User talk:Daesitiates/Ardian

Article review

On first reading of this article, two important comments come to mind:

1. First, please read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. It explains how to insert inline references and have them link to the reference list at the bottom of an article. Copy-and-paste from another article doesn't work well at all.
2. Next, please read WP:OR, which discusses original research, which is not part of how Wikipedia operates. We must present information that is published elsewhere. For example, you included this sentence: It also seems linguistically plausible to connect the name of Ardiaei with Latin "Ardea", meaning "Heron". This is original research, unless a scholar wrote that somewhere and you are paraphrasing, in which case it needs a citation.

Let's work through issues one at a time and we'll hopefully be able to arrive at something that can be incorporated into the main article.

You may also want to read WP:FIRST, which is a helpful primer on writing articles.  Frank  |  talk  17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, first of all thanks for your support and help.I worked almost all night and finally completed my "homework", I believe.I would now kindly invite you and megistias to take a look at my proposal, at my "user page : Daesitiates/Ardian", so we could work it out from there.--Daesitiates (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no proposal here. Let's edit the information and get it into a form that is sourced, neutral, and not original research.  Frank  |  talk  20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Descent

Ardian is one of many Albanian names using Illyrian elements that are popular among Albanians to emphasize a supposed descent from ancient Illyrians, particularly since the time of the communist regime.

This sentence is sourced to a book written in other than English, so I can't discern what was said in the source. However, I can say that "supposed" is not a neutral word, so this sentence should probably be reworded per WP:NPOV. Also, communist should at least be capitalized, and probably linked to the proper regime being referred to. I personally would like to see a reference in English that discusses this, but that's secondary.  Frank  |  talk  20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the rest of the paragraph, comparing Illyrian and Albanian names with several samples, is really beside the point of this content and probably doesn't belong.  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all o.k. with me, Frank. As for the sentence you cited: "Ardian is one of many Albanian names using Illyrian elements that are popular among Albanians to emphasize a supposed descent from ancient Illyrians, particularly since the time of the communist regime", I never put it there in the first place. I believe megistias did (and I appologize if I am mistaken on that). I might have altered it, perhaps, but I don't have a problem with it being there as long as it is accompanied by some other referenced source that shows some bright side of the name too. Anyway, that may be an issue for some other talk, I guess. So, what else is there that you think should be changed/edited?--Daesitiates (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not an issue for some other talk...it's an issue right here for this page. If you're creating a sandbox version of an article to move some or all of its content to a main space article, you need to understand why the text is in there, how it got there, whether or not it should be there, and why.  Frank  |  talk  22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

General comment

I just want to make clear that the purpose of this sandbox article is to get proper sourcing and formatting, and to develop some text that is up to Wikipedia standards. It is not intended to replace the Ardian article directly, although it may turn out to be suitable for that. The primary purpose here is to develop something useable.  Frank  |  talk  20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all o.k. with me, Frank.--Daesitiates (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidetrack issues

1. When responding to a comment, please indent by placing an extra : character at the beginning of your comment, so it is clear what it is in response to. If there's already on in the comment above, put two ::, and so on. Each person replies with an extra : in front to indent the conversation and keep track of who said what and when.
2. Also, when responding to a comment, please put it in the section with the comment itself. You answered my comment in the next section.

Can you fix the comments in the section above (indent one, move the other) and then we can continue the conversation? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, is it ok now ( the comments; indent one...)?--Daesitiates (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No; you're adding new section headings with == instead of indenting responses with :. Also, you have a paragraph (just above this one) that starts with "As for the sentence you cite: ...." and it doesn't belong in this section at all.

Please forgive my ignorance, but being that English is not my native language, I may have difficulties understanding at times. I must admit that I don't feel I have quite understood what you are asking me to do.--Daesitiates (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First, it's indent, not intend. Second, it means to move to the right, as in moving a paragraph to the right. Third, use just a : or two :: but don't put any periods anywhere. You can see all this stuff by looking above at what someone else has done. Also, are you using the "show preview" button? See WP:PREVIEW for details. Also, when you sign ~~~~, just put it right after your text so it stays with the paragraph. Putting it on the line below takes more space.

You may also wish to read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page.  Frank  |  talk  21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I did as you advised and read through Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page.--Daesitiates (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but remember - you only need one : to make the first reply to a comment. Then :: below that, ::: below that, etc.

Next: try Help:Page history. You put a comment in about someone else writing something. During all this editing, you deleted it. It was supposed to be a response to my comment above and you put it in the wrong section. Using the history of the page, take a look and see if you can find it. Hint: it was at 1600 UTC -5. You started with "as for the comment..." and you put it in the wrong section; it should have been in the "Descent" section above but you put it in the "General Comment" section. Can you find that comment and restore it?  Frank  |  talk  21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best Frank (luckily my grandchildren are not here ;))--Daesitiates (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I belive you are refering to the comment that stands now underneath your comment in the "Descent" section. That's the only paragraph i deleted and it was mine, but I didn't sign it initially so that's why you thought it mught have been someone elses.--Daesitiates (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I didn't think it was someone else's. You indicated someone else had put it in the text in the first place: I never put it there in the first place. I believe megistias did.... That's what I was referring to. In any case, you've found it and restored it; I will comment on that in due time.

