User talk:Outback the koala/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Outback the koala. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

In Snowball, Ontario, you added "at the crossroads of Aurora Road and Dufferin Street". However, when I rode through Snowball yesterday, I believe it was down at 17th sideroad (Wellington) and Dufferin. (I haven't checked up at 18th sideroad (Lloydtown-Aurora Rd) to see what's there.) Is Wellington correct for "Old" Snowball?

For the moment, I've parked the coordinates at the golf course, where Google Maps puts the name. (I don't know how often Google Maps updates its Wikipedia tags, but the last time I changed one, it took months to move the Koffler Scientific Reserve out of someone's backyard!) AndroidCat (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&oldid=318611040) edit of yours also edited another editor's talk page posting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=318611040&oldid=318609530). While I can see your good-natured reason for doing this, editors, for the most part, don't like it when other editors alter their posts, even just to fix a small mistake. So, just to let you know for next time, you really should not edit another person's talk page post as it really could stir up some problems for you in the future. Anyways, happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with your contributions and edit count. The only issue I have is that you don't seem to be giving vandals appropriate warnings. These offer an opportunity for the vandal to become a productive member of our community. All you have to do is paste the template on the vandal's talk page. If you can assure me that you will do that in the future, I can feel comfortable giving you rollback rights. upstateNYer 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While the other editors make somewhat compelling points, I still support the inclusion and use of the show as a source for the phrase's inclusion to the article. I recommend bringing it to the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard or the Original Research/Noticeboard; pick whichever one you believe is your opponents main claim against the inclusion of the information and post your question there, making sure you are specific as to the information, the article, and the problems raised against its inclusion; be neutral and dont push your side, state your facts fairly, also post where you've taken the matter to the article's talk page and to the two editor's talk pages as well. Good luck and I'll see you at the noticeboard of your choosing to support you.Camelbinky (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct place for the information is Potential National Hockey League expansion, where it's already present. If you wish you can create an article for Ice hockey in Quebec City and add the information there too. Regards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the point of including this in Milliken's bio. It is irrelevant from the perspective of a biographical piece until it actually happens. Perhaps a mention should be made in the the main Speaker of the House of Commons article, as under the Table of titles, the Speaker is eligible to be granted permission to retain the style of "Honourable" after leaving office. However, there is nothing formalized about the swearing in of a Speaker of the House of Commons to the Privy Council, and despite the fact that many if not all of them have been, it is difficult to suggest a convention as many have been sworn in due to having held other offices. There is also no pattern as to how soon after they leave office it is done -- in some cases quite quickly, and in others it takes some time.

Let's look at the history:

Parent - sworn in 5+ months after leaving office Fraser - sworn in 7 years before he was Speaker, having served as Minister in Clark's government Bosley - sworn in a year after leaving office Francis - membership disputed - parliamentray bio indicates he was sworn in November 84, but no mention of this on the PCO list of historical members Sauve - sworn in 8 years before she was Speaker Jerome - sworn in more than a year after leaving office Lamoureux - sworn in while still speaker, but after having announced he would not seek re-election

As there is no verifiable convention, I don't think it merits any mention.PoliSciMaster (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

.

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

please read how microstate and micronation are defined on wikipedia. thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Before the discussion on the article's page, my apologies for my harsh reaction. These pages are a frequent target of vandalism by people who won't show up at Talk at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey just a friendly reminder; you're close to breaking the edit warring policy regarding reverting too many times on one page. I agree that the content doesn't belong, but it's not obviously vandalism so be careful. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but the anon user in question has already been blocked for attacking a user's talk page. It was vandalism because it started out as just NN content being added, but then the insistent adding of it over and over again, after it had been labeled as NN, made it vandalism. Outback the koala (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that attack. It didn't really help his case. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NW (Talk) 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you're welcome to use my comments on other talk pages. Pfainuk talk 13:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi you have already warned this anonymous user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.77.207.189 about his behaviour. He continues to make ad hominem attacks on me for attempts to keep this complex subject neutral and typically reverts edits I make to the article to maintain neutrality. Citations he has intoduced while relevant to the article, when investigated, do not support the dogmatic stance he takes on the subject and are in fact more supportive of the cautious wording I have been trying to use in the article yet he keeps reverting with ad hominem attacks as edit comments. What do you recommend as the next step? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on this, I did not even see his reply to me on his talk page. I will ask an administrator to look into this anon user to ask what can be done further. I will get back to you on whatever action is taken or what action could be taken. Outback the koala (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked an admin warned him on his talk page. Outback the koala (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've given up with the debate. I could delve deeper into the politics of it, but I simply don't have the energy. Middayexpress is simply not willing to see past his opinion. He appears to be pounding his POV into the main Somaliland article aswell. With it being a simple template, I don't think it's worth getting too frustrated over. The link to Somaliland will go in there anyway; its qualification for the second section on the template at least is indisputable... I'm sorry I couldn't have been of any further assistance. Night w (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you should give up just yet, I was getting feed up with this debate a little myself, but this new user, Pfainuk, his comments might break the stalemate. It seems completely reasonable to me what he is proposing.. Outback the koala (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If this continues, you guys might want to try RfC. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya.. I dont really know what RfC is, care to enlighten me? Outback the koala (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This thingy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. A list of all current RFCs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A). The reason I like it, is that it serves as a mediation device, but at the same time doesn't start a trial or an appeal. In other words the user learns to play along with other kids in the sandbox, but doesn't get a bloody nose as a result. I'm a fan of promoting good edits, instead of being banhammer happy, or trying to get other users banned. I think it's ideal for the current situation that you are in, regarding Somaliland. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, "Reality has a liberal bias", c'mon we both know that :P HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know someone from Somaliland? I am always a fan of the "editors on the ground" theory, that is editors who are currently living in a country/state, editing stuff about that country/state. Especially if it is a state that we know so damn little about, like Somaliland. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I do, I never met a person from Somaliland Or Somalia or even that region of the world. Sorry to disappoint. Although edits to the Hargeisa Canadian Medical Center page are often from Somaliland, but every single edit is usually reverted by middayexpress, with no explanation. Outback the koala (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Outback, I just wanted to mention to you what a great job you're doing at the Somaliland main article. Keep up the good work! When I get more time from freed up from the other debate, I'll come and lend a hand with improving it. Night w (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you give me an opinion on this proposal? I'd welcome any suggestions for changes, but I want to get a nod from at least one editor before I go ahead with it. Thanks! Night w (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe ;^) I hadn't realised how many articles have been affected... Night w (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added citation factual references to some of the citation request from yourself, I hope they are ok.

