User talk:DiedonD

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, DiedonD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Ev (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tadija (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Tadija (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Prokletije, you will be blocked from editing. CardinalDan (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames in the English-language Wikipedia

Hello DiedonD. I noticed your comments at Talk:Prokletije & Talk:Kosovo.

The placenames we use in articles of the English-language Wikipedia are based on our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names. — Please, take the time to review them carefully.

In short, these policies and guidelines ask us to follow common English usage; that is, to use the same names the majority of English-language publications, books, magazines, news organizations, and even normal speakers use when referring to the subject in question.

There are three main reasons for choosing this common English usage approach over other possibilities (be it "local names", "official names" or "English names"):

First, because these are the names the greatest part of our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize, thus making our articles easier to understand and more predictable.
Remember also that the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Second, because of all the problems that would derive from having to decide what the "local" or "official" name is. Who decides it ? What would an objective criterion be ? How fair or biased can such decisions be ?
Take some time to think about it, and you will understand that what may seem fair to you, would probably be extremely biased for others, and vice versa. It's basically the same problem that led to the idea of verifiability, not truth (in this case, common English usage, not "official or local one").
Third, because there are many different opinions on when a word or name is English and when not, on when it has entered the English language or remains "foreign". – English usage, on the other hand, is something entirely different and relatively easy to determine: what words or names are commonly used by English-language publications, irrespective of the word's or name's "Englishness" :-)

Regarding content, we restrict ourselves to reflect what our reliable sources state, and do not declare what the truth is. — Well, in very much the same manner, 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.

On the issue of "double naming" (or triple, as in "Nemuna/Prokletije/Northern Albanian Alps"), our naming conventions for geographic names mention that "[e]xperience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We recommend choosing a single name..." Our neutral point of view policy is quite clear in indicating that double or "segmented" article names, in the form of Nemuna/Prokletije or Nemuna (Prokletije), are disfavored. — We use a single name instead: the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize.

I read your comment at Talk:Kosovo. You also mentioned that the mountains "exist only in [Kosovo]! Why would you name it by any other name appart from how Kosovars call it by majority?"

(Or, to edit it in accordance to your following comments: "the mountains exist only in the Balkans. Why would you name it by any other name appart from how people from the Balkans call it by majority?")

Here is why. Our naming conventions consider that it is better to use the names the greatest part of our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize, not the ones the local Albanian, Serb or Montenegrin population use. As an English-language encyclopedia, we prioritize a world-wide anglophone readership over the Albanian or Serbo-Croatian-speaking inhabitants of the region itself.

For the specific purposes of name usage in the English-language Wikipedia, the language and usages of the population of Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, Brazil or China are mostly irrelevant. Local usage only becomes important as a tie-breaker of sorts when there's no common English usage at all. This is not often the case of Kosovo-related articles, for there was a significant amount of English-language literature and printed material on it even before 1999, and there is much, much more since 1999.

For a number of historical reasons, the English language has adopted the Serbo-Croatian forms for Yugoslav place names (see English usage related to Kosovo). We merely restrict ourselves to reflect this usage. Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of the Albanian names by the English language. – Again, bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

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.

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.

I hope this long post helps to clarify the situation. If after carefully reading the naming conventions you still have any doubts on this topic, don't hesitate to ask me about it. :-) To keep discussions coherent, I would appreciate if you could post any answer here, in your talk page, please. I will see your post. :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this all to me Eve. I really appreciated. It seems youve covered quite alot of issues of mine.

However. If Wikipedia is descriptive, it fails to describe how was a place in our Republic been named! Dont you find that bothersome? Milions of people come in here, and theyll be misinformed about say, this current topic about a certain mountain name.

And say a tourist comes in here and says 'Ahh, such a great country this is, now Id like to visit a bit of your Prokletije if you dont mind' and I can assure you that 90% of the Kosovar Albanian population wouldnt know wha that means!! Ive purposely excluded the 5%, who might assume that your calling Nemuna by an incorrect Serbo-Montenegrian word for it, that comes out badly in English anyhow.

See my point! If you have interest about Kosova, we should tell you how it is here, cause we live here, just like you should tell how it is there at your country wherever it may be.