We're now back on track, I think. These basics of history, threading, signatures, etc. are all very important for communicating and understanding among editors. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I should thank you for you're the one who's been very patient with this old sack while taking him through an intensive Wikipedia course. I learnt more in the past few hours then I learnt ever since I first got into Wikipedia. That's really cool (although exhausting too, I must admit). I belive I should now leave it at this for tonight and come back tomorrow. Talk to you later Frank.Just a quick one before I forget. When you said that we should only put one ":" the first time, did you mean the first time in the section (under the heading) or after each new paragraph, mine or yours?--Daesitiates (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When you start a section, start it at the left margin, with no : at all. Then, each response from another person adds one.  Frank  |  talk  22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation for details. In fact, that page is filled with useful information.  Frank  |  talk  22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ardian

Hi Frank. I was curious if we could carry on with negotiations pertaining to the content of the article, "Ardian". I'am not sure if this box is the right place to discuss that, but as you may guaess I don't find the current article (written by megistias) on wikipedia to be apporpriate contextually. In other words, I still dind't get the answer to my question: Why were my edits deleted?", or "What was wrong wiht my entire edit?". So when you have time, I would appreciate you assist me in that respect.Or am I suppose to work this out with megistias (who does not seem to be cooperative, obviously)? Could you please advise me on the next step I should take in resolving the dispute with megistieas? Thank you.--Daesitiates (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My purpose on this page is to discuss this content. First we have to get this content up to par before we can discuss what (if any) portion of it may belong in the article it was taken from. The answers to your questions: why were my edits deleted?, what was wrong with my entire edit? and similar questions should become clear as we edit the article. The first step is to write it clearly and have it be sourced appropriately. This article is very far from doing that. I've made a couple of edits already; I haven't seen you doing more editing of THIS article and responding to the changes thus far. Once we can get this together, we can see what might go in the main article. There may well be some things in the main article that bear changing, but if you are looking for a "dispute" resolution, that's probably not the right thing to be looking for.  Frank  |  talk  19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did some editing in response to your edits, at my earliest possible convenience ( Sorry, i didn't have any access to internet earlier).Pease let me know if what I did there is o.k. Also, I still didn't quite understand if I should just stick to one of the boxes (this one, for example) in the course of this cooperation, or I may eventuay respond in your or megistias' boxes too?--Daesitiates (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We first need to get the basics of sourcing and citations and writing and staying on topic down. Once we get past those, we can see if anything can be added to another article. Saying "my brother says..." is not valid for sourcing Wikipedia articles. Talking about the history of the Albanian language regarding Illyrians has almost nothing to do with the name Ardian. What we need are sources that talk about the name Ardian. Right now, there is no dispute - what we have is a basic misunderstanding of what is appropriate on Wikipedia and what is not. That's what I'm trying to help you with. Once we get past that, we can see if anything is appropriate to add to another article. Don't focus on one editor on one editor's contributions. If you see this as a battle, you've already lost. The goal has to be improving the project. Focus on the content, not the editor(s).  Frank  |  talk  19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I will do my best. And no, I never perceived myself as a person indulging in battles or quarrels. I believe I prefer compromise and consensus, although we all might overeact sometimes when we feel an injustice has been done. But, yes, you're right, "no battle" is the right way, no doubt. As for me using the word "disute" above, I actually meant " problem" and not the Wikipedia option "dispute resolution" beacsue I am aware that "dispute resolution" is a last resort.--Daesitiates (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian people

I've twice removed edits you've made adding sources to a sentence about the the Ardiaei: The Ardiaei were an ancient Illyrian tribe native to the Neretva river (ancient Narona/Narenta) valley, in present day Bosnia and Herzegovina. The part that needs citation is not whether or not the river existed or where it was or who controlled it or its resources. The parts that need citation are that the Ardiaei existed, that they were Illyrian, and that they lived there. The two citations you have tried to put in do not say any of that. They merely talk about the river itself, which is not important.