The edit summary was cut off; anyways, what I am trying to do with the page in regards to SADR is we need to be consistent. We either need to display all flags of the limited recognition states or none of them. I just now noticed Kosovo and Taiwan were added back, so I reverted myself and put back the SADR flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you just revert indescriminately, or what? So far as I can tell, the way the article had been was in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO (reading like an annoted text). There should be a summary of the book, not a description of each chapter. 207.255.35.246 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I did so because you did not discuss making that massive deletion of a better part of the page. I agree with you that it should be a summary, not a description, but then change it and add a hatnote to each sec directing viewers to the pages which deal with that. Because clearly we have those pages for a reason, we can link to them and would that be much better than erasing all that salvageable content? Please tell me what you think of my suggestion. Outback the koala (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that because English is an official language in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. sephia karta | di mi 15:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I had no idea! The things you learn.. Outback the koala (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the title in the merge discussion. Sorry. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a quick explanation of how to set up RfC? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)  Done

I don't care how much you think you are righ--, and neither does Wikipedia. Please follow WP:BRD. This means starting a discussion (on the talk page) after your new edit is reverted, and seeking consensus-- not just reverting. Please read WP:BRD if you are not familar with these ideas. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a Policy nor a guideline. Regardless of what you believe wikipedia thinks, there was a discussion on whether to include states with limited recognition on templates in the past, you may view it at this this talk page. It was quiet a lengthy debate and I do hope that you not reopen it(but feel free to do so, as it is your prerogative). In any case, please tell me what you think and what is your specific objection to inclusion? Outback the koala (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My specific objections are

1. Your refusing to discuss the issues in any meaningful way. A "discussion" here would be unsuitable since it would prevent anyone who watches that template from participating and even if we did find closure here, it would not be recorded on the template's talk page, and thus carry no real weight in the long term. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Your promting an edit war by rvting with no other suitable recourse. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have opened a discussion of the template talk page. We can continue this on that page. Outback the koala (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering why you keep deleting Samuel Kunz in the "list of living Nazis". He is alive, he admitted to have served in Belzec extermination camp, and charges are currently pressed forward against him in Germnany. Just google "Samuel K. Belzec". I kindly ask you to keep him on the list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is because it is completely uncited. Please just provide a reference when you add him. Because he is a living person, we must have only referenced material. See WP:BLP for more details. If you have any other questions, please ask. Outback the koala (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that was a complete mistake (take a look at my contributions here if you don’t believe me, I did and continue to do a lot of anti-vandalism work) I am sorry for making you take time out of your day to fix my mistake. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, just making sure! :) Have a good day. Outback the koala (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research, such as this edit of yours to Doctor Zoidberg. Original research refers to material obtained through personal knowledge, or unpublished syntheses of previously published material, rather than material that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. That material was already removed previously for this reason, as you can see by looking at the article's Edit History. Please make sure you cite a reliable source for all of the information you add or re-add to articles. You can learn how to do this at Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you have any other questions about editing, just let me know. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks bud. Outback the koala (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I had an edit-conflict; I was trying to answer :-) Answer follows;

 Done Hello.

You recently placed a help request on the page File talk:SMOM relations.svg, and I have moved it here, below - the {{helpme}} template should be used on your own talk page; the discussion page should be used for discussions with other editors about the file (or article, etc).

{{helpme}} This image is outdated as it shows Canada in the wrong colour designation, as per this source and the main page. How do I go about changing it or contacting another editor who knows how? Thank you, Outback the koala (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You should place your request in the Graphic Lab/Map workshop.

Thanks, Smappy (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot! Perfect help! Outback the koala (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The modifications made by an IP to the voice was quite correct, or, al least better than the present text.

Denarius don't come from the greek δηνάριον. Is δηνάριον that comes from the latin word.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, my mistake! I will restore the page immediately! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Outback the koala (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What threw me off was the plural form of As (Roman coin) as 'asses'. Didn't click in at the time, I guess I thought it was vandalism. Outback the koala (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to update Wikipedia to mention that Somaliland is now officially partially recognised and not non-recognised. Ethiopia may follow suit apparently. IJA (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it exciting mate. Well we'll have to sort it out tomorrow because it is 2am over here UK time and I need sleep haha. IJA (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muslim world. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Middayexpress (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob! — Hunter Kahn 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello to you,

The The map in Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia article including dispute part. It contains trialtian Osstia which not exist in other maps of the area. Also there is alot of maps that can be used. pleas delete the map. Geagea (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tha map contains tha Ossetians in Trialeti with official borders in the map. It is misleading. Geagea (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to edit a few years ago and I've forgotten a lot. Thanks so much for the resources you posted. Jonbocop (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he did differently from any of the other editors continually arguing (for months) about the South Ossetia War. Sure, he argues passionately for his viewpoint, but hasn't everyone that was involved in that article done so, including myself? FluffyPug (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the opinion of future perfect, the blocking admin, was that he was "deliberately slow edit warring" - whatever that means. It's not a policy.. My opinion was that he didn't do anything wrong, but he might be seen as too pro-Russian. Maybe ask the blocking admin for more info? I don't know, but I feel that since the admin has been arguing on the page in the past, against HW, he's an involved editor and should not have been the one to make the block. But that just me. Outback the koala (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At present, I don't intend to push for a closure until 30 days after it opened (so 19 April) but I notice that the number of comments has dropped considerably, so I would not necessarily object to an earlier timeframe. DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the page Colbert Family, to which you made good contributions. However, the page before you edited it was a pure hoax, and you only added good info, but didn't remove any of the pure nonsense included already. This means that every version of the page started with a few paragraphs of imagination. The page title was also incorrectly capitalized, so if/when you create a new article with the info you found, please do so at Colbert family or something similar. The vandalism may have been Stephen Colbert inspired, but that is not really relevant. Fram (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I used the Lupin script, which filters recent changes to show probable vandalism. So I saw a string of vandal edits and rollbacked them as quickly as possible. ー| _DARK ^FIGHT | 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats cool! Thanks for the info! Outback the Koala (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming message.

I'm actually The Canadian Roadgeek, but I was too lazy / forgot to login when I "contributed"... Just to let you know... but thanks for the welcoming message anyways!

Cheers, 173.33.178.80 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, it is much appreciated :) Lefty101 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :) Outback the Koala (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is so funny about it? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 23:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the Nazi killing part. For me it was reminiscent of Inglourious Basterds, I guess I should disambiguate that. Outback the koala (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I made it like that for a reason. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad I didn't miss the reference. It's a very funny movie. Outback the koala (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing makes me happier than watching nazis die. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 03:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was also referencing to the song "On the Day the Nazi Died" by Chumbawamba. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wanted to check in with you about the LORD Corporation page that you commented on March 16. I've made several suggested changes, and wanted to get your opinion and see about getting the flag removed.