Secondly. I am aware that this is an English speaking site, and Im so very fine with that. In fact, we officially recognize the English language here, that even in our driving licences, thats only valid in Losova Republic and certain neighbouring countries aswell, its in English after Albanian and Serbian come first. So that of course must remain so, in order to attract more people who are curious to know of how it is here. And surely the issue of having to learn a specific language before you start visiting is a thing of the past just because now we have this wonderful international language.

However. Theres a wonderful word for Nemuna in English! There is no adaptaion neccessary to anykind of language, for names that already have a meaning in English. And its Occursed Mountains! Why bother adapting?!

Furthermore, I dont know weather you have noticed it, but even if you tried to read Prokletije, you would be misspelling it greatly in using English characters in it. You would read it PRO-CLET-EE-JE, while the correct spelling in Serbian/Montenegrian is PRO-CLET-EE-YE. The 'J' is spelled like an 'Y'. So you are describing a name for our mountain, that belongs to our Republic, that NO-ONE on earth would recognize, if you were to call it out laud and not reading it!! The minority of Serbs, Montenegrians or the majority of us, wont recognize it like that if someone says it, cause it leaves rooms for mispelling. And you as a visitor that dont usually live here, surely wouldnt know!

So what remains to be done now! Would you seek further adaptation and make it a Prokletiye, just to push on with the unneccessary adaption in the first place, from a Serbo, Montenegrian name, while theres already a great word for it and its Occursed Mountains form in pure English on an English site!

And if an English speaking foreigner comes here and mentioned in English 'I want to go to Occursed Mountains' all its required then is the nearby translater (of whichever ethnicity), as is usual in everywhere else, and then Everyone will interpret from that to their own language, and their own meaningful picture in their mind of our mountains. And thus, there wont be this gap, of multi miningful, unneccessary misguadance of our mountain.

Surely as it is is misguideful both in spelling and in correctness!

And lastly, we are the ones that should be asked how a certain area is called, cause we are the authority here. And we can use common sense to go by with that.

How about I call 'Themes' a 'Thupra'. In which case I adopted it to my imaginary language cause it so means better to me than what it is? Why is it Themes? Who decides that its Themes? Think about it, and youll see that the authority in UK Government decides about it. And not us here that have no authority about the UK country.

Im completely assuming that youre from UK, Eve. Its just for analogous purposes. 213.163.118.161 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh curses! That was me, my 30 day automatic loging in mustve finished! DiedonD (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I copied parts of your comments bellow, and replied afterwards:

You said: If Wikipedia is descriptive, it fails to describe how was a place in our Republic been named!

Not really. You appear ot be confusing style with content.

Wikipedia's style (the names we use) is descriptive of English usage, mirroring the names most commonly used in English-language publications (the ones the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize).
Wikipedia's content (the information we provide in the body of articles) does mention the names used in English and by the local populations.

You said: Milions of people come in here, and theyll be misinformed about say, this current topic about a certain mountain name.

No, they won't be misinformed. In the current version of the article, the first sentence gives the two names commonly used in English-language publications ("Prokletije or North Albanian Alps, sometimes known as the Accursed Mountains, is a mountain range in the Balkans..."), while the lead section mentions how these mountains are called by Albanians, Kosovars, Montenegrins & Serbs, and I quote:

"In Albanian the range is called Bjeshkët e Nemuna, meaning 'The Cursed Mountains', or Alpet Shqiptare, meaning 'Albanian Alps'. In Montenegrin and Serbian it is called Prokletije (Проклетије), literally 'The Damned' (plural)."

All information is there, both about English usage & about local languages. :-)

You said: a tourist comes in here and says '[...] Id like to visit [the] Prokletije [...]' and I can assure you that 90% of the Kosovar Albanian population wouldnt know wha that means!!

If that tourist had read our article, he would have known that in English the mountains are commonly called Prokletije, North Albanian Alps or Accursed Mountains, that in Albanian they are called Bjeshkët e Nemuna (meaning 'The Cursed Mountains') or Alpet Shqiptare (meaning 'Albanian Alps'), and that in Montenegrin and Serbian they are called Prokletije (Проклетије), literally 'The Damned' (plural). — If he had read our article, he would have had no problem in conveying what he meant, regardless of whether his interlocutors were other tourists, Albanians, Kosovars, Montenegrins or Serbs. :-)

You said: If you have interest about Kosova, we should tell you how it is here, cause we live here, just like you should tell how it is there at your country wherever it may be.