In addition, even if we find a citation regarding the tribe itself, there is still a need to find some source that supports the claim that the name of the tribe is the source of this modern given name.  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. On my second or third reading I figured out what you are saying. That's correct, the citations in Wilkes' Illyrians I chose are not appropriate. I belive I have better ones in Stipčević and I'll try them (when I get back home), to see if they might be more appropirate. As regards the mentioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I thought it might be necessary to mention where Neretva is, for not everyone knows that. In fact, those who read a statement on Ardiaei under the article entiteld "List of ancient tribes in Illyria", might be mislead to believe that Neretva is in Montenegro. The statement reads as follows: "They (Ardiaei) were located in present day Montenegro[13], most likely in the gulf of Rhizon[14] or as Strabo places them, in the right bank of the Neretva[15]." To my modest knowledge of English, this sentence implies that Neretva is in Montenegro, which is a misleading statement, for this river doesn't even pass anywhere close by Montenegro. Neretva is in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the most of its part, and to small portion in Croatia. I made a short edit to this sentecne but somebody removed it twice. By the way, may I use this opportunity to ask how do I identify the person that removes my edits, so I could discuss the issue with them? I strongly believe this was relevant so that's why I decided to mention it here. I hope you don't mind.As for a source supporting the claim that the name of the tribe is the source of this modern given name, I have a book of Hasan Hasani and essays published in the periodical of the Center for Balkan Studies in Prishtina by Axhanela that provide direct reference. I believe their work is credible as a source.--Daesitiates (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, here's one of the references to confirm that Ardiaei were recorded in history as inhabitants of the Neretva region. I found this one on the Wikipedia article entitled "The list of ancient tribes in Illyria", under "Ardiaei", but I am using it here just as a reference for the time being. I would certainly prefer to use some other references to this particular statement in my version of the article at the sandbox, but this is just as a quick reference: ^ Appian and Illyricum by Marjeta Šašel Kos," The Ardiaei were certainly also settled in the hinterland, along the Naro River at least as far as the Konjic region,".--Daesitiates (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This still does nothing to establish the modern name as referring to that ancient tribe.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, before I forget. As I was reading thorugh the rules of Wikipedia in order to improve my article at the sandbox you kindly created, it suddenly crossed my mind that a statement in the current verision of article "Ardian", the one on which megistias has been continuously insisting ("Ardian is one of many modern Albanian names using supposed Illyrian elements, which have been popular among Albanians to emphasize a supposed descent from ancient Illyrians, particularly since the time of the Communist regime".) not only is a political statment, but it is also incorrect and misleading. If you carefuly look at the portion of the book of Miranda Vickers he is citing (you can access it through the reference on the article itself) it does NOT say anything about the name, Ardian, let alone saying that this name was invented as a part of the abovementioned communist policy (unless it's been mentioned somewhere in the footnotes in that book?). After all, I see no relevance of mentioning this alleged communist policy on popularizing Illyrian names in Albania, just like I don't see the relevancy of the phrase he uses " imaginary illyrian names". This word is in itself ironic.So, why was it used then? I am sorry, don't get me wrong, but if we're talking about "equity" (the same set of rules applying to all editors at Wikipedia) then I don't see why this statemnt was allowed to go "out live", to the public.I didn't mean to bother. It just crossed my mind.--Daesitiates (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that article was previously redirected to Adrian. I removed that redirect as inappropriate because it seems this name can have content on its own. That doesn't mean that what is in that article is correct or right. Let's get sourcing down for this article first. As I keep saying - once we get the mechanics of this process down, we can decide what (if anything) belongs in the main article. There's no deadline for getting it right.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I am aware of your action and I want you to know that I do trully appreciate it as an impartial, unbiased and good-faith move. As for "no deadline for getting it right", my understanding of this is that there is no deadline to getting some final, ultimate version of the article, for articles are being improved all the time, continually. This, in my understanding, does not mean that an article containing inappropriate, misleading or politically biased language would just sit out there, open to the public, until the best version is produced.Please correct me if my understaning of this particular rule is wrong. This is just a genuine feedback from a Wikipedia client (reader) acting really in good-faith, so I hope you don't mind. So far I do rely on your impartiality and unbiasness, for I have all reasons to believe that Wikipedia implies ethical considerations too, and I appreciate that. That's all.--Daesitiates (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reminder: please remember to indent when replying to another's comment.) You're mostly right about WP:DEADLINE, but you do seem to be missing my point. I have repeatedly said we need to work on the sourcing for this content in this article, and you have repeatedly tried to move over to Ardian and correct some perceived wrong. I'm not saying that article is right, wrong, or somewhere in between. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be trying to fix it until you are better equipped at understanding Wikipedia's policies. Until we can put content together here that is well written, sourced, and to the point, I don't even want to talk about that article. In addition, while the wording you're taking issue with is perhaps unfortunate, it might help to consider that the primary author of that article is not a native speaker of English either, and perhaps the word choice is in no way biased or inflammatory.  Frank  |  talk  12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, you say:"you shouldn't be trying to fix it until you are better equipped at understanding Wikipedia's policies". I would appreciate if you could be slightly more detailed in explaining what is it that makes my article at the sandbox subordinate to the one that already exits at this moment out there in the open under the heading "Ardian" (the one written by megistias)?You also say "until we can put content together here that is well written, sourced, and to the point, I don't even want to talk about that article". I absolutely agree we have to get it right first, but what I frankly don't understand is whay does this whole process of getting my article "right" take so long? If my article in the sandbox is not ready yet (and I would like to know why does it take so long to find out why it isn't ready yet), how on earth is "megistias'" article that sits out there open to public "ready", and we both know it has at least some errors, technical and conceptual. You also say "it might help to consider that the primary author of that article is not a native speaker of English either, and perhaps the word choice is in no way biased or inflammatory." First of all, the primary author of that article (if by that you are refering to the person who put the article first on Wikipedia) was my nephew, under the nikname "Clement".If, however, by the "primary author" you meant "megistias", then I think if you can afford to put my every single word I wrote about "Ardian" under quarantine (which is fine if it applies to everyone) then why on earth would you allow innappropriate English sentences to sit there publically on main wikipedia article for days. After all if he did not intend to use "biased" and " inflammatory" word choice, why is he not willing to allow me ( or anyone else) to re-formulate his sentences to look less biased and inflammatory. Why is he not ready for any kind of compromise about that article?In the end, why is he being at war with so many people and using a pretty evident anti-Albanian language? As for the indent, I noticed that megistias didn't use it properly in some of his responses too, so, don't get me wrong, but I have a slight feeling that there is some discrepancy here in terms of equity. I may be wrong. I mean, I hope I am very wrong.At this point I really do need to ask you Frank to kindly and seriousy consider my concerns that I am talking about here. If I am being too difficult, I am seriously sorry for that, but I just don't feel it is right that "getting my article ready" takes so long on one hand, while the "megistias' version of Ardian is allowed to sit there as the main article on Wikipedia for days, without anyone even trying to consider my explanation of why I belive his version is inappopriate--Daesitiates (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that it was you who asked for admin help? Furthermore, you created an open request for admin intervention against a specific (but unnamed) user as the entire contents of your user page on 14 January. Several days ago, you turned it into what some would consider a direct personal attack with these edits. I responded to your requests for help by trying to explain in great detail how Wikipedia works, including sourcing, citations, formatting, and basic mechanics of talk page communication. Furthermore, when the page you are primarily expressing interest in, Ardian was redirected elsewhere, I undid that change with the note that I didn't see any consensus for that radical change to the article. Given all of these things, and the large number of edits and time I've spent in helping you to understand more about Wikipedia's ways, I think that it would be nice to either continue along the path we've started or else let me know that you're unwilling to accept my help.