Let me know what your thoughts are when you can! Thank you in advance. Wendyfables (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk. Outback the koala (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is what you were really trying to say. Though that's not as bad as some of the things I've deleted. I once deleted Greg Norton as nonsense for 7 minutes and another time I deleted a large article with over 2,000 revisions, to remove 1 edit, and discovered that the computer at work was not able to handle the restoration and had to go to WP:AN to get it restored. On the other hand a least one editor posted his opinion of me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CambridgeBayWeather. something lame from CBW 10:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to look into the Template modification. I believe the solution you found was good enough. No further comment needed from me. Ladril (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. As I intended to indicate with my closing comment, I found the lack of third-party reliable sources a compelling reason to delete. The "no prejudice to recreation" indicates that this AfD outcome should not be held against the article if it happens to be recreated in the future with such sources. It would also be possible to restore the article at that point, though given how little the article contained, it should not be difficult to recreate and expand it from scratch in that case. Shimeru (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason that you redirected The effects of consuming bacon to The Effects of Eyesight while consuming Bacon? Did this happen as a result of a technical error or something? Goodvac (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am sorry that was my mistake. The other page has clearly been deleted. The page I created should be speedy deleted post haste. Thank You for alerting me to this mistake. Outback the koala (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)^[1]

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629^[2], UK: 3,608^[3], Canada : +400^[4], Germany: 166, Australia: 120^[5], Romania: 44^[6])

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

119.152.61.170 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have *no* idea what was going on with this, except the same message was pasted onto a dozen or more userpages in a short amount of time. tedder (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you could offer your opinion specifically on whether you think the proposed compromise title is an acceptable alternative.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Man, I hear you. I've had the exact same problem editing the Shakespeare pages. There's a fundamental flaw in the Wikipedia process that is going to have to be addressed, hopefully in our lifetime. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It can just be so darn frustrating sometimes! If the project is going to stabilize and continue to grow, this has to be fixed. Alas, there is nothing we can do about it but wait for Jimbo to come from the clouds and make everything perfect. Outback the koala (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

you are wrong to make an edit that there are no hohenstaufen descendants alive. Every good genealogisat knows that females of the Hohenstaufens have a lot of descendanys alive today. It is only the male line which went extinct with Conradin. And this fact is visible in plenty of published genealogies. please stop to make edits which are factually incorrect: such edits reflect badly on your knowledge. (Whatever is possibly your fight against a pretender, it cannot be won by sheer lies.) 82.181.234.211 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The house of hohenstaufen has no legitimate descendants today, there may be female decedents, but they are not legitimate. It is a fine line. Since the male line went extinct with Conradin there are no legitimate descendants and the line is extinct - and that clearly needs to be shown in this case. Outback the koala (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

insane allegation. wrong.82.181.234.211 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support what you are saying? Outback the koala (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. File:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG

I noticed your comment on the talk page of the file.

I was asked to list this file, amongst others, for deletion, on behalf of Vadac (talk · contribs). As I saw your objection to the speedy deletion on the talk page, I thought it only 'fair' to notify you of the listing.

The listing is in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 19#File:British_Empire Anachronous 2.PNG.

I do not have any opinion on the matter; I merely listed the AfD on behalf of that user following a request for help.

Best,  Chzz  ►  22:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You recently participated in a move request of Mafia. Since the final location of the page was not settled, please discuss it at Talk:Mafia (disambiguation) if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I userfied the article you wrote, which was the list of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, and added a link to your user page. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

YOK Outback the koala (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to talk more when you are. Cheers! Blue Rasberry 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate! I saw this discussion from quite a while ago, and I just wanted to ask whatever came of it? And is it worth including in related articles (for example, alongside the near-recognition by Israel)? Best regards, Night w (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time I was looking into inclusion on the List of states with limited recognition itself; but that did not qualify for that specific page because Wales is not a sovereign state of it's own, although it has it's own parliament for dealing with certain areas; one of those areas is foreign aid and Wales has a fair sized Somaliland ex-Pat community. Wales also invited the Somaliland government to it's Parliament's opening for that year. The UK never commented. It's de facto recognition, but not from the UK, which is supposed to handle foreign policy, and never commented, as far as I remember. bottom line was Wales is not a country(not in the sovereign sense), so it couldn't recognize anyone anyway on it own. It's all valid and I think it warrants a mention on related pages, but I never picked it back up afterwards. Outback the koala (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another example of something like this was EU members, most notably the Netherlands, denied refugee claims to Somalilanders because their homeland was 'safe' for them to return to, even though refugee status was being granted to refugees from Southern Somalia where the civil war was raging. de facto recognition? Again, it's debatable. Outback the koala (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I added it to the foreign relations section of the Somaliland main page, though I don't know how long it will stay there. Cheers! Night w (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm a bit disturbed at the turn the discussion from several months ago re: Transnistria being recognized by S. Ossetia and Abkhazia took. I'd like to have a go at it again. What are your thoughts? --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Which discussion are you referring to? On which article's talk page? Outback the koala (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Transnistria#Unrecognized.3F

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

could practically be considered an attack as you just made a broad assumption about my edits. I have read the article, actually, and removed it because I do watch the show and have never heard "Dr" as his name. Also, I didn't see it in the personal life section either, since such a detail, I'd assume would be there. Thanks -Tommy! [message] 00:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 DoneReplied on your talk. Outback the koala (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk, . Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [1], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your opening statement. Ronk01 talk, 04:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out this discussion from User:Angr. --Taivo (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate, did you see this, posted by User:Danlaycock? Could prove useful in some discussions, don't you think? Nightw 13:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful :) --Taivo (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's brilliant! I'll have to find the manufacturer, I have a map on my wall highly similar but for the one difference. Cool! Thanks alot for that! Outback the koala (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid editing the sections in dispute throughout the course of mediation. Ronk01 talk, 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I promise that this will be the last of my annoying talk page messages for now. Secondly, I would ask all participants to please answer the three questions on the mediation casepage. Thank you. (This message sent as a batch to all participants.) Ronk01 talk, 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I need to be sure that you are all willing to compromise your positions in order to make this mediation work because, as you all know compromise is essential to dispute resolution. Ronk01 talk, 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to remind me of WP:DNFTT when I need it. I will not be offended :) --Taivo (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My name is Lucas Luca, i am a diplomatic interpreter born and raised in the city, that you write as the capital of both Cyprus and northern Cyprus.
My dear, Nicosia is officialy, the capital, of the Republic of Cyprus and not the capital of any northern Cyprus. 