That is incorrect. You don't need to be from a certain place to be able to explain how things are there: you only need to have access to accurate information about that place. Furthermore, being from a place does not guanrantee accurate knowledge about that place.

You said: Theres a wonderful word for Nemuna in English! There is no adaptaion neccessary to anykind of language, for names that already have a meaning in English. And its Occursed Mountains!

Our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names indicate that we should follow the usage commonly found in English-language publications (the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize). — To use Cursed Mountains or Accursed Mountains as a title, it should be demostrated that this name is at least as commonly used as the others in English-language publications (see Widely accepted name). After a cursory look, that doesn't appear to be the case.

You said: if you tried to read Prokletije, you would be misspelling it greatly in using English characters in it. You would read it PRO-CLET-EE-JE, while the correct spelling in Serbian/Montenegrian is PRO-CLET-EE-YE.

English itself is not always pronounced as it is written. In any case, proper pronounciation can be explained in the article with IPA codes & recordings (cf. our article on Warsaw).

You said: we [Albanians] are the ones that should be asked how a certain area is called, cause we are the authority here. And we can use common sense to go by with that.

How about I call 'Themes' a 'Thupra'. In which case I adopted it to my imaginary language cause it so means better to me than what it is? Why is it Themes? Who decides that its Themes? Think about it, and youll see that the authority in UK Government decides about it. And not us here that have no authority about the UK country.

Our article on the Thames uses the name Thames because, in accordance with our naming conventions, it is the name commonly used for that river in English-language publications, and thus the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. — Notions of "state authority" played no role in the decision (nor should they).

You are free to call the Thames by any name you choose. But when editing articles of the English-language Wikipedia, you have to comply with its editorial policies, and use Thames.

In the same manner, our article on the Prokletije mountains uses the name Prokletije because it appears to comply with our naming conventions, apparently being the name commonly used for the mountains in English-language publications, and thus the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. — Notions of "state authority" played no role in the decision (nor should they).

You are free to call these mountains by any name you choose. But when editing articles of the English-language Wikipedia, you have to comply with its editorial policies, and use Prokletije.

Best, Ev (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what your saying is that you rely on names that are most commonly found in English-language publications and just simply, take it from there! REGARDLESS, if those publications are out of date, and (this is where it gets interesting) REGARDLESS if someone like me wants to report a new up to date reality here in Kosova Republic neither!

Am I right? You dont care how the people here call it! Just as long that it yields a greater number of results following up a certain name! The name may be useless here in Kosova for 95 out of 5 people which wont recognize that name, and that doesnt bothers you, just as long as the title yields most results up there on the sky, groundless, on the internets!

Well then I must say, you are getting out of touch, are closing yourselves with old information and unneccessarily depend on other publications!

Do you know the definition of a 'source' Ev? Do you think its alirght to evade sources that are on the field and just follow up numbers and results on the internets? Without slightest concern about whats going on, as is majorly described and experienced as a reality, by the 95% of people down here on the ground?

Dont you think that them other English speaking publications that you so rely upon so much, wont do that sooner or later? Wont the new article making publisher do some journal work and ask people here how it is first and later on how it was? Why must you be so passive and await to adopt this reality the last?! After all those English speaking publications of yours that you rely on, have done their job first, while you have a sympathetic to Wiki source right here and now, that is among 95% of people that experiences it differently then what is stated as a title in the article?

Theyd need to actually come here, and ask around, probably offer us a free coffe so as it opens up the conversation and then make statistics an all that. Im giving you a shortcut! Im a source that tells you how it is here by experience, and am solid strong about it, cause I get to experience this mountain over here, EVERYDAY! I get to see it, breath its air, walk in it, touch it. All you do is read what others that have asked the sources here long ago and published it with an old name, asking only the former authority, and follow it just because of that and because of the results on the internets!

How do you think that you can be wrong, when you have 95% of this countries people supporting you for Nemuna as the title of this article?

Covering your eyes by relying on other English speaking publications, greater number results and yoru conventions just blinds you from this fresh 'reporter' of yours, that is trying to contribute a reality of how it is here!

Reality is shared among all of us. This articles title of yours, doesnt represents that reality that is shared by 95% of people here, rather represents some 5% of it, represents old authority, out of date/not asked by sources here now for that information, and of course it aludes one to think that since it has a slavic annotation, that perhaps a Serbian authority might still be here!

