Please avoid the perception of tracing my recent edits in country articles. You have specifically separated Etymology sections from History main section in country articles after the recent edits that followed the MOS History. From an outsider position your edits could be interpreted as a personal edit war. Please avoid this impression in the future. Because my edits have a solid base in the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (concerning the Etymology part) and yours haven´t, I have to ask you stop this. Italiano111 ( talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not concerning the Etymology recommendation, as this was already a recommendation before my recent edits on this Project Page. Italiano111 ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you or any other editor have NOT made a relevant proposal for changing the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in terms of positioning of the Etymology part. Am I wrong ? I´m afraid I´m right. Italiano111 ( talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither you nor any other editor have made a proposal for changing the recommended position of Etymology (preferably in History) in the relevant talk page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries ! There is NO evidence not even an edit made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that indicates a change from the established recommendation. This was the last comment concerning this issue here on your talk page. I expect any serious argumentation to happen on the specific talk pages. Italiano111 ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk
(Further to "(Undid revision 445147142 by Arrivisto (talk) Mention of the CoE is extremely WP:UNDUE, it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members) : I had not intended this entry to be biased, but rather a neutral statement that although the IoM was not a member of the CoE, nevertheless the CoE's European Convention of Human Rights can be made to apply via the "supervision" of the UK. I think this information should be on the IoM page, but I am content (pro tem) to be advised on a "less biased" way of doing it.
(Also: "it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members" I don't understand this! Whose members? ) Arrivisto ( talk) 14:53, 24 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)
Honestly man, this revert is a bit uncalled for. I'll start a discussion for this trivial edit, but I will not bother to revert if anyone objects. Tachfin ( talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, how can we reach a consensus to end this?
Collins432 (
talk)
02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with this user talk thing, but I just don't understand why you want to use the outdated orthographic map that only a fraction of the African country articles use. This map is pretty much shows whatever the other one does, and is more appealing to the eye.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins432 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are you vandalizing the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations? Buaidh 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
why have you reverted here [1] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [2] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. But wait, here's more:
As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. -- Jurisdr1975 ( talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
From my talk page about where the link was from: it doesn't especially matter (The note is a request not to randomly rename the section), but if you're really curious and didn't want to go through the linked here page, I'm using "Etymology of X" redirects to include the etymology sections of some national pages in {{ main}} hatnotes on the List of country-name etymologies article without having to include ugly hatchmarks or uglier {{ dablink}} headers. The hope is that information and sources can be more easily checked and shared across pages. Right now, that's it, but some articles could also use them for cross-comparison of etymologies (all the * walhaz cognates come to mind). — LlywelynII 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis, thanks for keeping an eye on the Germany article. I believe, you are sometimes a little too strict with citation requirements, but it's still greatly appreciated to keep the article in good shape. Do you have a suggestion regarding the last two "citation needed" issues?
Hi thank for the advice, this is exactly what i wanted to do but i can't find any link to upload new version of the file, can you help me please. Kingroyos ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
There is no one to revert the People's Republic of China link, it has now redirected to China. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Using the name "China" instead of the "People's Republic of China" and the countries of East Asia template has still linked with "People's Republic of China" article. The only thing is China is now the primary topic of "PRC". Thank you. ApprenticeFan work 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to provide a cite, I did have one ready in a sandpit. Sorry if I was being slightly petty but N2e irritates me when he does drive by tagging and then comes back and deletes information it would take very little time to find a cite for himself. Thats all he does. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, WP:Summary Style is new to me. I answer after reading it. Now there are technical difficulties to open it. Watti Renew ( talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What's confusing about describing Canada as a dominion during that period? Canada's status as a dominion is universally accepted... as the article is written now, it makes it appear as though Canada became independent in 1867 and ignores the fact that it held the same status as the other dominions (which all noted to have been such) up until the Statute of Westminster. There's no ambiguity in Canada's status between 1867 and 1931, it was exactly the same as that of Australia between 1901 and 1942 with the primary difference being that Canada didn't have to pass an act to adopt the Statute of Westminster as it automatically applied to every dominion but Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. This is reflected in every article on the matter, from dominion to Statute of Westminster to Balfour Declaration of 1926 to British Empire itself. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(sorry for the late reply. somehow missed your post and didnt see it till now). As for the official documents - instruments of accession signed by states that joined pakistan use that term. Gbooks search for the term "I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan" throws up some examples. For example, here is the accession document for Kalat (princely state) and that of Junagadh-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In order to give the historical perspective, I consider it important to maintain the link Portuguese Congo. This is why I reverted your edit where the link was eliminated. If you think the matter has to be discussed, please do so. -- Aflis ( talk) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I have the intention to write a page on Portuguese Congo and shall then re-introduce the link. -- Aflis ( talk) 11:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia country articles, and I think a new list I made might be of use to you. Best, - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please single out what you disagree? I've made some other changes apart from what you pointed out in the edit summary, and you've reverted all changes that I've made. Thanks. 119.237.156.46 ( talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images for India was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflected the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to mozy on over to the page and offer comments, they will certainly be appreciated. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey
I'm that one guy that was edit warring you a while back in the Kenya article :). Anyway, I wanted to request a huge favor from you. Since I am not very familiar with using every function of Wikipedia, I was hoping that you could petition 'Semi-Protection' for the article? I have noticed that it is experiencing increased levels of vandalism and I just needed your help on this. Please.
Thanks! collins432 ( talk) 10:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the try :). Although, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if it's protected or not. I think it would be ideal if all users had to be autoconfirmed to edit anything.. collins432 ( talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.
Please vote here.
Thanks. Nikkul ( talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss on page. You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [13] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, on October 7th you edited the artcle [14] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on ctober 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You may wish to know that XLR8TION is conducting a wide-ranging campaign of listing Turkey under Europe. (No need to respond to me about this.) Esoglou ( talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [15] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, on October 7th you edited the article [16] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on October 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
HELLO. I made THIS edit which may be of interest to some. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Did you notice that the couple updated the IMF link and it was supporting their data (though I have no idea how IMF can seriously predict GDP for 2016. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Kindly put that back. You probably just need to clear your cache and see Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist?. 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Alarbus ( talk)
Q. Why did you revert that edit? Thanks, Alarbus ( talk) 14:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you seeing this problem as well? I reverted some of the formatting changes, but then I saw this on your talk page and thought it was probably just me. Nightw 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for all the orange boxes Chip. Nightw 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
HI Chipmunkdavis
Saw you reverted the changes I made to the British Empire article. Apologies if I offended the editing mores. I am new to this so still learning! I have started a new section on the artcle talk page so I welcome any comments
regards Freedom1968 Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on getting rid of the links to outlying islands on Template:United States topic. It'd get rid of a lot of perpetual red links... Nightw 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir; Would you please advise why did you undo my edit?
Best Regards -- Ibrahim Ghalghay ( talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. If you think that my wording at Northern Cyprus is preferable to Masri's POV pushing, then would you consider reverting him? Cheers. By the way, I didn't send that smile above, Watti Renew did. I don't know why it was labelled as being sent by "Taivo". Strange. Unless I accidentally clicked on that heart at the top of the page. But then why is it in the middle of Watti Renew's post? Strange. It's not that I don't like you, I don't know you personally, but clicking on a heart for you is a bit much ;) -- Taivo ( talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I've been a little busy this past week. I've responded on my talk page, and will post more thorough responses to Talk:Republic of China, as well as initiate a move request at Republic of China (1912-1949), in a short while.-- Jiang ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Glad to see you and Readin have finally taken the bull by the horns and decided to rename the Taiwan articles. I can see some people are refusing to accept there was consensus, but it seems to me that there was one. If necessary I suggest you ask for an uninvolved admin to help close the renaming discussion (the earlier one) formally. Or indeed a panel of three closing admins. If you like I would be happy to approach a couple. John Smith's ( talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, friend. Are you busy? I have at last managed to post, at WikiProject Denmark, that question we talked about months ago! Would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? You mentioned that Orange Tuesday had some thoughts also on the subject. Is there anywhere else we can recruit some more involvement? Rennell435 ( talk) 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I am letting you know, since it seems you are one of those who supports the moves, that I have created a subpage of my own user so that we can begin to create the proposed articles and give people their own input so we can use this as a test page for the articles, instead of reverting directly on the pages and continuing to discuss them on the talk page. The link is User:Jpech95/taiwan. Thanks! Jpech 9 5 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask why you removed my edit? It better reflects what the sources say and I have tried to talk this through on the talk page, unlike the other editor. No one objected to what I proposed there. BedsBookworm ( talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there,
Just wanted to mention, that though we probably won't see eye-to-eye on Western Sahara, I do appreciated the civil discourse and reasoned debate, which is so often lacking on WP.
Yours, NickCT ( talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The IP editor you are replying to at Talk:China has been blocked on behavioural grounds as being a banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood. Therefore its probably not worth replying ;). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Česká republika vznikla dne 1.1.1969, Československo se stalo federací protože Národní shromáždění Československé socialistické republiky přijalo ústavní zákon dne 27. října 1968 a vyhlášen byl pod číslem 143/1968 Sb. Takže Česká republika existuje 43 let. Historicky prvním předsedou české vlády, se stal v době od 8. ledna 1969 do 29. září 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. Po zániku federace, se již existující republika osamostatnila, ale datum vzniku je 1.1. 1969.