By adding that, you inform everyone about wrong things.. EU, NATO, THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, and every other diplomatic organisation around the globe, recognise Nicosia as the capital of one and only one state.. who are you to tell otherwise? who are you to inform wrongly everyone that this city belongs to 2 states? I dont think thats wise not even professional,from you, to edit an article for nicosia, a page that a lot of people visit and read, and let everyone know that what????? Nicosia is the capital of 2 states! Only Turkey recognises that, and noone else!! So i would advise you to stop and apologise, at least!!

thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaluca11 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would reply that Wikipedia does not take side in international disputes, including the Cyprus issue. The fact is there are two states existing on the one island, both with different degrees of recognition. I will see you on the talk page of that article if you would like to argue that further. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has previously contributed to the discussion on merging Sovereign state and State (polity), I was wondering if you would like to comment on my counter proposal. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good day.

I am the Public Affairs Officer for 31 Canadian Brigade Group, the Army in Southwestern Ontario.

I had noticed several errors in our Wikipedia page and recently amended it to ensure accuracy. We no longer have responsibility for the medical folks or for the service battalions. (In fact, 21, 22 and 23 Service Battalions recently amalgamated into 31 Service Battalion and now fall under the command of 2 Area Support Group in Petawawa). There are other things afoot at the Brigade and I will be updating the page as necessary.

In any event, it would be much appreciated if you would not make amendments to 31 Canadian Brigade Group on Wikipedia. We are best positioned to know the latest and greatest and will be keeping the Wikipedia page up to date.

Thanks very much in advance.

31 CBG PAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.152.35 (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello PAO,

I look forward to working with you to improve this page. However, WP:OWNERSHIP is taken very seriously, and I have tagged the page as a Conflict of Interest because you are very closely related to the subject of the article, indeed you are apart of it. The article is meant to be an encyclopedic entry about the subject that conforms to Wikipedia standards, not as an advertisement page or anything like that. Again I look forward to working with you and I encourage you to sign in while editing and sign your messages with 4 tildes(on the upper left of your keyboard for North Americans, beside the exclamation mark), that way it is easier to follow your messages, and see who said what, and when. Outback the koala (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to List of sovereign states was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to be travelling until early January, so I won't really be able to really contribute to either of those mediation cases with which we're involved. It looks as though you're getting things moving again on the Somaliland one, so good luck! Nightw 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow up on that WikiProject idea you had? Nightw 10:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will make one, but what color, should they be? Ahmetyal 15:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can just change the colours. Look at: German-Slovak relations. Ahmetyal 20:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for the barnstar. :)

I don't think New Caledonia is an overseas department. You should check that. Nightw 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I don't mean to hang over your shoulder...it's just not on the list of departments, so I thought I'd just make sure... Nightw 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this article, its provinces are territorial collectivities... I don't know much about the breakup of France. Nightw 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could I maybe ask that you reconsider your !vote at this AfD in light of the sources I've identified? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response under new notifications. Yes, I'll userfy the article if you want to work on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In Coat of arms of Saba you seem to have missed uploading the image. BTW, my favourite knock-knock joke is: Knock, knock! Who's there? Maybe it's a big horse... Maybe it's a big horse who? (sings) Maybe it's a-big-horse I'm a Londoner...! Berek (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a picture, but it looks like it may have been deleted. Sorry about that. Thanks for the knock-knock joke!! Outback the koala (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a FYI, a Scott w. roberts article was created and I tagged it for speedy delete. You tagged this similar article (which was deleted) for deletion in October under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott W. Roberts. A "hang on" has been added, which you may be interested in adding your input.Astronomystars (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The recreation was speedily deleted per G4. However, user was advised they could appeal the deletion. Astronomystars (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this edit because the original entries were all incorporated municipalities. The community info can be placed on community pages; for example, Oak Ridges can be included in the King City page. (I would likewise update the Oak Ridges page to list communities, not municipalities.) Let's not mix municipalities with communities. Mindmatrix 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of states with limited recognition for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nightw 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Armenia – Syria relations, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Armenia–Syria relations. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A note; you've obviously copied the content, over, then redirected the page - gotcha. But please don't do this in future. It technically is a copyright violation, since in transferring it you completely lost the edit history. Please use the "move page" function in future. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand on Ironholds' explanation: this is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you have spent the morning [at least in my timezone] moving masses of articles, such Greece–Norway relations to Greece – Norway relations. Why? The Manual of Style is very clear on this issue: "Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." As for instance both 'Norway' and 'Greece' consist of a single world, there is no room for interpretation and the articles should have remaind where they were. I have also failed to find any kind of discussion about the issue before you went around with such a massive move. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The MOS says that by default en dashes [in this use] are not spaced. However, if one of the two "items" has two or more words, then the en dash is spaced. For instance, Norway – United States relations is correctly spaced, because 'United States' consists of two or more worlds. On the other hand Norway–Sweden relations is not to have such a space, because both 'Norway' and 'Sweden' only consist of a single word. I would strongly recommend you move back all the moves where both countries are single-worded, and in the future please make sure you understand the naming conventions and Manual of Style before doing massive moves to articles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come across these moves, some may have been correct but for countries with single-word names they're not, as Arsenikk explains above. I'll move back those that were incorrectly moved. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find this article interesting - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cleo-paskal/why-the-west-is-losing-th_b_786668.html Opbeith (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the message you placed on my talkpage in midNovember about Transnistria x.x Sorry I never replied, I honestly just saw it for the first time.

If it still matters, I suggested "practically unrecognised" as a compromise between "unrecognised" and "partially recognised". Saying it is unrecognised is slightly off, as has been pointed out, due to recognition by Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, partially recognised is understandably disputable, as no "recognised state" recognises it, just two other's whose recognition is not that much better. Thus practically unrecognised, as the recognition means little diplomatically.