Bizzare!

If you need to describe the reality as it is today, and here as is experienced by 95% of people! And by experience I mean, actually seeing it, smelling it, touching it, tasting fruits in it, and feeling it! Then Im here today to tell you that its Nemuna, and thus am giving you the opportunity to follow up, and be the first rather than the last to adopt that reality!

There isnt some high phillosophical formula that needs to be applied to come for these results here on the ground! Ask anyone, and 95 our of 5 people would say the same that its Nemuna!

Chosing to go for old, unrepresentative reality, just because other English speaking publications havent followed it up yet, while you have this fresh one right here and now, is wrong! And no amount of numbers in the internets (results) or any type of writting cannot EVER match people that get to experience this reality on each second basis!

In the end. Things you write here are just letters. Ill be climbing Nemuna tomorow!

Weather you chose to react now or later on is irrelevant for us neither. But it would be a shame for our cool Wiki, that such a fast growing popular peoples enciclopedia, to suddenly loose opportunities by denying fresh contributors' reports on present time majorly experienced realities, and grow the last, follow up the last, when all the other English speaking publcications have done it first, while it was given the opportunity today for such an obvios, direct eye contact, report of reality!

Tell me that that absurd denial has any meaning at all and that its right?

Wiki the denial of fresh info contributors and a passive other publication comformist?! I dont think so! Hopefully not! DiedonD (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our naming conventions indicate that we should limit ourself to reflect the names commonly found in English-language publications. Of course, we use current publications, not outdated ones. :-) See our verifiability & no original research policies, and the reliable sources guideline.

If/when most English-language publications change the names they use for these mountains, at that moment the English-language Wikipedia will reflect that change, but not before. — You may disagree with this approach, but that is how the English-language Wikipedia currently works. As I mentioned above, you are free to propose changes to our naming conventions (for example, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions), but while the current conventions remain in place, they should be respected: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia..

Wikipedia editors & readers are interested in how the people of Albania, Kosovo, Montengro and Serbia call these mountains. We provide that information in the body of the article. — Remember that our articles are written for a world-wide anglophone audience, not for Albanians, Kosovars, Montenegrins or Serbs only. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to you issue is not how we here on the ground call these mountains! You openly confirmed that thats the last thing you are concerned with!

Youd rather passively follow some other English publication, then accept a report of eye contact reality now, that 95% of people here call it Nemuna. And the mountain largely rests in our country!

The issue is, that you are choosing to use a non English language name for the title and reference, although you have the meaning of that mountain in English! And that the name youve chosen doesnt represents the majority that live on the country where the mountain rests in predominantly! Thus the other name youve chosen for the title isnt recognized in the country that the mountain majorly stands in!

So what are you telling the world then? The title has a name that we here, where the mountain is predominantly in, dont recognize and care for!

See how out of touch you get there?

Youre going by the flows of others and your conventions, but fail to accept that its called Nemuna in this country by nearly us all!

So then, you only represent others' claims and not neccesarily the reality!

If youre after accuracy, then you should open up an article

"Titles and Names of articles that Wikipedia losses touch with reality"

And then go ahead and put Prokletije there, as well as many Cities inside Kosova. There you could also state the fact that your conventions and the fact that other English publications are the fault why you call a mountain thats not supported by real people on the real field here, and all that. So then it will be accurate. People that are interested in knowing at what articles you loose touch with reality, and why is that so, would go there and see all those articles, including this mountain and many of our cities.

But leave the people that would like to know how is the reality on the field here alone! And get in touch with a majority here directly, that can support you for Nemuna as a title instead!

Thats where the misguadance is coming from! It comes from going out of touch first, and then representing minor perople or minor parts of the mountain instead, to the cost of the majority!

Or if you suddenly go for a 'Well English speaking people worldwide dont understand what Nemuna means!' then you can put Occursed as the title. We are alright with our mountain to be named with an English name. But chosing a name that only represents a small minority, or small parts of the mountain that is shared by neighbouring countries, and leave US behind, is highly out of touch of you! Thats to the cost of accuracy Im afraid. An issue that Im trying to get through to you.

BTW. Them naming conventions that your linking me to. Dont think that I havent went there. But it looks like a Hardcore Manual, or some Highly Lawful Consitutional, Terms of Use - lawful language, that Im having difficulties understanding, much less respond there.