Czech Republic came into existence on January 1, 1969, Czechoslovakia became a federation because the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic adopted constitutional law of 27 October 1968 and was declared under number 143/1968 Coll. So the Czech Republic there 43 years. Historically, the first Czech Prime Minister, became in time from 8 January 1969 to 29 September 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. After termination of the federation, the republic became independent of existing, but the date of occurrence is 1 January 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.236.5 ( talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi arab league consider western sahara as part of morocco, please go and see arab league's web site, so don't revert my modification, thank you -- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
the map you put is not neutral, because it shows western sahara as full independent state, wikipedia is not UN or a political referee, the arab league's opinion and the fact that this territory is controled by morocco and not a no man's land must be taken in consideration...thanks to be neutral...-- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
this is a neutral map of morocco, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, it's used in many articls. When you put western sahara with international borders and in grey color (similar to independent countries) it means that this territory is a full independent state and this is extremely FALSE because the territory is under morccan control regardless international recognitions, I'm inviting you then to be neutral !!! Thank you -- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
take a look to arab league members map in the arab league website : [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the list you where asking about [ [19]], it is complete for all modern states and virtually complete for all extinct states the United States has diplomatically recognized (although i know of a couple obscure instances not included). XavierGreen ( talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit. Nobody is doubting that these brands a German. All of them have their own wikipedia articles where the source is given. Do you want me to add a source? Otherwise I will revert your edit.-- IIIraute ( talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Chip, I see that user Jrobin08 has just reverted a whole load of your edits. He has just been warned on his talkpage about the DR Congo one but not the others, and this is not the first time. Not all his edits are vandalism and sometimes it is not obvious whether they are or not. At the very least, it is clear that he hasn't yet got the hang of editing collaboratively. I and others have raised concerns on his talkpage but he just keeps blanking the page and doesn't reply to the points made. (He is a young schoolboy.) If you are sure he is mistaken about these edits, do you think further action needs to be taken about his behaviour? Can he be mentored? -- Alarics ( talk) 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I did not get back to you, I had been away. When I read there was no vote I had assumed it was an acclamation, but I didn't think of it as equivalent to an unanimous vote because, to me, it simply meant that no member objected to entry. This could have also included abstentions. That was my line of thinking, but if theres more to the story I'd like to know. I thought at first that if it were made an 'important question' that could limit member states' ability to abstain from voting, but I think this only makes a vote required to be a two-thirds majority, so therefore irrelivent. Again, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Outback the koala ( talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If I had to vote for my #1 geographic editor on WP, it would be you by a landslide!...We've corresponded before. I've seen good or exceptional edits of yours about a hundred times over the past 6 months. So I'm sure I'm missing something and that you have a good explanation--please fill me in--for your recent changes to the status of Cook Islands and Niue on the various lists of sovereign states....As per your guidelines above, I'll added a note to the discussion page for List of sovereign states DLinth ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I left a comment on the talk page. I suggest you respond and/or self-revert, otherwise later today I will be contacting an administrator to help sort it out. You are continuing an edit war that I attempted to end by refusing to bring WP:RS to the discussion and reverting edits that remove inappropriate, unsourced content. That's not how wikipedia works. 174.113.154.168 ( talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis! Just to clarify the edit history here, because maybe I'm missing something. I saw that Spesh531 moved Cook Islands to the "states row". [20] Then I moved Niue there, because it seemed as a minor omission - since both have the same status it doesn't have any sense each of them to be in a different row. You reverted me (Niue only, which was very odd for the reason stated here). Then the editor who made the initial change came back and corrected the minor omission himself. [21]
Later came DLinth and started moving both CI and Niue to "dependencies row". I reverted his changes. He didn't opened a section on the talk page and utilized only edit summaries to describe his changes - using strange reasons such as "not recog.as indep by UN or 190 of 195 states" [22] what (and who) are those 5 states (195-190) is a mystery, who are the 195 is also a mystery. On top of that the "not recog.as indep by UN" part is wrong (I provided a source in one of my reverts of DLinth [23]) and also not directly related to these edits.
Then you came, reverted to pre-Spesh531 version and asked to discuss pointing at another article. Then I restored the Spesh531 version and asked "CMD, what to discuss? Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to? If they are, then my edit is OK. I think they should be, because that's what sources show. Only if they aren't-then they can be moved to "dependencies". So, are they listed?" [24] You reverted again with "You know it's not that black and white."
But this doesn't answer the question: "Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to?" - if they are, then there is nothing to discuss and the Spesh531 version is both factually-correct (according to sources) and Wikipedia-correct (the same as the other article). If they are listed there why do you revert? Japinderum ( talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I notified Spesh531 that I mention his edits here
Oh of-course BE is American for over 100 years. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was away for a week...thanks for holding the fort with Japiderum (others?) who wanted (want?) to include Niue, Cook Is. in lists with no distinction between them and the ~190+ states that have actually declared independence, have fully distinct citizenship status, etc. I'm only an occasional, non-WP-savvy WP editor, but I did add more on that Niue-Cook Is. distinction in reply at the talk page for Associated states just now that I hope will answer his concerns. I appreciate your attention to detail and common sense there, at Niue, with Palestine, at List of Sovereign States, etc., etc. (and your similarly deliberate, practical, well-researched approach with emotion-laden topics (for decades!) such as East Sea (another full page NYT add last week....we see East Sea stuff like that here all the time!) DLinth ( talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user has expressed concerns that your vote on the above RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka is not genuine. I would appreciate if you could make some clarification to break the current deadlock as the user firmly stands by his opinion. Astronomyinertia ( talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Superficial niceness is achieving nothing on that page. I figure it's time to try another approach. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I acted in good faith to restore the comment that you have left at 01:22, 11 March which later disappeared. [25] I thought it was deleted by accident when you restore my comment at 18:43, 10 March [26] (which was removed by 114.229.255.127 [27]). Since Tiderolls questioned about it, could you help clarify whether your comment was deleted intentionally or by accident? Thanks. 202.189.98.134 ( talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the sentence on neighbouring states, the long form is needed or otherwise it is similar to constructions such as "pro-China president of Taiwan", which even supporters of the recent move have derided; this also is not a situation where using "China" instead of PRC won't create any precision issues, such as "China's space programme", or "Kyrgyzstan borders China". Remember this is article text, not article titles. GotR Talk 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I know you're a good regular editor in geography articles Chip. Could you keep your eye on Mtheory1 ( talk · contribs). He is on a fringe POV campaign to change all references to Iran from Middle East/Western Asia to South Asia. He apparantly is a "scholar" and "must do my duty to spread the CORRECT information" [28] to "FIX THESE PROBLEMS" [29]. Irānshahr ( talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see: Great Power → List of great powers by date. -- IIIraute ( talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Prince Ahmed Shah Khan is not a pretender he's the heir apparent to the throne of Afghanistan and is currently living in America, so is Prince Niaz Ali Khan (Spitfire202 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC))
@Chipmunkdavis: I find your intervention on the talk page of this article very helpful: "blatant POV" is exactly what has been in evidence there, in two opposite directions. However, you have now deleted a portion of the text which contained a source (Atmore) which I think should be maintained. Is there any reason why you think it should not? -- Aflis ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis, I got confused and said Cyprus instead of Country. This was a Lapsus L. I did not do anything wrong nor ridiculous by replacing Country with RoC, given the state of affairs on the island of Cyprus. I consider your labeling my edit or whatever act or attitude (I know, it is not the Lapsus) as "ridiculous" and announcing it to the WP community in an edit summary is a rude behaviour. I wanted you know that. Sorry for disturbing you and all the best, -- E4024 ( talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
I requested a change in the article about "Bahrain" stating:
Please change "Bahrain is a Constitutional monarchy" to "Bahrain is an absolute monarchy which claims to be a constitutional monarchy".
I provided just a sampling below of the hundreds of sources which agree with this classification.
Sources: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/bahrain-western-pr-firms-to-the-rescue-of-this-absolute-monarchy/ http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/11/brutal-face-of-bahrains-monarchy http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/bahrain-demonstrators-repressed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18voices.html http://www.enritimes.com/countries/bahrain.aspx http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=259276&sid=2163172 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/bahrains-war-of-attrition.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/middleeast/21bahrain.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8304-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-bahrains-revolution http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50527 http://www.FIXURL_liveleak.com/view?i=610_1300114588 http://wspus.org/2011/02/bahrain-resists/ etc., etc., etc. Clioveritas (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You responded by stating:
Not done. Many of those sources aren't reliable, and we have sources like the factbook noting it is a constitutional monarchy. CMD (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
May I inquire as to which--other than the CIA World Factbook--sources are considered reliable by you?
regards,
Clioveritas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioveritas ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
Could you please stop reverting my edits in which I changed the wrong links to Dutch Guiana to either Suriname (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)? I created both Suriname (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) to end the confusion once and for all; despite common misconception, the Dutch colony which is now the independent country of Suriname, was never known officially as Dutch Guiana. The name Dutch Guiana only became prominent on maps etc. after the United Kingdom united Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara to British Guiana in 1831. Even maps that do refer to "Dutch Guiana", as an analogy to British Guiana and French Guiana say something like "Suriname, or, Dutch Guiana", like this one for example. From 1683 until 1795, the colony was governed by the Society of Suriname and never known by the name of Dutch Guiana. And from the moment the Dutch state took control of the colony in 1795, until the moment Suriname became a country within the Kingdom in 1954, the colony was referred to in official documents as "Suriname", not as "Dutch Guiana". The governor was always known as the Governor of Suriname, never as the Governor of Dutch Guiana. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems the British government prefers Surinam though (which may indeed be better than Suriname, which is actually Dutch, I'll change my articles accordingly). It remains a mistery to me why you insist on directing people who read about the abolition of slavery in 1863 in the article " Netherlands" to Dutch Guiana instead of Suriname (Dutch colony)... The latter article is far more relevant, don't you think? If not, please explain why. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Het Nederlands Guiana word verdeeld in de Colonie van Essequebo, waar onder de Rivier Bouweron, of Poumeron en verdere onderhoorige Rivieren en Districten behooren; mitzgaders de Colonie en Rivier Demerary; welke Colonien thans bestierd worden door de Westindische Compagnie ter Kamer Zeeland: de Colonie de Berbice, die door byzondere Directeuren van zekere Maatschappy, volgens het hen verleende Octroy, wordt geregeerd. En de Colonie van Suriname, behoorende voor één derde deel aan de Westindische Compagnie, één derde aan de Stad van Amsterdam, en één derde deel aan het Huis van Aarssen van Sommelsdyk, allen echter onder de Oppermagt van de Algemeene Staaten der Vereenigde Nederlanden.
with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.: sigh... the adjective "Nederlands" in the Dutch language means "Dutch", the Dutch term for "Dutch Guiana" is "Nederlands Guiana", the Dutch language itself is called "Nederlands". I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. The Britannica article about Paramaribo stating it was once known as Dutch Guiana says it all really... these encyclopedias also contain errors, this is obviously one of them. It makes absolutely no sense that Paramaribo itself was once called Dutch Guiana.
I never disputed that Dutch Guiana is used to refer to colonial Surinam, I only contend that Dutch Guiana is a confusing term and that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better term, especially since that term was used in official English-language texts of the day (please name me one treaty which refers to the colony as Dutch Guiana!). Referring to the colony as Surinam is not uncommon, the only English language historical map of the colony on Wikimedia Commons says A map of the Colony of Surinam.