Again, sorry for the late response! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Outback. Rather than merging, I'd heartily support the total deletion of Wes Shoemaker. Its the same person, although some well-meaning soul created an entire Wiki entry with the poor guys last name WRONG! lol Guess it takes all types. The correct name for the politician is Wes Shoemyer, as can be verified by multiple sources. I've sort of taken on Missouri politics, at least those of my northeast Missouri area, as a project. Question: Do you know how to go about getting the Wes Shoemaker Wiki completely deleted? I've done a lot of editing and article creation in the past couple years, but unsure how to go about getting one deleted. Any help you can provide greatly appreciated! Sector001 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you still consider working on this, but if you are - please take in mind the flag/country/flagicon etc. templates. Currently some of these link to the wrong articles (e.g. to a general article about the 'region/territory' instead to the article about the 'state') - also in cases where abbreviations are used (where in the wikicode is written PST instead of Palestine, etc.) there are some missing, etc.  Abkhazia  Kosovo  Nagorno-Karabakh  Northern Cyprus  Palestine  Sahrawi Republic  Somaliland  South Ossetia  Taiwan  Transnistria

I think these issues (where the templates should link to; what flags should be used; what abbreviations should be used) fall into the scope of the WikiProject you propose. Unfortunately I don't have experience with editing these templates. Alinor (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's under the jurisdiction of WikiProject Flag Template. Nightw 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here it is. Alinor (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in deleting the title of 'Patrizio', which is a peculiar survival of the early-medieval Byzantine title of 'patrikios' particularly in Southern Italy and some areas of Greece, and a fairly common title of the small aristocracy of those areas. Besides, that list is supposed to be comprehensive - I think that title should be listed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myriobiblion (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey mate! Just to keep you updated, I've just re-added Somaliland to the East Africa page following that rediculous mediation case we had. Let's hope it sticks. In order to help with this, I've requested an upload of that photo from Danlaycock, so that we might include the image on the page. The Somali language page still appears to be stable.

I just wanted to make sure that some progress came out of that case. Anyway, I'll keep you posted... Cheers, Nightw 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It didn't stick. Any ideas? Nightw 04:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Outback the koala, excuse me if you don't accept usage of your talk page for such discussions, but I will reply to Night w.

Night w, you either list Somaliland on the same footing as Somalia (e.g. not in brackets after it) or on the same footing as Puntland (e.g. as region in Somalia). In both cases you can add additional explanation in-line or as footnote (about "state with limited recognition", "secessionist government controlling the territory", "declared independence" or whatever) - but you can't have it shown as subunit of Somalia above and as equal below. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ... okay, thanks buddy. I went with the only option that got a rough consensus from both parties. The case was closed, but if you want to offer your own opinion, it might be better to lodge a request for a re-opening of the case with the mediator... Good luck. Nightw 15:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole status of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is interesting. While constitutionally with all the pomp and rigour of names and titles etcetera, the islands are constitutional equals with Netherlands in a Kingdom, in reality (with most technicalities aside) they function as little more than dependencies of the main European netherlands. This is shown perhaps by the fact that the European part absorbed 3 islands, which would be weird in an equal union. The CIA lists the islands as dependencies anyway. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that when people say "the Netherlands" (as one does in English) they probably mean the sovereign state (or have no clue about the islands, which are probably obscure for most english speakers). This suggest that Netherlands may currently violate the common naming policy, but anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, your remark of "05:42, 31 December 2010" on Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships was ineffective, since the indentation made it unclear whether you were replying to Jimbo Wales or to me (and most would have probably assumed that you were replying to me). AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

take a look. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please check in at the talk page before moving pages. We've been actively discussing alternate names for a few days now, but your selection was not mentioned among them. Join in at the talk page if you want to advocate for your title. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if you and a less-experienced editor are edit-warring at York University. I'm not sure what's going on because neither one of you are using edit summaries or communicating with the other in any other (obvious) way. Can you please clue me in on the situation? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. What's up? Should the page be protected from editing? I can't find any context for this. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OtK - as mediator, can I ask you not to make statements like "That's a highly misleading comment". as you can see from the response you got, people tend to take that personally, and tend to respond defensively, and then the discussion starts to get tangled. I'm sure you meant that the comment was misleading, not that the editor was misleading you, but the ambiguity of the statement lends itself to mistakes. --Ludwigs2 07:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've just received your message re reverting my amendment to the Netherlands (terminology) page. I appreciate your comments but consider that the term 'Holland' must be addressed as a contested term as soon as possible within the article. I am concerned that, as it now stands, it appears to be a given that the two terms, Holland and the Netherlands, are interchangeable in English. I disagree. Certainly, several years ago (and this includes my own primary education), the Netherlands were called 'Holland,' but over the last few years there has been considerable effort to remedy this. This change has come about with the development of the European Union and more awareness of the constituent parts of Europe's larger countries. I have colleagues and friends from the Netherlands, all of whom are affronted when they are referred to as being from 'Holland.' Their usual response is, 'How would you feel if I called Wales England?' (we are currently working in Wales). Within the article is this very example as a pars pro toto, but the various countries of Europe have gone through considerable change over the last few years, and awareness of, and respect for, regionality has been a consequence of this. The term 'Holland' for the Netherlands is outdated, certainly in Europe, and its use is criticized far more than the article's 'is sometimes discouraged' implies. For this article to offer a more balanced overview of the use of 'Holland' then this contestation must be brought in at the beginning. Europeans are far more aware of their fellow regional states than previously and are fastidious in using the correct term (eg, 'Scotland' or 'Wales' when they might have, previously, used 'England). If Wikipedia is to reflect current thought, and to enlighten on a global level, then debate about outdated terms must be at the fore of any article and not as a secondary point lower down. Mary Parson Reid (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have readded the word inaccurately since the intro should give a proper view and Holland is an incorrect, albeit often used term. I agree that the details of this should belong in the text below.--Fogeltje (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we could all come to an agreement. Thank you for intervening, Fogeltje, much appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was either self written or written by members of his staff, there are dozens of citations linking to sites with no mention of the person in the page. The removal of such large amounts of information was to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvtalbot (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed that a "statistics" section is added to List of states with limited recognition. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Statistics RFC. Alinor (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As per the previous note you received regarding the move of Armenia – Syria relations, please do not move a page by copying its contents to another title. Use the "move" tab. I've reverted your changes from 8 February. Mindmatrix 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Outback the koala (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, apparently Mayotte become a department on Sunday (I assume French time), after it's initial plan for today was delayed by the inability to create a government. I'd add a pithy comment about how the French still can't get a government they like, but it's not a hilarious knock knock joke so I can't put it here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just did some updating on the template system. The existing "Rhino" party should now direct to the old party's article. For new Rhinoceros Party candidates, the party should be specified as "Rhinoceros" which should then point to the current party article. Please advise if there are further bugs found with the CanElec* row templating. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Heya Outback. I see that you moved the article about the Preimership/Prime Ministership of Steve-o Harper while it was at AfD. While there is no policy/guideline about this, in my exeperience it can muck things up sometimes. Two problems can arise:

1. It can spark debate/accusations regarding a change of scope to the article midway through a discussion, see the very controversial topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise, where Human suit was cut and paste moved to the more general topic of Human disguise. This isn't related to the Harper article, but just an extreme example of what can happen.
2. It can muck up the deletion of an article if the discussion ends in a "delete" result. This happened to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Returns(movie), when the article was moved (I think by me) to the correct location of The Dark Knight Returns (movie) (actually should have been (film)), and the discussion resulted in a delete verdict, the closing admin deleted the redirect, rather than the article. I thought everything had gone savy until it popped up in my watchlist, and I couldn't understand why the article was back with full edit history.