I consider myself like an open sense reporter. I go on the field, use my senses, see how it is using no more than my eyes, hands and things like that, on the ground, and come here to report that there simple are some innaccuracies. What youve chosen to put for the title for our mountain Nemuna is one of them. Together with those cities. I went to Peja, and have regularly went to Prishtina. If you could use Google earth today, but on a horizontal cameras instead, you too would see that those are innacurate, in that they dont represent the 95% of people that live here call it.

But perhaps you could do the honor and state there on that link on yor onventions that, while you were trying to put chaos of info into control, youve devized some cool conventions and routes that are the only means of candidating for a change of a name. And that in this case, there is a flaw, a problem, if you will. Cause the same devized convention and route is standing in the way of adopting a realiy. Like software leacks. And in this particular problem, there is this case that a Wiki sympathiser wants to report a reality, which is proven on the field, is fresh and up to date. Really up do date. Like each second up to date, even when you read this part, up to date! And that those conventions and the decision of following after an English publication has done it first, thus make Wiki respond the last, appear to be standing in the way in adoopting that reality, cause it works against the people that live by the Nemuna mountain, as well as those inaccurately stated cities, and they do so everyday, every hour, every minute, every second of their lives, even when you are reading this response! And all of them can claim without any doubt and using no more than their own eyes (thats like more than a milion and a half of people living here in Kosova Republic) that those names are innacurately representing the majority here, and thus are awaitng you to adopt that reality!

I just want Wiki to represent us. It isnt doing so by using names that we dont, for our mountains and cities in our Country!

Best

DiedonD (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. For the specific purpose of article naming (and the subsequent consistent use of names in other articles), the names used by the local Albanian majority, Montengrins, Serbs, Brazilians and Chinese are mostly irrelevant. We only care about what names are commonly used in English-language publications (irrespective of the "Englishness" of those names). We are concerned with the reality of English usage (as attested in current English-language publications) only, not with the reality of "local" usages by Albanians, Kosovars, Montenegrins or Serbs. — This is so because we are interested in communicating information efficiently to an anglophone readership, by using the names they are most familiar with.

To compare: should the Albanian-language Wikipedia drop the name Londra or Londër and adopt London instead, just because the latter is the name used by the local inhabitants of a city that is located in an anglophone country ? No, it shouldn't. – In my personal opinion, local populations have absolutely no right to dictate what names should others use. Such right would go against any notion of individual freedom.

On the other hand, when dealing with the content of our articles, Wikipedia editors and readers are interested about local usages & names. As mentioned above, we have dedicated a whole paragraph to address the names by which these mountains are called by the local population.

Whether you agree with this approach or not, this is how the English-language Wikipedia works. We're not interested in "adopting a reality", but in faithfully reflecting what English-language reliable sources already use. In general, I'm content with our current naming conventions, and see no major problem with them (otherwise, I would have proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions).

You said: I just want Wiki to represent us. It isnt doing so by using names that we dont, for our mountains and cities in our Country!

Let's be clear about this: the English-language Wikipedia does not aim to represent any specific national group, or the naming preferences of any specific national group. – The names used in our articles, however, aim at reflecting the current English language (as attested in current English-language publications). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be London, cause Londoners live there and their naming of the land where they walked should be respected. Cause they know it better, and experience it in everyday basis!

It should be Nemuna cause largely it resides on our Republic of Kosova, and we have named it so!

This isnt an issue of individual freedom, its common sense, cause if every individual creates names for things in countries where we wont ever step foot on in ones life, will come up with such irrelavant names, and will guide to such chaos that, we would really be messed up.

Whatever state Wikipedia is at this state, you have ceiled yourself from reality, and its just a silly situation. Here I am telilng you that my mountain is named Nemuna, you call it something else irrelavant to what I say, saying that 'If we all get to call whatever we choose other things in other countries we would have more freedom irrelevant of chaos!' and are closing your eyes on this issue, while Im still here telling you that youre wrong and 95% of people living here proove it, while you may have not ever stepped foot on the mountain!!!

Its common on field practice against passive conformism and innaccurate English naming!

DiedonD (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're are free to have your own personal opinions on the issue, of course. However, while the current naming conventions remain in place, they should be respected: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]