You refuse to answer my question. Do you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How is that factually correct. Could you please explain that to me? Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In August, 1799, an expedition was prepared for the reduction of the Dutch settlement of Surinam on the coast of Terra Firma; the squadron, consisting of two ships of the line and five fifties, was under the immediate command of Lord Hugh Seymour; the land-forces under Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Trigge. -- Edward Pelham Brenton (1823) - The naval history of Great Britain: from the year MDCCLXXXIII to MDCCCXXII, page 447.
Between the English and the Dutch it was determined that each power should keep the conquests in its possession as of 21 May 1667. This confirmed the loss of Surinam to the Dutch in exchange for having New Amsterdam (New York) remain English. With the death of Francis Lord Willoughby there was nobody to defend the interest of British planters. -- Mordehay Arbell (2002) - The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean: The Spanish-Portuguese Jewish Settlements in the Caribbean and the Guianas, page 88
The Dutch possessions in Guiana in 1803 included the four settlements of Surinam, Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo. -- The English Illustrated Magazine (1891), Volume 8, page 379
While the Dutch Caribbean islands -- St Eustatius, St Martin, Saba, and Curacao -- were small trading colonies, Surinam, on the 'Wild Coast' or Northern littoral of South America, had considerable plantation potential. -- Robin Blackburn (1998) - The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800, page 501
None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that only the pre-1814 Colony of Surinam, rather than all Dutch colonies taken together, is nowadays referred to as Dutch Guiana. All your sources say something like "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" without going into details about what that term implies for the situation before. There is actually nothing factually incorrect about stating that the colony of Surinam equals Dutch Guiana, it was the only part of Guiana administered by the Dutch after 1814. Before 1814, that term applied to all Dutch possessions in Guiana. I have already provided sources for that, an English one from the English Illustrated Magazine, and a Dutch one from Hartsinck, but as you keep insisting that only the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guina (which none of your sources say), I'll give you some more:
In time, he felt it his duty to take an active part in the missionary work. After a training period he was dispatched to Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, as the leader of the mission station of the Brethren. -- Øystein Ore (1974) - Niels Henrik Abel: mathematician extraordinary, page 135
The colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana, extending a hundred miles along the north-east coast of South America, between the fifth and seventh degrees of north latitude, has been known for many years past. -- Thomas Christie (1796) - The Analytical review, or History of literature, domestic and foreign, on an enlarged plan, Vol. 24, page 225
When terms of pacification next took place between the English and the Dutch, the latter resigned rights over the late New Netherlands, and accepted, in exchange, the colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana. -- François-Xavier Garneau (1866) - History of Canada: from the time of its discovery till the union year 1840-41, Vol. 1, page 225.
Every part of the world where domestic slavery is established, may be occasionally liable to insurrection and disquiet, more especially where the slaves constitute the majority of the inhabitants; but the colony of Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, has been peculiarly unfortunate in this respect. -- John Gabriel Stedman (1963) - Expedition to Surinam: being the narrative of a five years expedition against the revolted Negroes of Surinam in Guiana, on the wild coast of South America, from the year 1772 to 1777, elucidating that country and describing its productions, with an account of Indians of Guiana and Negroes of Guinea, page xi
In 1796 a Colonial Expedition was sent to South America, 1796. where the Dutch settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice in Dutch Guiana peacefully surrendered at the end of April to Captain John Parr of the Malabar. Marcus Robert Phipps Dorman (1902) - A history of the British empire in the nineteenth century, Vol. 1, page 27
As commander, on 5 June, 1795, he obtained a victory over a French division off Porto Rico, and he aided in 1790 in the capture of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, of which he became the governor. James Grant Wilson, John Fiske (1888) -- Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Vol. 4, page 334
Early in 1796 they also took Ceylon, Malacca, Cochin, Trincomalee and the Spice Islands, in the East Indies, from them; and Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America, in May, 1796. -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1402
AMSTERDAM, NEW, the seat of government of Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, is situated between the rivers Berbice and Canje, near their confluence, and extends along the banks of the former, about 1,5 miles, with the houses facing the waters. -- (A. Constable and co., 1822) - The Edinburgh gazetteer, or geographical dictionary, page 166
On some occasions, African rebels tried to come to an agreement with the colonial power. In 1763, in the colony of Berbice in Dutch Guiana, enslaved Africans led by Cuffee rebelled for the fifth time in 30 years, seized part of the colony and threatened to take over the whole island. When the Dutch brought reinforcements, the enslaved initially suggested a partition of the island and sought to establish an alliance with the maroon communities in neighbouring Suriname. Understandingslavery.com - Resistance and Rebellion
He had left France about the year 1782,7 and probably had gone to Demerara in Dutch Guiana, where some members of the Rousselet family lived and where at least one of them was then occupying an official position. -- Robert Howard Lord, John E. Sexton, Edward T. Harrington (1944) - History of the archdiocese of Boston in the various stages of its development, 1604 to 1943, Vol. 1, page 414
When van M died, a few years later, at Demerara, in Dutch Guiana, I learnt that his will contained several clauses in my favour. It merely remained for me to avail myself of them. Ida Saint-Elme (2008) -- Memoirs of a Contemporary: the Reminiscence of of Ida Saint-Elme, page 28
Along with the Leewards, several other slave colonies close to Spanish territory lost slaves because of this tolerant policy: Dutch St. Eustatius and the Danish islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix to Puerto Rico; Jamaica to Cuba; South Carolina to Florida; and Essequibo in Dutch Guiana to Orinoco or Spanish Guiana (Venezuela). -- David Barry Gaspar (1993) - Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua
A British fleet reduced the settlements of Demerara and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America; but a British squadron on its way to attack the Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope was defeated off the Cape de Verde Islands by the French fleet under... -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1306
I hope you are finally convinced now. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Why Azawad is shown on File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg? This is a file for Mali, not for Azawad. This file is used in many Wikipedias, so why they must use this pro-Azawadian image? Why there is no a similar file without Azawad? Moreover in the case of Somalia, the File:Somalia (orthographic projection).svg doesn’t show Somaliland (Somaliland is real non-recognized state, not only postulated as Azawad). Similarly File:Georgia (orthographic projection).svg is without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So, current File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg is ordinary POV – they should be changed for file with map similar to map used in files for Somalia or Georgia. Aotearoa ( talk) 06:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) PS. In the case of Somalia I’ve found map with Somaliland (with de facto controlled area, not claimed) highlighted ( File:Somalia (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg). So, it is possibility to add map of Mali with Azawad, but in different title (not File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg, and with correct borders (i.e. de facto controlled area, not postulated and de facto never controlled one). Aotearoa ( talk) 10:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please not add controversial items to the infobox for the Mali-article without at least trying to reach concensus for your edit at the talk page. I cannot see you've been participating there lately. The use of "LocationMali.svg" is used on older editions of the article than "Mali (orthographic projection).svg", so status quo is use of the traditional map. Disrespecting status quo and the current discussions in the article, and still reverting, is pretty much starting an edit war. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You are on 2RR, please explain why you are removing content which has achieved consensus through the RFC, which you did not even take part in I note, nor have you posted to the talk page. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi CMD, can you help me out here with these articles?
Mtheory1 ( talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi CMD,
Would you care to revert San culottes'
recent edits to the
Syria article? I would, but I'm bound by the
1RR whereas the last edit you made to that article was more than 24 hours ago. Thanks. -
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk)
10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the second half of this edit summary may be true, but you are the one who is bizarre (and desperate enough) to finally start referring to the ISO all this time. GotR Talk 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you could have a look in the talk page before reverting. 2 editors already agree on the changes. If you disagree you should enter the discussion. Masri145 ( talk) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted the anthem file in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and mischaracterized your action as "shifting." Such actions are known as sneaky vandalism per WP:SNEAKY and can be punishable under AA2. Sprutt ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You two (you and F&F) are well-meaning editors. I think you have misunderstood my edits on India and reverted it twice. Please help me navigate through this gloomy phase. In your judgement, I trust. As the reverter you did not look closely at my additions and that's what spurred the argument I guess. I simply don't understand why my edits were reverted in the first place. Yes, I know what I could have done but I just don't get what I did wrong. Help me dear! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Text that I (Mrt) want to add | Sources | remarks |
---|---|---|
1. The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism) | 1. (Barth, Fredrik (1962). E. R. Leach (ed.). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon, and North-West Pakistan. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
978-0-521-09664-5.) 2. (Martin A. Mills (2002). Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism. Routledge. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-7007-1470-4.) 3. (Kenneth Ballhatchet (1998). Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914. ISBN 978-0-7007-1095-9.) (Elijah Obinna (2012). "Contesting identity: the Osu caste system among Igbo of Nigeria". African Identities. 10 (1): 111–121. doi: 10.1080/14725843.2011.614412.) |
This was after RegentsPark checked it, and pruned some. |
2. Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population. |
(
"Constitution of India". Ministry of Law, Government of India. Retrieved 2012. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= (
help))
|
Important piece of information that shows Indian Government's initiatives to stem the issue of caste-system. |
3. The Indian economy is $1.848 trillion by nominal GDP and corollary changes owing to that. | (" GDP (current US$) Data in 2011". World Bank. Retrieved 27 August 2012.) | This was partly discussed on the talk of Economy of India. |
I left aligned the image as you asked in this edit summary. If not I will self-revert. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 08:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You have given me quite the welcome to Wikipedia authorship, as you reversed my very first entry! I must, however, disagree with your assessment that Israel "unilaterally annexed" the Golan Heights.
1) Annexation, by definition, is a unilateral political act. The modifier, therefore, strikes me as unnecessary, verging on pejorative.
2) The Golan Heights Law was not a legal annexation of the territory. It was an effective annexation, agreed, hence why I thought de facto was a fair rendering. For the Golan Heights Law simply does not annex the territory into Israel. The entry itself provides proof in two ways: 1) The language of the law does not say that the territory is now part of Israel, but rather extends the Israeli law through it. If they had truly annexed it, why not make it abundantly clear? Can there be a secret annexation? This leads to 2) which is that the Prime Minister at the time denied that it was annexed. Again, if it was a true, proper de jure (as you say) annexation, why deny it? Annexation is a clear, unambiguous act. Israel's action with respect to the Golan Height is politically and legally imperial. It is not, legally speaking, annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooshj ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:India". Thank you! Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding [33]. You confirm that you agreed with "the change from recognitions to diplomatic relations." I deliberately didn't touched the NZ extent, because there wasn't agreement about these other changes. But now you repeatedly revert the recognition-to-relations change that nobody disputes.