Anyway, I personally have no issue with moving an article to the correct location during a discussion, but if you do, you should keep an eye on it and make sure the new article, and the redirect, gets deleted. Do what you like with this information, just letting you know what I have seen happen with these. I know of one case where an article was kept for a month after the AfD discussion (see here). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We received an email in to the OTRS system from the deputy leader of the Pirate Party of Canada, Mike Bleskie, informing us that the logos were not licensed correctly, that they are under CC-BY-NC-SA, "with absolutely no exceptions to be made unless the Federal Council of the PPCA rules otherwise". I sent an email back asking if an exception could be made but did not hear back. Commons will not permit noncommercial restrictions, so I had no choice but to remove them. If you need a copy temporarily restored to upload under fair use provisions, please let me know. Adrignola (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. No temp restore is needed. Outback the koala (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The current discussion revolves around a structure first presented in sandbox3. There have been a bunch of minor modifications and additions in subsequent sandboxs. Just add a letter after the 3 to see them (sandbox3b, sandbox3c, etc.) The most recent version is sandbox3f, but some of the features from previous versions (such as the sortable dividers in the original proposal) could still be reincorporated if people want them. TDL (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for adding more information on this man, but I'm wondering why you are not adding refs. At least one edit is contradictory and without refs I'm having a hard time understanding if they are corrections or mistakes. Daffydavid (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Its all coming from an autobiographical pamphlet that he distributed, which I got a hold of. What are you seeing that is contradictory? Outback the koala (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't review all of the information very closely but the one that stood out to me was the edit that changed 3 children to 2 names. Daffydavid (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Farther down you'll see it reads, "after an 11-year battle with the Canada Children's Aid Society over custody of his two daughters." with two citations. I dont know how the infobox came to say 3 instead of two, I just corrected that. Outback the koala (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand! Any "donations" (in the form of diffs of course) you want to drop in the draft are always welcome. Or just pop them on my talkpage and I'll drop them in for you. Cheers, Nightw 06:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Try clicking on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_pope&action=edit . Do you see how this template just passes parameters to another one? I would say that is more than "similar in some areas". 70.96.13.209 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Must have been due to the image being pushed out of alignment by the infobox. I've moved the image into left alignment, so let me know if the problem persists. Miyagawa (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Outback, it wasn't our goal to "hide" the discussion. As you can see, we posted remarks on the talk pages of the Naming conventions and of the two provinces. I'm interested why you are opposing to our consensus. The region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is nothing more than a loose commonwealth of two autonomous provinces. Almost all legislative and executive powers have been transferred from the region to Trentino and South Tyrol. Considering this fact and taking into account that article titles like Auer, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol look at least confusing (rather weird), we thought it would be a good idea to choose an easier way to disambiguate articles. Additionally, South Tyrol and Trentino are by far better known ([2], [3]) than the region ([4]), so it is more helpful for readers to locate the village/town. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A person here moved a page incorrectly, how to I revert it? Outback the koala (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the issue correctly (and I may not), it seems like there was some discussion on the matter and that the new name is correct. Before just moving the article back, it would be prudent to actually get other editors to agree that undoing the change is correct before attempting to move it. I realize issues of article naming can be contentious. Drop me a line on my Talk page if I can explain further. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it will take an admin to undo that if that's ends up being the consensus, undoing it requires deleting the current incarnation of Lady Louise Windsor. You can ask one (I'm one, you can ask on my Talk Page), or you can make a request at WP:Requested_moves, but there's no direct way for you to do this unless you're an administrator. Again, feel free to poke my on my Talk page if I can help with anything! Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Outback the koala. As someone who has in the past contributed to the Dahabshiil article, thought you'd like to know that there's an ongoing discussion that could use your input. Specifically, a user has added a rather lengthy section [5] that charges the company with various things, including terrorist financing, Al-Shabaab links, and funding the Somaliland administration's military. As you know, Dahabshiil is a company with some officials who are reported to hold important positions in the Somaliland government; so the charges have much wider implications. Many of the charges cited by the user, however, appear to be obsolete and/or have been dismissed by the relevant authorities. I and another editor have pointed this out on several occasions, but to no apparent effect (c.f. [6]). When you have the time, would you mind sharing your insight on the matter, particularly with regard to the latest Al-Shabaab-related charges? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you stated it clearly with regard to WP:BURDEN. I agree with you the sources don't exist to support what he is saying. But I also don't see that conversation is going anywhere. Feel free to reuse my comment. Outback the koala (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; that's what I had figured. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that I'm basing this on your closing comment in the mediation. If you support immediate implementation, then I'll let them go ahead with it. If you'd prefer to wait until all these issues are resolved and improvements are made, then that's a different story ... ?

Regards, Nightw 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

^^^ Is that Middayexpress agreeing with you? Nightw 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At the time I did not support immediate implementation. But now I am indifferent and I do not mind it being implemented. From there it can be altered and adjusted. At least we did something. And yes, we^^ have found commonground. Hopefully this will happen more and more.. ;) Outback the koala (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to start splitting countries up in File:Commonwealth of Nations prospective members (simple).png – it's meant to be simple. Since Somaliland is part of Somalia at the moment, Somalia is probably eligible. Somaliland will become independent soon so I'll definitely update the map then. If you want to update it now, you're welcome to, but I'd rather wait till someone with more knowledge of cartography draws the border of Somaliland. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Outback the koala,

I noticed that you have revert the link (http://www.evisaasia.com/visa-requirement/tourist-visa-requirements-for-canada-citizens/) that was being added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Canadian_citizens.

I found that the page consist of useful information that may benefit the readers. May I know why it is being identified as spam? I would be glad if you could review the website to see whether the content is suitable for wiki readers or not.

Thanks.