I'm a mature adult volunteer on this project, same as you. If you're unwilling to accept help from me, I won't take it personally. My way might not be the only way - in fact, it probably isn't. However, I can assure you that if you start getting into a full-scale WP:EDITWAR, you will not be happy with the results. The most likely outcomes are that you will be topic-banned or blocked. The reason I say that is that you are very focused on what you know and not as focused on what belongs in an article and what can be properly sourced. In addition, your activity at Ardian doesn't reflect much attempt that I can see to achieve any WP:CONSENSUS; what you've requested in more than one place is for an administrator to make your version "stick". I am not going to do that; it's against policy and not what the task of an administrator is. If that's not good enough for you, I suggest you look to other venues. First, try Talk:Ardian. Next, try third opinion, WP:WQA, and, perhaps, WP:AN/I.

If, however, you wish to continue down a path of learning and collegial editing, let me know. I'm going to insist you undo your edits to Ardian, however, as a first step. It's not the appropriate time to be editing that article without better information and sourcing and a better idea of what is appropriate, encyclopedic, and sourceable. If that isn't something you're willing to do, that's fine with me; just let me know. Thanks for reading all the way through this.  Frank  |  talk  17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I am sorry if there is some misunderstanding here, and it might be my fault, so I think I do need to rephrase myslef to make it clear that I do not wish to cause any innconvenience to you or anyone else. I was just trying to get straight answers to two simple questions that seem very logical to me: 1. Why is megistias' version of the article good enough to be still sitting there publically? ( if it is examplary, then we could use it to learn from), and question No. 2. What is specifcally wrong with my edits on the main article (both the previous and the recent ones)? I believe a straight answer to this question would be the best way for me to learn where I went wrong and how to improve.Other than that, I am absolutely grateful for your help/assistance and I would more than definately like to continue down a path of learning and collegial editing, if you're still interested in helping.--Daesitiates (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I've never said that article is exemplary or "good enough". What I've said is that we are focusing on this article and all the basics behind it and I'm not even looking at that article.
2. I'm not looking at your edits on the main article. I've asked you to remove them until we get this article in good shape. It's a learning exercise. I cannot force you to remove them or require you to remove them (well, I could but again, that's not what an admin is about). However, if you wish me to continue to help you, I must insist. I want you to get the basics down first. Then we can move on from there.