What's the difference between those? The relations change you agrees with. Re-arrangement of the other sentences so that they match other extents. Head of state clarification - previous variant mentions neither the Commonwealth nor the Realm of NZ (not the state of NZ)! Previous variant was the ambiguous "shares a head of state with NZ" - UK shares head of state with NZ. Australia shares head of state with NZ. CI and Niue too. But the point here is different - that all three states - CI, NZ, Niue - share the Queen in the right of NZ the realm - and as a separate issue - that Queen happens is the same as the Queen of other Commonwealth realms such as Australia. Japinderum ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Same for Niue:
What do you disagree with? Japinderum ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
i need your help to protect the Somaliland page and if you go back in the view history you will find that the paage was blanet several times so if you can or someone can protect the page so it becomes hard for vandalism.
Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello
1/Why did you choose to talk about what you don't understand?
If you read the "accord de Nouméa" it say than WE people of new-Caledonia will choose the future of OUR country between 2014 and 2018 ;The discution about the flag was about show it on the mayors offices or not (for your information not all the mayor offices show it some of theme only show the France flag) IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL FLAG AND NEW CALEDONIA IS STILL PART OF FRANCE. http://www.gouv.nc/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/12320003.PDF this is a REAL OFFICIAL SOURCE
2/why you choose to ignore people who are concerned
It is not the first time some people from other country choose to trust what they see on the net (witch mean nothing than we can trust). You just increase tensions here whit wrong informations for that you are clearly responsible so when it is gonna explode (and it will thanks to you and other of the same kind ...)i will send you pictures and documents so you can see what you've done from your country in your comfortable office ...
3/Why you undo things about a country that is on the other side of earth.
I don't even care about your country (the genocide of Tasmania, the civil war, ...) why don't you do the same. Or maybe your are omnipotent and knows every things just with your spirits, in this case may i call you god ... but in if not just try to talk about what you know it will be the best for the rest of the human kind.
so thanks again for you infinite knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! In your map File:Recognition of Israel.svg, Iran needs to be colored in pink, because from the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Iran did recognize Israel and in addition had diplomatic relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.20.246 ( talk) 14:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis!
I understand your rationale and, personally, don't think I mind whether or not the template includes a WikiProject link, but I'm wondering if removing it might have more of an impact on those WikiProjects than imagined. On a page that includes the template, for instance, the WikiProject link provided by the template might've been the only indication that the WikiProject exists..? (Or maybe the idea of WikiProjects is being wound down..?) CsDix ( talk) 08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
When you say the Italians took Eritrea from Ethiopia that is not at all true. If you merely read some books, it has been written that Eritrea had been separate from Ethiopia before the Italians took over. They had the kingdom of Medri Bahri. Before Axum, Eritrea was also separate: they had city-states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nummies ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
See the last few posts in this UK Talk thread. The country infobox template seems not to be designed to have a source citation for a country's ranking. This is the sort of thing you usually know the history/reasons for/background on! Care to comment? DeCausa ( talk) 07:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, please archive your talk page content, its too big now.
Based on consensus, as shown on Talk:Puducherry, the wikipedia page on union territory of India has been moved from Pondicherry to Puducherry. Since, there is no consensus yet on city or district of the same name, I am not changing it on other pages; didn't change text on page of historical documents. However, this page is not a historical topic, it is a list of current such territories as noted by UN.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .
Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I'm just dropping a note regarding my rv of your edit in the Falkland Islands article. As I said, I believe regarding the islands as a comparable "entity" as the UK or Argentina has a possible political undertone since they are actually a British overseas territory and not a country. Even more, their right to make political decisions regarding the islands (as a physical object) is clearly contested by Argentina which would make referring to the "Falkland Islands" instead of the "residents of the Falkland Islands" all the more controversial. I could be wrong here though. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't come across the term Y-chromosomal Adam in any subject other than human genetics, then why the article starts with "In human genetics". Then why you made this edit summary? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 08:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely the article name is clear? Why do we need a special section with vague definitions? Is it to satisfy some people's inability to work within Wikipedia guidelines? The ones I left there are ones that arguments could be made for, like Greenland, French Polynesia and Aruba. Could you explain why uninhabited islands and integral territories need to be included? Can you explain how Macau qualifies as an island country when it has a glaringly obvious mainland peninsula? 212.113.145.253 ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
As to my contention that Bahrain is in no way a constitutional monarchy but, instead, an absolute monarchy, I refer you to one of the latest articles in this regard: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/13d9671763240907
regards,
csc [6]
Hi, BFBS's TV channel lineup changed a few weeks ago - http://www.bfbs.com/radio/article/bfbs-tv-set-for-a-makeover-on-27th-march As a result, the channels available to civilians in the Falkland Islands changed as well. The Penguin News publishes TV listings with the new channels, but in order to view its TV page, you need to log in with a password, while the BFBS website, obviously catering for its intended audience, doesn't distinguish between the channels only available to HM Forces (Sky Sports 1 and 2, and BFBS Sport) and those available to everyone. Quiensabe ( talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I want to know some information about the Vatican City State. You have already said me that PRC doesn't have any diplomatic relations with Vatican because it recognises the ROC. But I think that "internationally recognised sovereign state" means that state received a recognition from all permanent members of the UN Security Council, isn't it? I want to know: 1) Is Vatican recognised by the PRC, 2) What is the correct number of INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED SOVEREIGN STATES ( I think 194 - UN members and Vatican City (Palestinian state is not internationally recognised)). Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 10:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If I'll use my criteria which defines state only if it is recognised by absolutely ALL states in the world as sovereign and independent state, there will be 188 states around the world (187 UN member states (excluding 6 not fully recognised - Armenia, Israel, Cyprus, PRC, North and South Koreas), and the State of Vatican City (not Holy See, that is the governing body of Vatican City State), recognised by ALL states as sovereign). Is it such as I say, are all states I've named are recognised by each other? Please answer, are all states I've named are absolutely recognised and my criteria yare can be right? User02062000 ( talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Which states do not recognize the State of Vatican City? I know that the Holy See has no any relations with PRC and North Korea and some other states. Is it means that these states do not recognize Vatican City. Is it? WHAT SOURCES can prove that Vatican City is recognized by those states that have no any relations with it? And also, what entity is a state: Holy See or Vatican City? User02062000 ( talk) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday in the list of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent there was only one UN non-member state: Vatican City. Today, when I added an amendment that Palestine is sovereign, and then deleted it, you have reverted list to version in which Palestine is considered sovereign state. Then, there is a question: why Palestine was not considered sovereign yesterday and earlier, but today it is considered? Why did you delete my re-contribute?Also, there is a question: how many states recognised by the UN as sovereign are not its members? User02062000 ( talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, currently there are only two states de jure recognised by international community that are not members of the UN: the Holy See (Vatican City State) and the State of Palestine. But what we must to do with other entities in the List of sovereign states? I think, the section "List of states" must be divided into two sections: "Internationally recognised sovereign states" and "States with limited or no recognition". The 195 UN-recognised states must be included into the first section, and other states that are considered to be non-sovereign (part of a parent, recognised state) by the UN. I think it is a good idea, isn't it? User02062000 ( talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw that in Wikipedia on another languages, such as bahasa Indonesia or Russian Wikipedia, State of Palestine is considered a state with limited recognition, and fact that Palestine does not recognised by approximately 60 states, including 3 permanent Security Council members, is considered a lack of recognition. But the last updates of that lists were not so much time ago, not more than 1 month. There is a question: how much time ago did the State of Palestine become a fully independent sovereign state, if in other Wikipedias Palestine is considered not fully recognised, but with limited recognition? And what pages can ARGUE a fact that Palestine is fully recognised? User02062000 ( talk) 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The second problem is: in the "List of states with limited recognition" in section "criteria for inclusion" there is a criteria: state must be recognized as a state by at least one other state. But Somaliland is not recognized by any state! Then, it must be excluded from this list! And also, there are some states, for example, Niue, Wasiristan, Azad Kashmir and other unrecognized states are not included in this list, but unrecognized Somaliland is included. Why? User02062000 ( talk) 05:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But in what section must CI and Niue include? Recognised states, states with limited recognition or dependent territory? What criteria do CI and Niue meet? I know, that they are both with complicated status, but in what section they must be included more specifically? User02062000 ( talk) 11:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
If my sections are "internationally recognised states", "states with limited or no recognition" and "dependent and autonomous areas"? Where must CI and Niue be placed more specifically? When I had deleted CI and Niue from the list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, you said that they are "rarely described as sovereign states, but as they are sometimes, they are included in the List of sovereign states". If they are SOMETIMES described as sovereign states, it means that they are more often described as dependent, non-sovereign territories. Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But are they (CI and Niue) usually described as "states with limited recognition"? They are recognised by few states but they are not placed in the list of states with limited recognition. Also, what criteria of statehood are usually used in international law and how many states are those criteria define? User02062000 ( talk) 17:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But why must we include CI and Niue, if they are not usually considered sovereign states? Even in the lists of countries by continent they are in the section "dependent and other territories". I think we must EXCLUDE CI and Niue. User02062000 ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Why are they included in the section "Dependent and other territories" in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania? And in other lists of states they are considered non-sovereign? Only in the List of sovereign states CI and Niue have its own sections. And also, about criteria of statehood: the second criteria is "state must be recognized by at least one other state. Is Azad Kashmir recognised by Pakistan, or no? If it s rscognized, it must be included in the list of sovereign states because it meets the second criteria. User02062000 ( talk) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, Niue and CI are more often described as dependencies (if we must choose between sovereign states and dependent territories) , isn't it? (Answer me: Yes or No). User02062000 ( talk) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How many from 206 states in the List of sovereign states are meeting the four criteria of Montevideo Convention? Are there any states excluded from the list but meeting Convention's criteria? Are CI and Niue meets all of these criteria as other sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 19:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There are 195 countries that are recognized by the UN and independent states. But are CI and Niue are recognised by the UN as states, or they are considered non-sovereign self-governing territories controlled by New Zealand? User02062000 ( talk) 11:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