Regards, TW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.135.148 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The link is a great howto, with good information, But please read WP:RS. Besides, you aren't trying to use the article as a reference, you are simply adding it to the bottom of the page - most likely to gather 'hits' and gain traffic. That is why I removed it. Outback the koala (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all the contents in the website are updated regularly and are referenced from the ministry of foreign affair website of respective country, which the source is considered as reliable. I would be appreciate if you could review the content again in details. Thx, TW. 175.138.135.148 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in this surmisation? I've lost track? Nightw 10:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Nightw 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:China. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that you've created, Caribbean Currencies could probably be merged into Central banks and currencies of the Caribbean, since it appears to duplicate the info. Seeking your opinion, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Without consensus? Read this. We reached a consensus more than three years ago. Steinbach (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is this discussion, I cant find it. Either way a three year old agreement between editors is not set in stone. Consensus can change I think this is a topic that is notable enough to have a seperate page. Outback the koala (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A well-picked subscriber, RFC-bot... Nightw 02:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know! I acctually laughed aloud when I saw it. Outback the koala (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. You are planning on voting aren't you? Nightw 15:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

done, thanks. I've been extremely busy with work. :) Outback the koala (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Sorry, wasn't meaning to rush you. Nightw 11:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Niue has diplomatic relations only with New Zealand and China. Here is a Chinese source describing Niue as sovereign in China's view [7].

I would like to know what you think. Ladril (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is something related to India-Niue relations. Not as official, but revealing. [8] Ladril (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nonviolent Communication. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the article List of sovereign states in 0 that you created on the 11th of November, 2011, has been nominated for deletion as of the 2nd of January, 2012. You can visit the discussion page here. Thank you. Jpech1995-2012 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Pristina. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As your made a reply on the talk page once, would you explain in this discussion please, which sources define the solidus as a distinct symbol, not a variety of slash? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This RFC is related to the recent AfD you participated at. Japinderum (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The article Porpy the Porpoise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable sidekick

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Outback the koala. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Outback! I see you reverted my changes from "Non-UN member states" to "Not members of the UN". Leaving aside that the UN/Non-UN division of various lists is inappropriate (for example, as CMD and Dlinth explain to me it seems that the List of sovereign states is divided in such awful way that Vatican City, Monaco and Liechtenstein are in some "normal states" group, but Cook Islands and Niue are put together with Palestine, Taiwan and Somaliland in a group of "irregular states"... What I gather from their responses is that somehow UN is utilized to decide who is normal and who is irregular... silly, isn't it? And I don't get it if it's so then why the Vatican City is "normal" and not "irregular"... This contradicts the List of states with limited recognition - the real world "irregulars" - and seems like a layman exercise/arguments to me along the lines of "everybody's doing it, so I should too") - in many lists UN membership is irrelevant and there is no point artificially dividing them so, I see the following problems with "Non-UN member states":

• It looks as if those are states that are members of a "Non-UN", whatever that is.
• Not all entities listed after "Non-UN member states" are states (e.g. SMOM and EU - when the list deals with diplomatic relations and diplomatic recognitions)

What's wrong with "Not members of the UN"? Japinderum (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Non-UN member states" is saying the exact same thing as you are saying, but in a more proper way. So I think it is really clear what is being said, and I don't beleive that there is going to be confusion over this on the part of the reader. As for what entities are listed under on various pages - that is a problem that should be fixed on the various pages, obviously the EU and the SMOM are not states, but on each page they should be in their own catergory under "supranational entities" or "other" or something like that, whilst leaving the Non-UN member states section intact. I completely disagree with you're assessment of how the division is made and your opinion on the Cook Islands and Niue which are not real sovereign states. They are a completely irregular case. Noone disputes their sovereignty because they possess no sovereignty which can be disputed. QED a lack of sovereignty and sovereign statehood. The lists are fine as they are sans Cook Islands and Nuie. Outback the koala (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "member of non-UN" is more proper than "not member of the UN". "Non-Whatever" (including "Non-UN") is some kind of quick-to-write abbreviation that doesn't conform to style and gramar requirements. And the lists you reverted are not lists of states - those are lists of diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations - and those are conducted not only by states, but also by the EU and SMOM. And I don't agree that there is need to add two further single-item categories since we already have a convenient few-items "Not members of the UN" category where those fit. It's a separate issue that I disagree with this UN/Non-UN split, but while it's kept we better use it well. You disagree about CI and Niue being sovereign states? Why? The sources I have seen show that they are indeed fully independent sovereign states and as CMD and Dlinth told me - they are listed at the List of sovereign states (so which lists you suggest to remain sans CI and Niue? The one most relevant to sovereignty already includes those). I don't see anything irregular in them. They are not more irregular than commonwealth-realms-that-gradually-gained-independence-without-a-big-bang like Australia and Canada, not more irregular than small-state-under-outside-influence like Monaco, Liechtenstein and Palau, not more irregular than small-remote-island-generally-irrelevant-state like Tuvalu, Nauru and Palau, not more irregular than many of these same states - many of them did not become members of the UN years after its establishment or their independence - Liechtenstein (till 1990), Micronesia (till 1991), Marshall Islands (till 1991), San Marino (till 1992), Andorra (till 1993), Monaco (till 1993), Kiribati (till 1999), Nauru (till 1999), Tonga (till 1999), Tuvalu (till 2000). And certainly they, along with all of these examples are much more "regular" than the not-exactly-a-state Vatican City Holy See. Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes thats completely fair to say that lists of states and lists of diplomatic recognitions/relations are seperate issues. However at a fundamental level to equate these entities on the same list under the same heading is akin to infering that they carry equal weight in said recognition or lack there of. We need to make it clear that an organisation, such as UNESCO (or the EU), is not the same as Taiwan. If we group them in the same catagory, then that's where the confusion comes into play. If more sections need to be added, then my position is so be it (that is if it is notable - it may not be). The UN, Non-UN division at its core is simple convience. The real division is widely recognised states and others. A UN, Non-UN division is just easy because such lists are identical (except VC which is always added to UN lists in perpetuity). When it comes to states and non-states, the line must be clear. We present facts in a clear independent way.

As far as the whole Non-UN member phrase goes, you are right that this comes down to style and grammar. Its kind of a minor a petty thing to be discussing so much in the grand sceme, but I think we both agree its very important; however I think we need to think of the reader and how the reader would interpret the both- would it be clear? You and I will likely not settle this because we both see our own phrase as the most clear. Let me be very clear myself though, your phrase is clear; I just think the original is clearer. Because of this we should bring more people into the discussion.