This article has a large amount of extra material that is not in any way related to a given name. It is a somewhat-rambling account of an ancient people that has not made any connection to the modern name. I've commented on some of its content and rather than change or remove it, you've told me someone else put it in there. You keep returning to some other article. What I am sort of insisting on here is this: if you want to learn, let's focus on this article and no other.  Frank  |  talk  19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me Frank.I am definately interested in focusing on this article and follow your instruction, but before I move to that, would you possibly consider leaving my recent edits to Ardian,(if they do not breach wiki policy in some way),for the time being only, as an interim version before we get the sandbox version right? I really tried hard to find some way of wording it in a way that would not be as innappropriate and underappreciative as that of megistias, and yet saying almost the same thing as he did. I included some good sources there too. Like I said, I really really don't see what is so wrong with my edits (the recent ones, this time)and I don't understan't why would my edits (the recent ones this time) be inappropriate compared to that of megistias. Now, going back to this article on the sandbox, I might need some help from you again, if you don't mind. 1."It is a somewhat-rambling account of an ancient people that has not made any connection to the modern name."- I thought the book of Hasani would be a sufficient reference for he provides some brief history of each Albanian name alnogside the name, and Ardian is included in his book as a name deriving from an Illyrian people on page 13 (in Albanian "Ardian, nga nje emer fisi Ilir". "Ardian comes from a name of an Illyrian tribe"). 2."I've commented on some of its content and rather than change or remove it, you've told me someone else put it in there.You keep returning to some other article"-this one I didn't quite get/understand either. Would you mind just quickly telling me what exaclty are you refering to in here? I know I'm a nuisance, but like I said my comprehension may be limited as I am not a native english speaker. I do feel very uncomfortable because of that, but I can't do much about it right now, I guess.--Daesitiates (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Albanian myself. Can you either provide an English source or provide the quote as part of the citation? This will be best if you use the {{cite book}} template. See the citations I reformatted in the article itself for examples of how to do that. So perhaps the connection is made but I can't read it. 2) read the section above where you wrote that someone else had put in the word "supposed". 3) You're asking me about Ardian, which is not what we are discussing and editing. We're discussing and editing User:Daesitiates/Ardian. So I don't want to discuss that article. Also, I've requested you WP:UNDO your edits to that article and focus only on this one. Finally, as another "back to basics" item: you're not putting edit summaries, so people can't tell what you were doing unless the look very carefully at the changes. If you write a summary, people don't have to guess what you were trying to do. That's very important.  Frank  |  talk  20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ok. I'll do the undo of my edits first and then go back to the rest of the instructions.--Daesitiates (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I tried to undo my edits on the main article but it won't let me do it. This is the message that I received: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." I don't mind doing it mannually but I don't remember the exact content of the Article as it was before my edits, and I fear that if I made a slightest error when udoing it manualy ( meaning, if I don't exaclty match every single word as it was before I added my edits) this may be misunderstood again as some sort of an attack or disrespect for other editors or the like. Besides, I think there is some very active edits clash going on over there right now.What's your advice?--Daesitiates (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice is the same as it has been: stay away from Ardian. The "very active edits clash" you are referring to is generated, in part, because you are editing that article.  Frank  |  talk  14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I will listen to your advice of course, and I'll stay away from Ardian, but the reason I am asking this is because you told me to undo my edits to that article,and I just needed to inform you what the istuation was like, so you don't go thinking that I do not want to undo them or that I do not wish to cooperate. I am sorry if I caused some edits clashe over there. I didn't mean to. I would never have thought that some simple edits, not offensive in any way to any normal and functioning person would get some people (I refer to those furious editors) upset to the point of evident aggression, but they obviously are. Now that I know that, I'll stay away from this article until I made my own article ready in cooperation with you. So, just to avoid any misunderstanding, again, you are saying that I shouldn't even undo my edits on that article for the time being, correct?--Daesitiates (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, yes, that's what I'm saying. The edits have already been changed by others. As for your "own version" of the article, you continue to misunderstand the purpose of this user-space article. The point is to understand how to edit and what is acceptable. Once we get past that, we can decide what (if anything) could be added to some other article.