But you can see List of non-self-governing territories, there are 16 entities, and CI and Niue are excluded. They are in section "former entities" and now in the UN they are not belong neither to states, nor to dependencies and other. Why? User02062000 ( talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have 2 questions: 1) Are CI/Niue are recognized as sovereign states by the UN or no, and there will be only 195 recognised states by the UN; 2) Why in the UN is used the designation "Holy See", but not "Vatican City"? Vatican City is a state, but not the Holy See! User02062000 ( talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Are there any states except CI/Niue that can be considered as sovereign, but most often described as dependencies? If there are some such states, they must be included in the List of sovereign states. User02062000 ( talk) 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But why in all pages about freely associated states and CI and Niue, they are described as STATES in free association, but not any other entities? Also, you can see "List of dependent territories", in which CI/Niue are included. There is a question: why in all lists CI/Niue are listed as dependencies, but in notes they are described as sovereign states??? And I can't understand: must CI/Niue belong to sovereign states or dependencies? They are rarely described in pages on Wikipedia as "self-governing in free association", but they are described as I wrote before. Explain why? User02062000 ( talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, HOW MANY states are de jure (and de facto, of course) recognized by the UN? (say me a number of states). Please answer exactly as you can! User02062000 ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The List of sovereign states contains 206 states. The UN accepted 195 states. Other 11 states are not in the UN System. Then, other states must be accepted by the UN as part of member state (Kosovo - Serbia, Taiwan - China, Transnistria - Moldova, NKR - Azerbaijan, Somaliland - Somalia, Turkish Cyprus - Cyprus, SADR - no state, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - Georgia, and CI/Niue - New Zealand). Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But is Kosovo considered a part of Serbia by the UN? I know that there is a peacekeeping mission of the UN in Kosovo. Do you know, is Kosovo is internationally recognised as part of Serbia (by the UN)? And what other countries of the world (except those which accepted CI/Niue as subjects of International Law) think about CI/Niue? Are they recognize these entities as sovereign or as partly sovereign but controlled by NZ? For example, CI/Niue are considered states with limited recognition in German (deutsch) Wikipedia. User02062000 ( talk) 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Some lists are consider CI/Niue as NON-MEMBER STATES of the UN, and the map "world today" also consider Niue and CI as non-member states. Why? In all other maps CI/Niue are considered by the UN as part of New Zealand. User02062000 ( talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you say me in brief why in Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue editors have decided to add CI/Niue to the List of sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
1) Are CI/Niue meet ALL 4 criteria of Montevideo Convention? 2) Are ALL 16 states with limited recognition meet these 4 four criteria? 3) Are other 187 UN member states and Vatican City meet these 4 criteria? You can answer in such way: 1) yes/no; 2) yes/no; 3) yes/no. Add a note if you feel it necessary. User02062000 ( talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think that so does every inhabited dependent territory? It has no capacity to have relations with other states. Also, are all states in the List of sovereign states meet the criteria used for this list (a, b)? User02062000 ( talk) 03:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any states that meet criteria of the List of sovereign states, but not included of that list? Can you name them? User02062000 ( talk) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But what is the source of these two criteria used in the List of sovereign states? Where were it found? Who used these criteria first? User02062000 ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
What states are meet only declarative theory criteria, and what states are meet only constitutive theory criteria? (Please name those states that are not defined as states by declarative theory, and states not defined as such by constitutive theory) User02062000 ( talk) 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
What with NKR, PMR, Palestine and Somalia? What theory of statehood are they meet? In what theory have they disputable status of considering state? Also, you have already said that every inhabited dependent territory meets the criteria of declarative theory. Then, dependent territories such as Tokelau must be included in the list, but they're not. Why? (I have read the Montevideo Convention, in which the declarative theory appears. There are no point in which say that "state must declared independence and is often regarded as ... Etc.", but in the criteria (a) in the list of sovereign states there is such text. You said that the point (a) is the point for declarative theory. And, how I have said, in the declarative theory there is no such point. Why are dependent territories not included in that list, if they are meet the criteria of declarative theory, as you have said?) User02062000 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are all states in the list of sovereign states (206 entities) meet the criteria of the declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine including)? The Montevideo Convention is apply to CI/Niue, isn't it? (As you've said, the convention is apply for states that have received diplomatic recognition from another one as sovereign state. Then CI/Niue are defined as states by the declarative and constitutive theories) User02062000 ( talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are Montevideo Convention and declarative theory are the same? Why did you say that every inhabited dependent territory meet 4 criteria of the convention? You have said later that Montevideo Convention is only about STATES, but not DEPENDENCIES! Also, only 204 entities of 206 are defined as states by the declarative theory of statehood, isn't it? CI/Niue are not defined as states by only the constitutive theory! User02062000 ( talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it means that CI/Niue are not considered sovereign states by the declarative theory? Yes or no? (Add a note and please, give me a correct NUMBER of states that are define as such by the declarative theory. User02062000 ( talk) 17:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
But you have said that CI/Niue meet only CONSTITUTIVE theory, but not DECLARATIVE! Isn't it? Also, are there any states meeting both theories but not included on the list? User02062000 ( talk) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, there are 206 sovereign states defined by two main theories of statehood. Is it a right conclusion? Are there any other theories of statehood? User02062000 ( talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Why CI/Niue are not belong to sovereign states in other lists? They are recognised by some states and defined as states by statehood theories. We can add a note about recognition of their sovereignty. User02062000 ( talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I understood that they are not fully independent from NZ, and then rarely considered sovereign states. But they are include in the list of states because they are recognised as independent by some another countries. Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Also I have the next question: CI/Niue in some lists are consider to be UN non-member state. But on other pages they are considered not to be recognized by the UN. IT CAN'T BE DIFFERENT AUTHORS, THE UN IS ONE! UN must have a definite position: or to accept CI/Niue as states, or not. What is the CORRECT position of the United Nations? User02062000 ( talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
then, which sources are right: those which describe CI/Niue as sovereign or those that not describe them as such? User02062000 ( talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, List of sovereign states includes all states defined by at least 1 another state or theory as a state (there are no any states that are described by anybody as such). Is it a correct conclusion for the end of this discussion? User02062000 ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a question: Are CI/Niue meet only constitutive theory or both? As you've said earlier, they are included per the constitutive theory. Is it so? And also, why associated CI/Niue are most often considered to be non-sovereign territories, but such associated entities as Palau are considered to be fully independent from their parent country? Also, I've heard that CI/Niue are often considred constituent countries (such as Nothern Ireland or Greenland), but not states. Is it such? If it is such as I've said, I have a conclusion: CI and Niue are not considered sovereign states by NZ and international community. User02062000 ( talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Couple of your sources describe CI/Niue as sovereign, but other don't. Which sources are more correct? Are CI/Niue described as sovereign by the most of sources or no? User02062000 ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I have four questions: 1) Why does the UN specialized agencies have a members such as CI/Niue or Kosovo, which are does not considered sovereign states by the UN? 2) What entity is considered a state by the UN: Vatican City or the Holy See? 3) Is Palestine fully occupied by Israel and considered by it as part of its sovereign territory? 4) Are CI/Niue considered by NZ as its territories but not sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 09:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
How many states are recognized by the international community (de jure and de facto)? What states can be the members of the international community? User02062000 ( talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please answer: 1) There are 204 entities that are defined as states according to the Montevideo Convention and declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine are included, of course). CI/Niue are not included because they haven't declared independence yet. Is it (Yes or No)? 2) There are 203 entities (or 205, if PMR and NKR are included) that are defined as states according to the constitutive theory. Is it? User02062000 ( talk) 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any entities that have declared independence but have no control over its territory and population? User02062000 ( talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
But the Republic of Ichkeria is a government-in-exile, isn't it? These entities have no boundaries and they are claiming to be only government, but not a country. Is it so? And please answer the second question: what theory of statehood is the dominant and the main: constitutive or declarative? And as I understood, the declarative theory is only for STATES, that have declared independence. Then, dependencies (inhabited) meet the criteria of convention (CI/Niue are include as dependency), but they all don't meet main point: they must declare independence, but dependencies fail this point that applies to states. Am I right? User02062000 ( talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But please, answer exactly: what theory of statehood is the main theory? Declarative or constitutive? Which of these theories is the main? And also, if you mention realpolitik, what is it mean? User02062000 ( talk) 04:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you say why our list of sovereign states include only that entities that have been described as states by theories of statehood, but not realpolitik and other ways? You have already said that the world runs not on the academic theories. User02062000 ( talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
But then, why are we include states defined by theories but not other criteria or different ways? User02062000 ( talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my repeated reversions on the Nauru entry--I thought I was having technical difficulties. I accept your point, that form of government is not relevant to this geographical table. I added the comment only because I saw "world's smallest republic" prominently featured in the Nauru article. Goustien ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I want to know correct number of dependencies in the world (including CI/Niue, but excluding territories without international recognition as dependencies and territories that are considered to be an incorporated part of another country). Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, why the UN does not include some dependencies in its list of Non-Self-Governing territories? User02062000 ( talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. This topic is about citizenships of different countries. I want to know answers on some questions. The questions are: 1) Are all people of dependent territories citizens of its mother country (for example, people of Wales or British Indian Territory are citizens of the UK, is it?) 2) Are all population of unrecognized and partially recognized states (excluding recognized UN members, of course) must be citizens of mother country? 3) Are Western Sahara population are citizens of any country? 4) How many citizenships are there in the world (add a note if you feel it necessary)? User02062000 ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Chipmunk My Friend,
re: the United Nations article#membership section.
I believe Palestine is now in the same UN status as the Holy See (Vatican State) as a non-member permanent observer. Please see the article on permanent UN observer states. Why then, are we not going to recognize this?
What makes a state "fully recognized"? If it means recognition by all of the powerful states, then this gives these states unequal power and is not democratic. If, however it means all states recognize the state in question, then several are members of the UN which are not "fully recognized". Take for example the State of Israel recognized by only 160 of the UN members, only 28 more than the State of Palestine with 132. Which should be "fully recognized"? Just because the powers that be recognize Israel and they can get this voted by all Permanent Security Council members, they are a "fully recognized state". The other state is not and is banished from sight.
I was only attempting to show that, though recognized by the UN as a non-member permanent observer, the State of Palestine is not yet a member. But it should still be recognized as a "recognized" government by the UN, but not fully, as is Israel, Armenia, China, etc. which do not have recognition by all members.
Then the UN treats the Cook Islands and Niue as states capable of making international treaties and able to hold memberships in many international organizations. They have power to unilaterally declare independence. This means they are sovereign in their own right and are freely associated as is Monaco and Liechtenstein.
How can we show they are all "fully recognized", but not members? Can you suggest a way to make these states exist and not fade away into the netherworld? I can assure you Palestine and several others won't go away anytime soon and will be recognized in the future. We should show we are aware of these states, and their progress in this article in some way. What do you think?
Briefzehn 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
Hi Chipmunk,
You still have not convinced me. I was making note of the State of Palestine in the section on Membership where it notes "all fully recognized sovereign states" except the Holy See/Vatican. Though the article may mention Palestine elsewhere, it is deceiving not to mention it here as well using the statements put forth. It is all a matter of arbitrary rules from what I can see.