All of the examples you cite are irrelivant to the discussion. UN membership means nothing to statehood, or vice versa. Switzerland only became a member in 2002. Yes states can exist without being apart of any international bodies. But that does not effect the case of CI and Niue one bit, because they are not sovereign states. This is independent of validation or otherwise by international bodies. Other states is a different matter: a de jure state relys on this. The sources I saw on the talk page of the list of sovereign states seemed to imply that China views the CIs as a sovereign states, dancing around the outright statement. For some this was good enough to warrent both on the list. But really it only showed that China has an interest in the region and have good relations there, I would not be surprised if a similar source existed for New Caldonia, but that would not confer on them such a status as is being suggested here. A later source seemed be more clear, but I've seen no sources for Niue that are convincing at all to me. My position of rejecting Niue from the list while reluctantly accepting CI has not changed since then. Outback the koala (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we do some ranking of recognitions/relations by some perceived importance. Actually, inside the "regular" or "UN members" group the importance is also different (it's one thing to have relations with the USA, another thing to have relations with Tuvalu), so this is a moot point. The articles in question here simply list all diplomatic recognitions and relations a particular state has - regardless of "importance". And I think it's pretty obvious that these lists do not infer any importance level to each individual recognition/relationship. And this includes the two relevant non-state entities - if the EU or SMOM has recognized or established diplomatic relations with one of these states that the articles are about - then this should be reflected in the respective list.

About the "Not members of the UN" phrase - OK, since we can't agree, let's not change any article right now, but for cases (actually only one), where one (or both) of the non-state entities is listed "Non-UN member states" can't remain, so I'll change it to "Not members of the UN".

I obviously don't agree with you about CI and Niue. I don't know about sources at List of sovereign states and why you focus only on China, when both CI and Niue have diplomatic relations with much more states and the EU - see their foreign relations pages. Also the comparison with New Caledonia is entirely inappropriate - New Caledonia is a territory of France and doesn't conduct diplomatic relations by itself (not to mention all other policy areas where France has authority).

The examples I gave show the independence as sovereign state is not always result of a "big bang" - sometimes it's gradually achieved by shifting legislative and executive powers from a "colonial master state" to the "new state" (e.g. Australia, Canada). The examples also show that some states that you agree to be "regular" and "widely recognized" have less independence (e.g. Monaco borders, some taxes, economic rules, etc. are directly administered or deeply influenced by France) than CI or Niue. Also, I pointed you to the Holy See, which has much less state-like features than CI or Niue. Also, I pointed you to examples of states that didn't joined the UN for years. While you already agree that UN membership is irrelevant for sovereignty, statehood or independence - this is not understood (or is forgotten) by the mainstream press and sources - they tend to equalize UN membership to these properties. Of course this contradicts official real world government and diplomatic actions and sources, but still makes it harder for Wikipedia, because editors opinionated by the "abundance" of such unreliable (for this topic) mainstream press sources argue against the real world facts - CI and Niue are widely recognized independent sovereign states, they are regular members in international organizations and treaties and have respectable (comparable to other states of their size, location and economic importance) foreign diplomatic relations.

Court ruling confirming "fully sovereign independent state", recognition as such by UN[9][10], NZ[11] and many other states, who conduct regular diplomatic relations with them (the most recent ones are Japan[12] and Philippines[13]). I also don't see any ambiguity in the PRChina recognition and diplomatic relations.

You say that CI and Niue are not independent, not sovereign and not states, but if you are correct, then what do you think they are? They obviously aren't dependencies of NZ - NZ has no authority over them - including over their defense, foreign affairs or anything else (such as judicial system, head of state, etc.) Yes, CI and Niue are associated states (see link for details) with NZ (as are Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands with USA) and thus receive assistance when they request it and their citizens enjoy privileges as NZ citizens when abroad (in NZ or in other foreign countries) - on the other hand NZ citizens do not enjoy privileges as CI or Niue nationals, because these two states have separate independent rules in this policy area.

So, CI and Niue are not "less regular states" than the Holy See, Monaco, Tuvalu, Palau. Also they are quite unlike South Ossetia or even Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan that are not "widely recognized". Actually, exactly that is what makes it most obvious that CI and Niue have independence, sovereignty and statehood - that they are "widely recognized" as shown by their wide-ranging and regular activities in the international community (such as participating in high profile treaties and organizations open only to independent sovereign states such as the States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - where for example Palestine/PNA unsuccessfully attempted to get involved, but wasn't allowed exactly because its statehood is not "regularly"/widely recognized). Japinderum (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept your comprimise proposal, seems to be ok and well reasoned. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about CI and Niue. Outback the koala (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Wish you well! Japinderum (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI that there are a few other political party leaders at AfD courtesy of West Eddy (talk · contribs) which can be found here. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For being what we all have to be: Honest. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hammer and pick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Public Advocate of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holt, Ontario, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering what made you remove the Netherlands from Template:EU Dependencies as you did in this edit. Your edit summary says 'in that case!' but I'm unable to figure out what you refer to. Although I can see why it may not belong in there, I'm am curious about your thoughts. Legally, the countries of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have the same status as the country of the Netherlands, but on the other hand those three Caribbean countries are still dependent on the Netherlands (regarding defense for example).  thayts t  13:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Indeed, I explicitly said "the country of the Netherlands" to not confuse it with the Kingdom. When I said "are still dependent on the Netherlands", I actually referred to the country too. Yes, they legally have equal standing and the Caribbean countries look to the Kingdom indeed, but in practice Kingdom affairs like foreign affairs and defense are actually carried out by the country of the Netherlands. For example, it is the country of the Netherlands that maintains an army (the other countries don't) that is also deployed in name of the Kingdom. Also, the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of all the Ministers of the country of the Netherlands and only one Minister of each other country. If you think we should stick to the legal status then that's fine with me, but the way it is in practice is in my opinion also worth to notice.  thayts t  10:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

With that article I meant to start a topic on only the Caribbean side of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. If it is to be merged, it should be merged into the Kingdom of the Netherlands article since the Kingdom encompasses all the Dutch Caribbean islands. It should not be merged into the Caribbean Netherlands article, because the two (as I described it) are not the same. The Caribbean Netherlands consists of only three of the six Dutch Caribbean islands, so the Dutch Caribbean article is about more islands than what the Caribbean Netherlands article is about.  thayts t  10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Model United Nations Conferences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	somaliland page thanks for your help in the page . Hadraawi (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all DO NOT WRITE on my talk page. Discuss all topics on the article talk page. Second, I have removed thes pariah states. Foreign law dictates that the use of a national passport for unrecognized states can have serious repercussion for passport holder when returning home or transferring through third countries. Pariah states such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not have a consular network and hence are not able to issue visas. They are more puppet pseudo-states and their recognition by 7 nations (mainly economic wards of Russia) is simply economically-related than diplomatically. These states are not recognized by IATA, Interpol, and other international travel/law organizations the their visas and passports are not considered legal travel documents. Therefore, they have been removed from article until recognition is recognized. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted to Talk:List of states with limited recognition‎ and I will not write on your talk page again. Outback the koala (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Outback the koala. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1