specific historical context. As far as I know, this is not the case of the Farsi name. Remember that we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
And our English-speaking readers won't be confused by seeing the standard English name only, without mention of the Farsi name. In fact, seeing the standard English name, as in most other reliable English-language publications, is exactly what they would expect to find. It's the very opposite of "confusing our readers": it's communicating information to them in the very language they speak (instead of using Farsi, French or Chinese). Again, we use English. — In any case, even some of the Iranian references used in the articles use the form "Arvand-Roud (Shatt al Arab)".
The Farsi name is an interesting fact to mention in the article on the Shatt al-Arab, but, far from being useful, its addition to every Iran-related article would only be unnecessary clutter. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a forum to promote the name preferred by Iranians.
Regards, Ev (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Regarding the points you make in your first paragraph:
Using the standard English names in titles and in the body of all articles is an undisputed idea among reasonable people willing to write an English-language encyclopedia that follows the common usage of most reliable English-language publications. It is disputed only by those who disagree with our current naming conventions, and simply ignore them in order to use true names unrecognizable to literate anglophones but dear to their nationalistic hearts.
The Arabic name Shatt al-Arab is not only more common in English, but it has become the clear standard English usage. For all intent and purpose, it is the English name. — Just as the German names Elbe (and not the Czech Labe) and Oder (and not the Polish Odra), the Spanish name Ebro (and not the Catalan Ebre), the French name Seine, and the Italian name Po have all become for all intent and purpose the English names of those rivers.
A substantial proportion of literate anglophones are familiar with the name Shatt al-Arab... especially after both Bushes assured constant mentions of Iraqi geography in newspapers, magazines and nightly newscasts. — But regardless of whether any English-speaker is already familiar with a certain name, the question is with which name is he most likely to familiarize himself when reading an English-language publication. It is pretty obvious that it would be the standard English name for the river, Shatt al-Arab.
If you read again the section on "multiple local names" of the naming conventions for geographic names, you'll see that it deals only with cases in which "English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the [...] tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." — This is obviously not the case of the Shatt al-Arab, whose importance has generated copious amounts of mentions in English-language publications.
Regarding the Iranian road signs, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. And we write for readers more intelligent than this confused & illiterate tourist who relies on Wikipedia articles to navigate Iran's roads. In any case, were he ever to search for "Arvand" (one way or the other) or look at the maps of our Iran-related articles, he would soon understand that those Arvand Rud road signs refer to what the English-speaking world knows as the Shatt al-Arab :-)
Finally, the alternative name should be mention only where is relevant: in the main article on the Shatt al-Arab, of course, and perhaps in few others (very few). But most certainly not in all articles dealing with "local Iranian entities", either directly or indirectly. — We don't mention in every Bavaria-related article that Munich is called München in German (even in their road signs!). We mention this fact in the article on Munich, and there alone... in all other articles we use the standard English name only. — The same approach applies to all places with a clear standard English name, and should apply to the case of the Shatt al-Arab too.
As a last detail, when I speak of common sense, I refer to the common natural understanding of editors following the editorial practices of the English-language Wikipedia. When I give my personal opinion, my personal view on a certain issue, I clarify that I'm doing it. I don't mix the two concepts. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

You're right, of course. I meant that in my opinion there are very few articles where the Farsi name would be relevant for an anglophone reader. I apologize for any lack of clarity.
A good comparison would be the Persian Gulf, which as you know is called Arabian Gulf in some Arab countries. Where -in which kind of articles- would it be appropriate to use the form "Persian Gulf (known as Arabian Gulf in some Arab countries)" instead of the standard English name alone ? I think that in very few articles. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
When I was writing here , I do have the "Persian Gulf " in mind ! When comparing them , we should note that the " Persian Gulf " is an international body of water , that have to have an international name , but the Shaat-al-Arab is not international and is a common river between Iran and Iraq : that means there is no official international name for that and there is no need for it also ! Anyway , as you show that in the talk page of Shaat - al - arab , the Arabic name is the dominant one in English ( and not in the international name list ) , that maybe because the nowadays Iraq was a mandate of British empire for a long time . I do agree to use the English name in Wikipedia , but not to take it as the " International name" . All of the disagreements you see in Iranian editors about using of the alternative names for "Persian Gulf " and " Shaat- al - arab " ; reflects the prologue of the Iraq-Iran war that began around these issues and resulted such a destruction for both sides that was comparable - correcting the number of the population -to world wars in Europe.Thanks again --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)