On the matter of the Cook Is. and Niue, they are states as the Wikipedia defines state as "A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government". If they have sovereign rights to make treaties and declare their independence and are by definition a state, then they are sovereign states and are recognized officially or unofficially by many UN members. I know you have a lot of questions like this but this is because your actions make you appear to be an expert. It is all clear as mud to me. Is there some way to clarify the article for simple folks to read?
Briefzehn 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for taking the time to explain for my muddled mind to understand with the complexities of "independence" and "recognition" in the world today. I do believe DLC has at least partially clarified the article with the changes made. I now can also see the State or Palestine DLC mentioned as an observer in the section. By the way, I know Cook I and Niue have not declared independence, however, they are included in the article for independent states as "other states" not UN members or observers and they both have no disputes. How do we reconcile this in the UN article? I saw where in one part a mention was made at the end of the section that both are considered by the UN as working states which are able to make treaties and join various UN agencies as states. They do take a little extra explaining as they are extraordinary cases. Thanks for your time. Briefzehn 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
You're probably right; on the other hand I'm reasonably sure I have made statements to that effect on Azer/Arm pages. I don't comport myself well when frustrated with rambling people. :P -- Golbez ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work on the rewrite! It has desperately needed it for some time now, but I've avoided doing it myself due to the inevitable WP:IDHT debates that Ci/Niue issues tend to descend into. TDL ( talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
The Commonwealth of Nations is an "intergovernmental organisation of 54 independent member states", therefore not a state, consequently it has no relevance to the article about state leaders. Furthermore the link which I keep deleting and you keep re-adding is about the list of members of this organization (only 16 of which have the head of the organization as their head of state). And Elizabeth II is correctly listed under each Commonwealth realm as head of state in the List of current heads of state and government article, therefore a link to the membership of the Commonwealth adds no relevant information.
Could you please explain how you see this question?
ZBukov ( talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You can see on www.rulers.org or on www.worldsatesmen.org, in the sections about history of the Palestine, it is a State of Palestine, proclaimed in 15 Nov 1988 by Palestine Liberation Organization which remains ineffective but receives diplomatic recognition from some states) which has a own organization of the state and which has in common with Palestinian National Authority only the person of the president. Te Parliament is Palestinian National Council and the government of that is Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. For PNA the Parliament is Palestinian Legislative Council and it is a government lead by a prime minister. On 29 Nov 201 2 Palestine represented by PNA obtained the status of non-member observer state status in the United Nations and in 6 Jan 2013 Palestinian Authority renamed itself State of Palestine (move not recognized by Israel). So, at this moment it is a big difference between the state of Palestine proclaimed By OEP, which has nor a prime minister nor an elected Parliament and State of Palestine which is the new name of PNA. Maybe in the future will be an unification between the two entities, but in present they are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! Answer please, why does the Holy See not a member of the UN? Has it a plan to become its member? User02062000 ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Why does the Vatican City is often considered a state, but the Holy See is an observer state in the UN? User02062000 ( talk) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
But then why the Holy See is in a category 'Non-member states in the UN list? On all pages in Wikipedia the Vatican is considered a state, not the Holy See! Even on the website of the Vatican City it is considered a state, not the Holy See! Why the Holy See holds a STATE section in the UN, not international organization? Please explain! User02062000 ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain or show sources where mentioned that Holy See applies to the UN under its name, not Vatican City State! All sources say that Vatican City is a state, Holy See is only a sovereign entity controlling a state of Vatican! That is not logic if Holy See appears to the UN under name of international sovereign organization, not under the name of state they controlling? Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand it, my question is 'Why the Holy See is considered a state in the UN? It can be considered an international organization, such as the SMOM! Please answer, why the Vatican City is internationally recognised and considered a state, but in the UN the state is Holy See, that is considered just a government of the Vatican? User02062000 ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Then, why the Vatican City is considered a sovereign state on the List of sovereign states and the page about Vatican? There are so many pages where Vatican is the entity which is considered sovereign state, without any mention about the Holy See as a state! It is so unclear situation: all encyclopedias say that Vatican City State is a sovereign, while in the UN the Holy See is considered a state! You can see website of the Vatican, where mentioned that Vatican is an independent state, and there is no mention that Vatican City and the Holy See are entwined! Even the website of Vatican proves that Vatican is a state, but you say that Holy See is a state too, isn't it? I think the website of the Vatican City is the main source where the right information can be found! Then, Vatican is a state, not Holy See! And the Holy See holds observer state status. It is not logic, if Vatican website proves that Vatican is a state, while Holy See don't mention about that they are the state, and holds observer state status!!! Don't you think so? Please clear this unclear situation! User02062000 ( talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. You say that "they are different aspects of the same state". What is this state? I just want to know what name (Holy See or Vatican City) is an official name of the state? User02062000 ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have one question: if you say that Holy See is more closely associated with diplomatic presence of state (but is used as one official name of the state, can you explain why in the article about Vatican City State I've found this: "The two entities have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country,..."??? How can you explain this words? They say that Holy see is not a country (or state)!!! But you ask me, "Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See?" We must either delete the proposition I've found, or you explain me your point of view! How you can explain it? User02062000 ( talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have a conclusion for the end of discussion: The Vatican City is traditionally considered a state, while the Holy See is considered its government, but represent a traditional state in international organizations as a sovereign entity. If it is right (say me), the discussion would have a happy end! User02062000 ( talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Gibraltar and the UK may claim whatever they want, but what they cannot do is to change the Treaty of Utrech. The history cannot be rewritten according to what you would like it to be. So please read the Treaty of Utrech and inform yourself before introducing misleading information. Whether you like it or not, there are no maritime borders between any British Overseas Territory and Spain. Have a little bit of respect for History and for international treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmtnez ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Many pages say that Palestinian territories are under Israeli occupation. Then there is a conclusion that Palestine is not an independent country (even a lot of websites which try to answer how many independent countries are there in the world say that there are 193 UN members, Vatican and Taiwan). I don't argue that Palestine is not recognized by the UN, but it is not independent! User02062000 ( talk) 08:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Do read the article Hindu Nationalism and Akhanda Bharata. Hope u r not a pov pusher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.65.173 ( talk) 10:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I have a question about international community: is it the same as the UN? User02062000 ( talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! But don't forget to answer me in the Vatican Section above, I have a new question there! User02062000 ( talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis! I want to ask you about de jure and de facto states. Here are my questions (answer in this order): 1) Is de jure recognized means "recognised by the UN"? 2) Why in Vatican City article mentioned that "VAtican is smallest internationally recognised sovereign state"? Holy See is internationally recognised - it is a subject of international law, isn't it? User02062000 ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Chipmunkdavis! Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 ( talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Why don't you answer me for a long time? Please be faster if you can! User02062000 ( talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a reason for that wording in the states and dependencies of Oceania page. One thing is to say: "the Cook Islands have engaged with other states in diplomatic relations", which is a proven fact and describes a precedent. Another thing entirely is saying "they engage in diplomatic relations". We know they do, but since they have only engaged in such relations with a minority of states, this wording may suggest a larger degree of independence in their foreign affairs than they really have. In other words, it would lead to giving CI and Niue undue weight. Ladril ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis!
My question for you is: Why do we consider CI/Niue as UN-recognized, but put them into such sections as "other states" etc.? And why does the Un general assembly haven't yet recognized CI/Niue as observers, if they are 'recognized'? User02062000 ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do we consider "internationally recognized states" only those states which hve already become UN members or observers? For those 9 states which sre not recognized, I agree with, but I think CI/Niue then mustn't be in section "other states" they must be among recognized! for example, in List of Sovereign states they are in other states section, and in countries of oceania list they have an unique section, while Palestine and Vatican have no separate section in such as List of sovereign states of Eurasia or Asia, or Europe. User02062000 ( talk) 11:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are CI/Niue have right for signing treaties and self-determination, but they have not use it yet? I think CI/Niue can't be described as sovereign countries because they have not used right for self-determination and there are only few states recognizing them (without their declaration or some other treaty). What do you think about? And also, my main question: does UN recognize CI/Niue independence? For example, I saw an article in French Wikipedia, and they consider CI/Niue to be sovereign states... and you can see that in lists of s.s. and dependencies by continent the sections named "recognized states" but in list of Oceanian countries sections named "member states of the UN" and "states not members..." which include CI and Niue respectively. i think we must either rename section "member staets" to "recognized states" and include or not CI/Niue, or we must create section "states with limited recognition" for CI/Niue as German Wikipedia does. Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 ( talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chupmunkdavis. What do you think about current status of CI/Niue 'self-governing in free association': is it mean they're independent from New Zealand, or they say that they don't want to be fully independent, but don't want to be dependent from NZ? And then, why don't they had to ask UN to be its member or observer? Or why don't they ask NZ to be independent from then, and would it be, what's your opinion? What NZ thinks about their current status and wish they to change it? Please answer! User02062000 ( talk) 18:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, but I'll rename sections I've said above. User02062000 ( talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunk. Thanks for not reverting my revision again (some people do things like that). If you happen to be interested in why the articles were incorrect in this particular instance I'll be happy to attempt an explanation. If not, then never mind of course. All the best, Tdls
Hello again. As I've seen, a lot of other Wikipedias include State of Palestine in "states with limited recognition". Yes, as you've said Israel or PRC have LR too. But in those wikis there is a note that Palestinian state is not fully exists yet. I've seen a lot of atlases, and all of them prefer "Palestinian territories", not "State of Palestine". Not only English atlases, but foreign too, including atlases published in countries which recognize Palestinian state. I think it is a propose to change Palestine status in wikipedia to "state with limited recognition" and then change it back to "recognized state" when it will be formed and established as a state like Israel, which occupies Palestine. Let me know what you think. User02062000 ( talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
But what about atlases? They all prefer name "Palestinian territories" instead of "State of Palestine". And all the map I've seen have a note that Palestinian territories are occupied since 1967 and state is now forming there. User02062000 ( talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Recently I visited Russia and I'm interested in its politics. I know that Russia recognizes 197 states: UN members, Varican City, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and State of Palestine. Also I bought some political world maps. I've seen thay're all show that: 1) Abkhasia and Ossetia are marked as sovereign states (Russia recognizes them, and it's sure); 2) Palestine is marked as "Palestinian territories", not the State of Palestine (and this is data of the latest maps, March or August 2013, when Palestine had already became observer) 3) All the maps have 6 notes including this (translation): "Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) were occupied by Israel in 1967. Nowadays palestinian self-governing process is going on". As you see, Palestine is recognized by Russia, meanwhile on the map it is showed as occupied territories. also you can see one russian document ("Общероссийский классификатор стран мира" in russian). The same article is on russian Wikipedia. Read it and you'll see a list of countries with its codes based on ISO 3166. However, in ISO standard Palestine have name "State of Palestine" while in russian document it has name "Palestinian territories, occupied". What can you say? User02062000 ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