I understand. I'll do my best to stick to that. Just one more small thing on a technical level. I don't quite get this expression in the brackets "(if anything)". Is it ok if I kindly aksed you to explain it to me, for I don't want to misundersdand anything?Also, is it ok if I asked you to tell me how I am progressing with this useful Wikipedia course that you were very kind to offer to me? I would like to have some concrete indicators, if that's not a problem.Thanx.--Daesitiates (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(If anything) is because I don't want you to think that the content on this sandbox page is appropriate just because we put a lot of work into it. It is possible that you will learn a lot about how Wikipedia works but none of the content will work on a real page. That will involve WP:CONSENSUS at the page where you would want to put it, and that is a whole other discussion. I am unwilling to get into that until we have some material - good, solid material - to work with, and until I feel you really understand how the article-building process works.  Frank  |  talk  12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Frank. That's much clearer to me now. Thanks for that and for all other effort you're putting in helping me out here. I do appreciate that and that's precisely why I don't won't any misunderstanding to spoil my appreciation of your efforts to help. I'm looking forward to learning more.--Daesitiates (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

References: how-to

Your next task is to learn how to combine references. You have three references shown on the page that are the same thing. They should be combined. See Wikipedia:Footnotes and in particular, the section starting with "Reference name". In addition, the {{cite}} template is invaluable in gathering details needed for a reference. You'll probably want to use the {{cite book}} variant of that template. I've put that in the article already as an example of how to cite using that template. It's not required, but it makes things neater and makes it easier to try to locate that source if you can put in as much detail as possible. I've tried to find some of your sources and using the ISBN, which should be sufficient, I haven't been able to find some.  Frank  |  talk  16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, {{cite book}} looks very comprehensive. I tried to use it but my first attempt failed, so I keep trying. My latest understanding on how to use it is that I use the standard "< ref > < /ref > " template and then insert the "{{cite book}}" with its content where it say "insert...". more precisely it looks like this: "< ref > {{cite book...the content}} < /ref > ". This might be a wrong way of doing it, I guess, but I keep reading through the pages you recommended thoroghly in the meantime to learn the right way.And, yes, please let me know which particular sources you were unable to find through the ISBN so I could try too--Daesitiates (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I think I am making some progress with citations on our sandbox, so when you get a chance, let me know how it all looks to you now.Thanx.--Daesitiates (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks a little better, but there are still some references to be combined; see the Axhanela (Adžanela) references. Also, the point of using named references to combine them is that you don't have to put all the details of the reference every time. Put it once, and then use <ref name=Hasani/> the subsequent times, and it will all link to the same place automatically.

Also, the reference that appears to contain details in two languages (Axhanela (Adžanela)) is not helpful because I am not sure how to find it. Let's pick only one language to describe the reference in. You could put the other one in another section (Additional reading, perhaps).

Finally, regarding indentation with :: characters: it is customary to only add one additional : when you are replying. (You went from : to ::: and I've fixed it.  Frank  |  talk  11:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As for this particular source, I used it as it was in the original published by the Balkan center in Prishtina. Axhanela is Albanian transcription of his surname and Adžanela is Slavic. I am not sure which one he uses officially.I mean I can change that and leave one version of his surnam only, but I prefer to ask him first, just in case.--Daesitiates (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the official name. It's about using only one name.  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - you're still not combining references. Use <ref name=hasani/> the second time you use a ref. Don't add anything else. JUST that text. Notice the "/>" at the end. That says to re-use the previous ref and you don't have to re-type (or copy/paste) all the info again.  Frank  |  talk  17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I'm still struggling a bit with the combining of references. I Typed in "< ref name=hasani />" at the place where there was the second mentioning of Stipčević, (and removed the previous template from that place) but it still didn't work.What am I doing wrong again?--Daesitiates (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a diff showing how I did it. Also, you've not been using edit summary to describe what you're doing with each edit.  Frank  |  talk  16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I typed < ref name = Stipčević /> at the place in the text where I wanted to provide the Stipčević reference for the second time and it gives me "Cite error Invalid < ref > tag; refs with no content must have a name".--Daesitiates (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that anywhere in the page; did you save it? Also, if you are using spaces as shown above, it may not work correctly.  Frank  |  talk  14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Please read WP:No original research and WP:SYNTH. These very important policies outline how articles should be written - and how they should not be written.

There is a sentence that begins It also seems linguistically plausible... which is more of a suggestion than a statement. It's reasonable to present different points of view, but this seems to be presenting a theory but not explaining it at all. This article is about a name, not some long dispute about a language and its relationship to a certain group of people.

The last sentence of the article ends: ...so this could be yet another area to explore pertaining to the etymology of Ardiaei. This is another poor choice of words because it is stating a possibility but not supporting it in any way. There is no reference, and it isn't adding to the article. In addition, it references Ardiaei rather than Ardian, which is supposed to be the subject of the article.  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all absolutely fine with me, but I honestly don't remeber now which of the words I copied from the original source and which ones are mine. I will have to check that first. I had his paper somewhere but I have to find it now. What if these phrases are his and not mine? Do we still change them and use more appropriate ones?--Daesitiates (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of having the information properly cited - so we (or you, if I can't read it) can find out what's original and what's not. But I'm not only concerned about that; I'm concerned about the thought being conveyed here. "It also seems linguistically plausible" is not an encyclopedic phrase. It's in investigative phrase more suited for a research paper or conference presentation. That's not to say we can't have it, but it isn't commonly thought of as encyclopedic wording.  Frank  |  talk  16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock

The page WP:PEACOCK outlines an important policy regarding wording. In particular, the word interestingly appears in your article. Please search for interesting on WP:PEACOCK; it is specifically mentioned as a word to be careful about (or even avoid completely).  Frank  |  talk  12:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here too, I will have to see his paper to see if this was his expression or me paraphrasing him.--Daesitiates (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose expression it is; the point is that the wording is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You can't just put it in and say "that's what he said" - we need to find a way to make it encyclopedic or take it out.  Frank  |  talk  16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Frank, I understand. That makes sense and I'll work on it.--Daesitiates (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Weasel

Another policy to be aware of is WP:WEASEL. The section of your article I'm referring to is: The Albanian language is thought to derive from ancient Illyrian. Whether this conclusion is scientifically plausible or not is subject to scientific enquiry. In any case, Albania... The phrase is thought to is a "weasel" wording because it speaks in the third person and doesn't attribute this "thought" to anyone in particular. That's not verifiable; even if a reference is put later in the paragraph, the wording is very vague.

In addition, regarding that same paragraph, we shouldn't be writing about things that may or may not be scientifically plausible, especially not in an article that isn't about a scientific theory. Either we know something or we don't.

Also, I'm really not sure that whole paragraph is appropriate for an article about an individual name. Overall, it seems like a whole lot of effort is being put into providing extra text about a name when in fact, it's mostly just a name.  Frank  |  talk  12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Same as the above. Let me see his original paper again, to see which of the above words are mine and which are the author's, and I'll get back to you on that.I do agree that some parts do not seem directly relevant to the name, so I'll follow your further instructions above anyway, to make them as relevant as possible. Now I think I'm getting a clearer picture of how the whole system is suposed to work.--Daesitiates (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frank. Sorry for keep you waiting. I had some family commitment so i couldn't get back on this earlier. I checked some of the weasel things on your instructions and these are my conclusions:a)"The Albanian language is thought to derive from ancient Illyrian"-yes, I agree on this one with you. I am ok with taking this "thought" word out.Instead, I was thinking if I could use the original sentence from the source to avoid any weasels? b.)I agree we can take out completely the sentence: "Whether this conclusion is scientifically plausible or not is subject to scientific enquiry." I actually put it there to show that i am not pushing one side ( the Albanian) in the dispute on Illyrian origin of Albanians. So, if it doesn't fit, it's ok.Furthermore, I guess you are right to have doubts if the whole paragraph fits in this article about a name, and I'm ok if you prefer it not be there, but then again, I thought that might be useful information and I didn't know where else I could put it. Could it be possible perhaps to have a separate article on this ethnolinguistic things I mentioned above? My regards.--Daesitiates (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think two articles already exist: Albanian language and Illyrian languages.  Frank  |  talk  13:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you sugesting I could try and put some of the things from my sanbox there, if it is relevant?--Daesitiates (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I noticed some people engaged in discussion on the article. Am I allowed to join them, and share few remarks (in the good spirit, certinly)?--Daesitiates (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I have a few questions - 1.What is your opinion about me placing most of the linguistic material from my sandbox Ardian to either "Albanian language" or "Illyrian languages" on wikipedia? and 2. How far do you think I am from being allowed to discuss with the administrators about the issues on Ardian article?--Daesitiates (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound negative, but I would rather see you have more experience with the basics. You are still not using edit summaries, still not indenting with each response (rather you are moving left instead of right), and you haven't yet gotten referencing down. Also, I'm not seeing changes that show encyclopedic wording. I'm not saying you aren't improving anything, but I think you'll be very frustrated if you try to make edits in controversial areas without being prepared to state why you're making the change and why it's appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I 'll keep working in that direction,and i am thankful for your help really, but at this stage, my only wish was to ask the administrators or whoever is neutral out there to see that one of the sentences in the existing Article ("Ardian is one of many communist-constructed names...")is exactly what you described above as a Weasel. Whiy is it a problem to take that sentence out? Whoever read it told me that this sentence is irrelevant and it doe not correspond with the reference attached to it.Few other editors I saw on talk page Ardian have almost the same observation. So, my question is do I need to wait until I get all this knowledge of Wikipedia in order to just draw the attention of Administrators to this particular problematic sentence. I really don't see why is it necessary for me to know all these details (indent, connecting sources and the like) to point out to this problem. I mean, I don't mind kindly asking megistias to reconsider his sentence, but it is obvious that I will most probably receive som arrogant answer like "It's irrelevant"...or similar. Also, sombody out there at the talk page correctly said that if we don't have a source in english (and we don't) we can use a source in other language. I think that lady provided some sources (one being the same as mine, Hasani)and "megistias" said "that's irrelevant". I am surprised that he behaves as this article is his private property! I followed discussions on the Talk page, and I saw that I am not the only person whose arguments he arogantly and blantly refuses. Sorry, but my intelligence is still functioning so I find the tolerating of such behaviour