Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 3 June 2011

• User talk:Alinor/Archive 1, 2

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For wonderful way of editing, with cold head and great peace. Thank you for your wast help in articles regarding Kosovo, and other questionable "hot" subjects. Keep up the great work! WhiteWriter 11:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

About Image

Hello, Alinor Could you please modify this image

• Countries that have no diplomatic relation mark them red (particularly areas which are Grey/or no color.
• And also mark Disputed areas. Thanks--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's on the commons. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you edit commons images? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have account there. Alinor (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should just be able to set this account to global and have it linked to commons in the My Preferences page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization

This "article" is a rehash of Foreign relations of Palestine, albeit modified to portray your own POV. I must remind you that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a platform for your own political agenda. If you continue to misappropriate facts through the creation of your own versions of the same article, I shall have to report it at AE. Nightw 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Palestine is a redirect. I assume you mean Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. And it doesn't push any POV - what is POVed in it? As explained at "Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority/Archive_2 13:45, 31 December 2010, etc. comments" (this is the edit-line description of the edit that created Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization) - since a few editors oppose moving FR of PNA then a separate article FR of PLO should be created - to deal with the PLO relations. I opened a discussion on the problem of content duplication between the two here. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestine recognitions only.png

Hello Alinor. Have reversed several times my edits on the map every time you want to add to Uruguay. You could add to Uruguay on the map? I await your reply, thanks. Regards. MauriManya (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already a version with Uruguay - and there is also another map with it - File:State of Palestine recognition.png. The problem is with not with Uruguay, but with other states that Night w wants colored in a way that isn't supported by sources. I don't agree with this WP:V breach, but he still reverts the map. We are discussing the issue and my latest proposal is this.

I don't object if you want to revert the map (again) to . Alinor (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Commonwealth of Nations interested states.png

I saw you are the creator of this image, would you mind adding Somaliland as 'orange' per the sources on the page since it has applied for observer status. Outback the koala (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Outback the koala (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alerts

They're contributors to past discussions. The first set is from this pages archives, the second is from those that contributed to the ] → ] discussion. I normally just post to the community pages, which I did, but it wasn't garnering enough of a response. Do you have an objection? Nightw 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On the RM discussion I don't see notifications about notified "community pages" (Wikiprojects? have you notified these?) - only about specific users. And there are not in "first set" and "second set" - the first set as you say is from the previous RM I linked. Then you added Harlan. Then I asked why. Then you added additional editors. Alinor (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notification on WikiProject Palestine. Harlan was first notified because his contributions came up on my watchlist and I recalled that he had contributed to previous move discussions. When you asked me to find the contribution, I initially couldn't, but then I found the RM I'd been thinking of in the State of Palestine archives, and then promptly contacted all those involved there. What are you accusing me of? Nightw 09:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject:Palestine notification isn't mentioned in the RM discussion. So, you notified the other editors only after I asked why Harlan is individually notified? Anyway, I don't want to accuse you of anything, just to see what your motives are. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop! AE requirements

Since you so often blindly cite it, I'm sure you haven't forgotten the arbitration enforcement requirements imposed on you (as well as myself) —that is, to discuss changes before making them on the articles. You're attempting to move entries in the list at Foreign relations of Palestine —an undiscussed change without consensus, and against reliable sources.

The "noticeboard discussion" you've cited as justification pertains only to the use of a particular source (Doebbler) to substantiate a particular claim. It did not address the issue of the placement of entries. Other sources have been provided in the talk page, which you're aware of and continue to ignore. If you continue to block the use of these sources, fine, but don't expect to get a consensus to move the entries they pertain to. Nightw 11:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the only source in the article that supports the placement of Syria and Turkmenistan in the "conflicting/inconclusive sources" section. What I did is to remove the source per the noticeboard discussion - and since it's not longer used, there is nothing else in the article to support such placement, that's why the two got moved out of this section.

Whether there are some unknown other sources is a separate issue. You are free to propose such on the talk page. When you did it last time there was no agreement to use the source you gave (for this purpose), because it didn't even mention Syria or Turkmenistan (and also has other flaws).