And what about maps and the document I've talked about? User02062000 ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. But can you explain why on the newest official russian (not matter) maps Palestine is considered occupied, while Russian government had recognized Palestine's independence few years ago? Why don't they use designation "State of Palestine" instead of "(occupied) Palestinian territories"? If the map is official it must satisfy the point of the government, which considers Palestine independent! Can you explain? User02062000 ( talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not matter is it Russian publication or not - I want to know why on the political maps of countries which recognize the Palestine it is showed as non-sovereign nation? How can it be - state recognizes another state as sovereign, and in the meantime the state is showed as not independent on the maps? Again, it is not matter, is it Russia or not. User02062000 ( talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they don't. But they also don't say that Palestine is a state: they say that Palestinian state is now forming (I think it is why Palestine is showed as separate occupied territories and not showed as an independent, sovereign nation). Do you agree with map data? User02062000 ( talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Forget about limited recognition, I don't argue on the topic. I just want to know why Palestine is showed as forming, occupied and non-sovereign territories. I want to know exactly this point: why Palestine is showed as "occupied Palestinian territories " on every map and is considered a forming nation, not an independent State of Palestine, recognized by the country's government which regulates the standards for cartographers? For example, if country recognizes Abkhazia (for example) it is showed on every that country map as sovereign state without any note, while Kosovo, which isn't recognized (example again) is not showed as independent. Palestine is named "occupied Palestinian territories" with note on every map. Explain if you can. User02062000 ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think they make the point that Israel now has a great control, especially military in Palestine, and independent Palestinian state is not marked as a state because it doesn't fully exists and it continues its forming process. Can it be? User02062000 ( talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Then, Palestine could be presented as a non-state entity on maps because it is not fully exists as a state now and considered territories under Israeli-occupation, in which the future, independent and sovereign Palestinian state will exist. Is it a right consensus? User02062000 ( talk) 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Iraq was always marked as a state on the map because it was already formed state, while Palestine is considered there not only occupied, but also not fully created yet. Then it is marked as two separate territories (West Bank and Gaza) and the note says that Palestine is not fully created now and it will be established in international community when Arab-Israeli conflict will be finished. Again, every map shows Palestine as such. Or you've seen any map where you can see Palestine called "State of Palestine", but not "Palestinian territories"? User02062000 ( talk) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
But most maps marks them as "Palestinian territories", and again, they note that state creating process goes on, i.e. that state hasn't its own military forces (only paramilitary) and some other aspects of being a state. I don't argue that Palestine is shown as 2 territories (US or France are shown as such too), I argue that these territories are shown as only territories, but not sovereign state. User02062000 ( talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but then why mapmakers define the geographical area, not a sovereign state located in it? User02062000 ( talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if the map is physical. But on political world maps they must map boundaries of states or their dependencies. Palestine is a state now. Then, why do mapmakers show the boundaries of areas on which the state is situated? It seems to be not correct. But mapmakers have a cartographic base and they surely know the topic better than us. But can you assume, why do they show areas where the state is situated, but not the name of that state itself (i.e. State of Palestine)? User02062000 ( talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Here you are a phrase from page Palestinian territories: "The international community regards the West Bank as territories occupied by Israel." User02062000 ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. But when Palestine will become fully recognized UN member state, do you think that mapmakers will continue showing Palestine as territories, but not a state? I don't think so. Also, please show me or give any web link to map where you saw Palestine marked as "State of Palestine", if you can... User02062000 ( talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Then, you want to say that in near future Palestine will be labelled as Palestine on the maps, not Palestinian territories? If yes, explain when and why. User02062000 ( talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
But why do mapmakers label the Palestinian territories without a notification that there is situated State of Palestine? They only write that these territories are occupied and there is an ongoing process of Palestinian self-governing formation. You say the state is already formed, then why it is even on the newest (2014) maps? I've seen a lot of 2013 and some 2014 maps in different countries and languages, but is still so... User02062000 ( talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Do mapmakers consider Palestine a sovereign state while mapping it as Palestinian territories? What do you think? User02062000 ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI. And this much of a change in an article by one user, without consensus, is acceptable? Best regards. -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a reason why historically it is called the annexation of Texas. I have never heard of the annexation of East Germany, nor the annexation of one part of Yemen by the other. Those were state mergers. At the same time you never hear of the merger of countries to form the Soviet Union, but of annexation such as of the Baltic republics. But, this page is in the hands of a bunch of people with fanciful ideas, as you yourself have made clear in edit summaries. You have also previous rejected other inclusions on the basis of their being annexations and not merders. But guess what - this page survives only for the simple reason that no serious editors ever take an interest in it. I come around once in a while and delete half of the pending mergers between Portugal and Spain and the like. So, without any input from any serious editors (if anyone else joins in it will be the nuts that see mergers around every corner) I see no reason for wasting my time here. For your information, even from the US side it NOT a merger, not even a proper legal annexation, as the whole thing was shrouded in lies and cover-ups with congress knowing very little of what was going on. But I am sure that differences aside, we can work together on comabting the nuttier proposals. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, As you seem to show keen interest in this page, why not create an additional column for the mergers that fell apart? There is plenty of white space in the "Notes" column that would easily allow for an additoinal column. The eye is a strange animal - it will glance down the page looking at the pink/ green outcomes and very few people will read the note alongside. Just an idea. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Azad Kashmir Claim is already present. Claim of Jammu is not based on facts and not supported by any fact/actual happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.62.12 ( talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis, I just want to clarify the proposed state mergers. So, you said Canada and Australia couldn't qualify as they were not independent. These territories did become independent after the mergers, but they weren't before that. If Canada and Australia can't be on here I would like you to clarify why the West Indies Federation is included, even though it wasn't previously independent. Thank you. Viller the Great ( talk) 07:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Chipmunkdavis. I think, it would be nice idea to put the sub-headings to "Northern Cyprus-History" part. Alexyflemming ( talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)#Independent_or_Russian. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I added the following to Northern Cyprus:
which you reverted with the edit summary:
The ISO 3166 codes are used in a lot of commercial applications. For example, right now I'm mapping country codes to default currencies for the entire world. In general, any entity that uses Template:Infobox Country shows the ISO 3166 code in that box. I think I would be reverted if I just put "iso3166code=CY" in the infobox, because that applies to more than Northern Cyprus. The situation with Northern Cyprus is confusing, so I think it is quite helpful to people who care about ISO codes (mostly because they have to use them) to have an explanatory note on this article. I'm happy to move it to the infobox, but the syntax for iso3166code right now doesn't really allow that. That's why I put the note in the article text. -- Beland ( talk) 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I proposed the deletion for the article Venetian Republic (2014), because actually the referendum was an online survey without official data about the participation. There are not valid reasons to consider it as an unrecognized state. Could you confirm the proposal? Thank you in advance.-- Ghepa90 ( talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the fact it is your personal opinion of preference and not a consensus not to use Sodacan's new SVG, calling another user's work "ugly" (especially a work by one of our most prolific contributers) is really out of line and I'm sure you know it. Please have the decency not to say that again. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm more than a little concerned about use of Global Replace. It seems to me that because of its power it should be like AWB in that you should have to be authorised to use it. I had to revert 6 posts in addition to the 4 you did today. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently User:Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. — SPESH 531 Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved this conversation to Talk:List of sovereign states#Sealand again, really?— SPESH 531 Other 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The date is given next to the flag. Unless written Nazi-Germany, a source should be given next to the icon for the reader's understanding of why it was used to avoid any... insinuations and/or ambiguity. :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.172.218 ( talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry for undoing your changes, but I believe that adding the word "microstate" to both articles may help some readers to get a better picture of the Cook Islands' and Niue's political status. In other words, while micro-statehood suggests a tiny size (and you are right that readers may want to decide that for themselves), there are many arguments in the literature that "microstates" are not only small, but quite distinct from other types of political units. It is often argued that their distinctiveness lies in the peculiar politico-economic challenges and opportunities created by tiny size. But, if you feel that this justification is insufficient, then I wouldn't want to stir any new heated debates on the Cooks'/Niue's status and can agree to leave it out from the main description (perhaps I could then add an info that many academics view both of these countries as "microstates" somewhere in the politics sub-section?). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis Ok, I understand. feel free to undo my change then. I will perhaps try to include the info on micro-statehood/implications of small size into the politics/economics sections (with an explanaition on talkpage) at some point. Thanks for your replies and sorry for any mistakes - I am still learning how to use wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've just wondered because of your reverts! You really don't have any convincing reasons for your reverts and I really don't know why are you doing this, but please stop. Those maps are exactly based on en:Köppen climate classification map. Also the new maps that I've uploaded are in vector format (their quality won't be lost by zooming). Many users have thanked me for those maps and I've just so wondered that why you are reverting! Please respond. Yours Sincerely Ali Zifan 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you oppose the recent inclusion of content at Australia, but I feel obligated to point out that you have made 3 reversions at the article since 12:30 pm yesterday. [38] [39] [40] Another reversion before 12:30pm today, or even soon after, could see this matter resolved at WP:AN3, rather than on the article's talk page. I have warned Skyring, who has also made 3 reverts, as well as pointing out a flaw in his latest edit summary, and reverted the article to the status quo while consensus is sought on the talk page, where I will shortly open a discussion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I have now opened a discussion at Talk:Australia. I encourage you, Skyring and Wrestlingring to work toward gaining consensus for the disputed edits there. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Euler diagram you created seems to be working now, the flag of the Gambia is fully visible. Could you update the template? Thank you. WBritten ( talk) 17:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The local elections are scheduled for 15 August. Along with the municipality elections, is a "decentralization election". The latter election is under a new decentralization law that establishes governorate councils with limited legislative powers, aimed primarily at organizing governorate development plans. Does this deserve a separate article from Jordanian local election, 2017? If so what named should it have? Barely any coverage of this in English media, yet. But I have read some info in Arabic media.. Also if you seem interested in developing this/these article/articles soon? I will start working on them in a month, any comments are appreciated. Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Kevin McE,
i am proposing that palestine be merged into the main section of states on the list of sovereign states in asia which should be renamed into un member and observer states, taiwan and the rest should be left in the same category, do you agree with my proposal?