very strange.Please don't take it as this has something to do with you, but I must share my obvious concern with some neutral person here ( in this case You).I am not asking that my edits be accepted at this stage. All I am asking is for you or other administrators to examine the possiblity to take out the sentence reading " Ardian is one of many communist-constructed names..." because to me that is precisely a Weasel.It would mean a lot to me if you checked this yourself and see it for yourself. Belive me, it doesn't kill. Receving arrogant responses is much more damaging to feelings. His reference does not even mention the name Ardian, and his sentence in the article also does not correspond with the reference he attached to it. I am sure there is something that can be done about it at this time.If not, i belive I have a reason to know why.I was hoping that at least those other users on the talk page would continue to discuss the problem in civilized way, but one of them was not cooperative (and megistias just erased his edits as if he is an administrator), the other user (the lady) never came back to that page again, and I am not even allowed to talk about that here.So to me this looks like there's nobody left to point out to that sentence being inapprorpiate and irrelevant, so megistias owns that article. It is mathematically impossible that none of the arguments people proposed are irrelevant, for God sake. Again, I am not asking for a clash or war or any conflict.I just don't see why we have to wait unitl I learn how to master Wikipedia before some administrator acts in accordance with wikipedia rules - not allow sentences that are irrelevant or a Weasle. Just that one sentence is the problem.There's nothing more I am asking at this stage.--Daesitiates (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning is that when you've mastered the basics, you can present your case more strongly and have it be based on policies that are consistently used on Wikipedia. You've chosen to ignore that idea, and in fact you continue to assert that this is a personal conflict, which I don't support.  Frank  |  talk  11:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I caused any inconvenience Frank, but at this stage I really find it exhausting to go through the learning process while that sentence: "Ardian is one of many communist-constructed names..." is troubling my head. All I am asking at this stage is to know if I really can get a help about that problematic sentence without having to wait until I mastered the wiki basics. If you think this is required by wikipedia rules, then could you please show me that specific instruction. Also, I would appreciate if you told me what level exactly do I need to reach in order to have "a right" to ask for some assistance, advise or help about a part of the main article which I consider to be contrary to the Wikipedia rules. If you think I can't have any help about addressing just this one sentence in the article, would you please mind explaining why that is the case? If you think you could help me with this particular issue pertaining to the main article at this stage I would be grateful, if not, can you please then refer me to somone who can.Again, I thoroghly appreciate your efforts and help so far and I mean it, but this is all too exhausting and tiring. I just don't understand having to go thourgh all this just to be able to ask somone to kindly consider reviewing one single sentence that is not objectively supported by a source. That's all I am asking at this stage. Why is it a taboo? Again, because of my condition all of this is too tiring for me. I know you might say: "there's no reason to mention your condition, age, profession...." and yo're right, there is no need,...and one day, when we all turn ice-cold, there will be no need even to greet each other, but some of us still can't help being just humans, Frank.--Daesitiates (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I have some good news. Megistias decided to remove that "communism" sentence and he was very cooperative which I appreciate very much. He said he thought the article now looked much more neutral and I agreed with him. I also proposed a very minor alteration to the first sentence, if he agreed of course, but I am not going to insist. So that's a good news for me and I am now motivated again to carry on with the learning process, if, of course , you are not already sick of me, which I would understand. Look, I am really sorry if I was a hassle. It was just that one sentence that bothered me very much, but I guess it's all over now. Thanx again for all your help so far, and again, if you still have a nerve, I would like to continue with my wikipedia lessons with you at an easy pace.--Daesitiates (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hassle would not be the word I would use. Still, I find it a little troubling that you have focused on one editor and one sentence as if this is some sort of competition. The goal should always be to improve the encyclopedia. At least that's my view.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're definately right on that,but personally I am much more motiveted to carry on learning now that this problem has been resolved then I was before. By the way, what is your oppinion on whether or not a non-english source can be used if there are no English sources available? I noticed that some editors on the Discussion Ardian page brought up that issue and offered some references in Albanian and I am curious myself how that works. Is it necessary to have a page connection to a scanned book page on the internet for a source to be accepted? Also, what is the maximum number of indents allowed in discussions?(here I put four)--Daesitiates (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that English is preferred but not required. I think the general consensus is the same, mainly because there doesn't seem to be any policy that requires English sources. Nevertheless, it's difficult when the only sources are non-English; those who do not read or understand some other language have to rely on those who do. Sources do not have to be online, but again...it's much easier if they are, even if they aren't available to everyone. (Some people have access to databases which have archived copies of articles from the New York Times, for example; you can't get all of their content for free on their web site directly.) There is no set limit on indentations; it depends on personal choice. When it gets too far to the right, people go back to the far left. That's called "outdent" and there's even a template to connect the two: {{outdent}}.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)