So, please stop violating the noticeboard result, restore , and use the talk page if you want something changed. Alinor (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

? I'm not making any changes... That would be you making changes, and I've been reverting. You're free to remove any sources that were deemed unreliable by the noticeboard discussion. You do not, however, have a consensus to move things around, and that's quite clear from the talk page. Even the noticeboard discussion wasn't very conclusive since it only got a response from one editor, see WP:CONLIMITED. Nightw 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the source is unreliable the arrangement that depends on that unreliable source is removed along with the source. If you want to add another source that results in a different arrangement - you are free to propose such on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Just because a user unilaterally blocks the adding of reliable sources without the consensus of the community (nor any attempt to get one) because of a POINT he or she wishes to make, doesn't mean that the information is then changed because of it. You'll need to get a consensus before you can change information. Any discussion on the topic so far has failed to achieve one, and you were well aware of that—hence my criticism of your behaviour. But before any of that, the source currently used may or may not be unreliable (your thread didn't achieve any significant level of response from editors). Nightw 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. My disagreement about some sources that you want to add (because they don't show what you want to use them for) is not related to the removal of another source that is unreliable. And yes, the noticeboard did reach consensus - and you were informed about both the start and the end of the discussion, and you were also informed about the result long ago. So, your current "not significant discussion" comments are misplaced - you had all chances to object and to give meaningful opposite reasons (if there are any). You also didn't say "not significant discussion" when you were informed about the results. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus to move entries and that your attempts to gain one have failed. Your changes were reverted, and per WP:EP, you should now go about trying to gain a consensus to repeat them. End of discussion. Nightw 15:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Consensus reached is that the source is not used regardless of your unreasonable objections. End of discussion. Alinor (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy as an informal mediator

Hello Alinor. Please see my suggestion at User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo

I have replied to your Talk:Constitution_of_Kosovo#UNMIK_framework_de_jure_still_in_force.3F. I have come to the conclusion, per my reply, that all acts of the government have to be promulgated by the SRSG to have effect. So, for the Constitution to be law, the SRSG should have promulgated it, correct? Where is this promulgation? (UNMIK haven't published regulations since 2008, around the time of the Constitution.) Int21h (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I commented there. Alinor (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Favour

Do you have anything that states that the UN considers the status of Kosovo to be unresolved? Or like a "Question of Kosovo" or something? Nightw 10:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is UNSCR1244 - it's still in force and not superseded.

Also, we have sources showing that the UNSG takes into account the 'recognition as State by the international community' when deciding on who can become a State party to an international treaty deposited with him. The result can be checked at and examples such as . The RoK, SoP, ROC, SADR aren't such states - they aren't recognized as State by the international community and they aren't State party to any UNSG deposited treaty.

Also they aren't displayed on the UN map of the world.

All these sources show that the real world distinction is "other10 vs. the rest". Of course some of the other10 have "substantial" recognition by other states, but this doesn't mean that they are "generally recognized" or "mainstream regular states". Alinor (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent. Many thanks. Nightw 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I opened a thread on the State of Palestine talk page that you might be interested in. I've also some reading material for you to look at . And I voted to support your proposal on that mediation debate. Nightw 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the section on SoP talk and at the links you put here. I'm glad we aren't opposing each other suggestions "by default" because our unrelated disagreements on other topics - so, thanks for that. Alinor (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Nightw 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be interested to hear what you think of this...? Nightw 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other issue, is there a way that you could perhaps simplify your proposal or at least the language used in it? It might be better received that way. I consider it to be a more NPOV setup, since you're not relying purely on voluntary subscription to a hand-picked group of organisations. Nightw 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I won't be quick to answer (if at all) for the next few days. Alinor (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

List of states mediation

Alinor - I didn't mean that to be a show-stopper. I'm simply trying to push this past the "we're completely stuck" phase to some kind of forward progress. trust me, everyone is going to have to compromise here, I'm just starting with you because you're in the minority position. once you give in on something, that will be leverage to encourage other people to give in on other things, and then we can start drawing it together. see what I'm aiming for? --Ludwigs2 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to look at the discussion. I'm in the middle of a period without much internet access, so excuse me if I'm late with responses. Alinor (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was jsut worried that I was being too brusque (been having an un-fun time with things lately). --Ludwigs2 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Seabed Arms Control.png

Dear Alinor, could you upload File:Seabed Arms Control.png to Commons as I'd like to integrate the map with the German version of the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. Thanks in advance! Teddychen81 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have such account. But if you have you can do it - you either put a template 'image proposed for move to commons' or do it yourself and leave a link in the description to the original file/uploader - for edit history/author acknowledgement/licensing information. Alinor (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and done Teddychen81 (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. I took the liberty of lodging your old proposal on your behalf. Night w2 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Biometric passports.

I don't know, where did you find out, that Ukraine issues biometric passports, but believe me it doesn't! I can't wait for the day, when they'll start, but the only thing they do is talk. Not a single biometric passport of any type has ever been issued to Ukrainian citizen. Please, correct the map on http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Biometric_passports.png

User:Igor alexandrov has added Ukraine - I don't know his source about it, please contact him. Alinor (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I am asking for Arbitration Enforcement for your recent conduct on List of sovereign states. This is just the standard procedure. Will provide you with a link as soon as the page is created. Ladril (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)