Arabistan ( talk) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me with adding Palestine to the "Sovereign states" section and remove it from the "States with limited recognition" template? I told them that being included within the United Nations membership even as just an observer state and that the biggest nations choose to ignore it is enough to be added to the "Sovereign states" section of the template. 2601:407:4100:87A0:F1D4:7D4C:9E15:4789 ( talk) 20:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Australia is an island country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrin Orlanes Politico ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I warn you against removing a united Ireland from the list of proposed state mergers, as long as the idea of a united Ireland is relevant to this day. Don't try to do it again. 197.60.41.31 ( talk) 19:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm kinda confused here. Is Snowded responding to your 12:11 post of May 9, 2020 at Talk:National Assembly for Wales? or was he responding to my May 9, 2020 post? GoodDay ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis: Greetings.
I happened to notice that China has a representative office of Somaliland but it is not pointed out on the corresponding map. Is there a reason why this might happen? If not, could you correct it please? Thank you.
Your Sincerely A Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.200.176 ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, your edit summary says "headers consistent with others in the series". I assume List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia is in the series? There, the headers go:
and in the other they go
That doesn't seem consistent to me? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask you why did you Erased Somaliland events. This events are true and you can read them. I put the current constitution of Somaliland in there and you erased it, what happened. What about Somaliland Declaration of Independence link? What is going on? How about the history of Somaliland and the establishment of Adal Sultanate. Also the establishment of Sultanate of Ifat in Zeila, Somaliland. Everything that was there was correct. Please revert it back Buufin ( talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
excuse me, who gave you the right to erase my edit of putting falasteen and taiwan and israil and china in the same category?? are you the UN are you ban ki moon or something?? You just want to create more problem on wikipedia. Please grow a brain. Thank you and have nice day ;)
Samar al-hejazi ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi CMD,
I don't agree with your good faith edit here. I can't see a valid reason behind enforcing Taiwan as the country name in that article. Taiwan is only an informal name for the country, the formal/offical name of the country is the Republic of China. I don't mind people use Taiwan in a less serious article, say an article about a sports league or a cultural event, but in a serious political article like the List of territorial disputes, the formal name of the country should be used.
By the way, someone has raised an issue in your username page concerning the name of Wake Island. That is a pretty rude way to initiate a discussion. I will copy and paste that discussion into the talk page of Wake Island to properly start the discussion. 120.16.220.60 ( talk) 08:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, so you refused to remove the turkish form the Republic of Cyprus wiki however I explained why it needs to be removed, im not going to argue with you because you dont seem as someone who particularly cares but if youre not going to be productive when it gets to Cyprus, stay away from the page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas Markou ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for you edits on the Turkey article. you said 'Turkey didn't really "Form" over a period of time it is quite clearly dated' I was wondering if you could send me some sources regarding that. I want to expand my knowledge and it would be great if you could help me out. thanks! happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherKhaan ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we have to remove similar things like on Russia's page and others. What do you think? Is there any rule about this? Beshogur ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Good evening CMD (or morning, well... it's evening here :p). I just wanted to inform you that I have moved the culture section we discussed earlier, it had multiple issues from poor sources, to soapbox sentences...etc. So I rewrote it in this format. Just wanted to inform you and get your opinion on it. Cheers A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there @ CMD, just wanted to let you know that I think our edit dispute is based on misunderstanding. The discussion in the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article was too broad and it got confusing, which is understandable since we've discussed multiple issues and it got tangled. I want to resolve the issue so that we both reach a consensus. To that end, I will open a new section in the talk point to negotiate a merger between that article and ' GCC states' and ' Eastern Arabia'. I will present the problem, sources, and proposed solutions and I would love to hear from you. It will take me some time (or days) however before posting the new section since I intend to study the problem (the article and sources). Hopefully our effort can make wikipedia a better place one controversial article at a time! Cheers, A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 07:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Good morning @ CMD I hope you're doing well! For the last three days I've been studying the sources that refer to the Gulf states and organizing the discussion board in the talk page. I have created a new section in a multi-part series to clean up the article (in the post I've explained why it's a multi-part discussion). Last time you and I were confused in the discussion and it's clear to me now why that happened, simply, the article definition was unclear. I like to think of myself as a rational person(humble brag/s), so instead of talking to void I have identified the problem and saw that the best course of action to take is to take on the issues one by one to reach a consensus between us and anyone who would like to join in the discussion. By isolating the problems and identifying them we can rationally agree on the best course of action to take. Cheers! — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 02:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
New Zealand Unitary State = Hoax
New Zealand Federal State = True Cyberllamamusic ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm Chipmunk Davis I am the wrong editor for the new Zealand article. Cyberllamamusic ( talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Somaliland is a independent country please edit it and make it like it was before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:A500:2282:6097:BD80:5F02:B7A7 ( talk) 22:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
'Greetings Chimpmunkdavis,
The reason I am writing this message is because I would like to discuss adding new improvements to the Ethiopia article, specifically the lead section. Upon first visiting the page, users are greeted by the "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article" tag. The lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs and provide a short but useful summary of the topic. In order to condense the article, I believe we should remove information about Ethiopia's geography (fourth paragraph of the lead section) to the "Geography" section of the Ethiopia article. Additionally, I suggest removing information about Ethiopia's religious demographics from the lead section of the article, because that information is already provided in the religion section of the article.
I believe the fourth paragraph of Ethiopia is in need of trimming but would like to have your approval before making any changes. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia so please keep me informed if there's anything else I am missing.
To summarize my points:
1) Move information about Ethiopia's geography in the lead section of the article to the geography section
2) Remove information about Ethiopia's religious demographics in the lead section of the article because it is already provided in the religion section.
There are still other improvements that can be made, but I believe we should tackle the main issue of the lead section being too long first.
-- DarkEnergyMan ( talk) 16:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The article in question is being cleaned per the previous Afd discussion. It was poorly written, a collection of countries summaries synth, tagged for cleanup since 2018. In the Afd discussion the issue of the title term multiple historical subjects have been discussed, which is why we're pointing it out in the article. If you do want to add to it feel free to help, as long as you're not resurrecting irrelevant content ( WP:Synth) and provide verifiable sources on the article subject.— ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 04:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If we google "Mainland China", we can get 218,000,000 results and it's really an indication that English speakers are not so unfamiliar with the term as you had expected. And it's really tricky to say "Taiwan and China" since the official name of Taiwan is actually Republic of China and that one-China priciple is a widely-accepted policy. -- HypVol ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid "per previous" is not a valid argument. And accessibility is definitely not affected simply by using the correct term. -- HypVol ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. By no means Wikipedia has banned the use of appropriate and precise terms. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The term "mainland China"...it should only be used when a contrast is needed. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable.. In this case, the conditions are appparently satisfied. The original article said Taiwan's
Main export partnersinclude China and Hong Kong and that Taiwan's
Main import partnersinclude China. If you would insist that the use of mainaland China here is a "jargon", we may have to resort to a RfC. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Mainland China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, accounting for 23.9 percent of total trade and 18.6 percent of Taiwan’s imports in 2018.; Statista:
Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export partner.; South China Morning Post:
The mainland is Taiwan's largest trading partner – ahead of the US. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided: Would you mind explaining why? HypVol ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Use jargon and acronyms judiciouslyinstead of banning the use of "jargons".-- HypVol ( talk) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
A bullet in a list has no context: No, the biggest context is the article's name itself Economy of Taiwan. The trading partners here are Taiwan's trading partners. -- HypVol ( talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export market, largest source of imports.(per Bureau of Foreign Trade). -- HypVol ( talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It's becoming off-topic. Back to the original discussion, the use of Mainland China here is by no means far less understandable term to most readers
. But rather it's totally legitimate per
MOS:NC-CN. --
HypVol (
talk)
15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
And shall we move the thread to Talk:Economy of Taiwan to request for a possible third-party opinion? -- HypVol ( talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are interested, I've started a discussion here. Catchpoke ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Islamic Emirate is an unrecognized state, not only their government. Only the defunct Islamic republic was recognized. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It is false. We need an RfC about Afghanistan. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There was ANY RfC about the specific case of IEA in IEA or in SLR talk pages. The case of Taliban state is inedite. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
IEA is a State, not a government. It is described as an unrecognized state in the article. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, in regards to the infomation I added to the page, yes I transferred some of it over from a previous revision of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) article as my original basis for the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwar1989 ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, option 3 in the RfC is the one that matches the page as currently written. Or, at least it should, although I'm never sure Leechjoel9 won't attempt to edit war that. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything more you wish to add to the discussion about the inclusion of a flag for Palmyra Atoll at Talk:Palmyra Atoll? Reywas92 and I aren't making much progress on finding a resolution that seems reasonable to both of us; input from ADavidB and some IP with one contribution under its belt doesn't seem to have made any progress. Clogging up WP:DRN over a dispute over the importance - not even accuracy, just importance - of a single image with a caption on a relatively obscure topic feels excessive to me, but I'm running out of other ideas. As a new user I realize I am not, however, necessarily familiar with best practices for resolving these sorts of disputes, so I'm reaching out to you for guidance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Chidgk1 edits at these two articles. Think they are just new to country articles thinking that all stats need to be from this month or somthing. We are talking about the tagging adding updated sources if posible...but not sure if we can keep up with there pace of tagging . Dont think they are trying to get this article demoted as has been suggested
here...I think they belive they are doing good work. --
Moxy-
16:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Privet comrade. The Russian page content you deleted had been agreed by consensus on the talk page of the article. If you want to remove content do not just delete it, in the future start a discussion on the talk page. If you are a paid Wikipedia editor you should not be editing this type of content either... conflict of interest. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Dependent_territory&action=edit&undoafter=1108288400&undo=1108535134 I'd like to request to at least add Mong Yawn back to the list of similar entities. As it does not have an officially recognized status it is obviously not part of most lists, but that does not change the way it is de facto ruled (That's why I put it in italics, one could add a more detailed description)
Greetings, Ly.n0m ( talk) 03:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Who defined "states with limited recognition"? In which literature? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 01:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey, it appears User:RovingPersonalityConstruct has undid the ROC’s tricameral section. Please help me discuss this at the Talk:List of legislatures by number of members#Republic of China section for help. - 76.68.77.224 ( talk) 11:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to be so arrogant and annoying when commenting on what someone has spent a lot of time on. Pull yourself together Thomediter ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The change in question is a change of wording so that it reflects the sources better. You do not add more references because the change displays the information of the existing sources. The information is already accessible through the existing sources and if you doubt it the correct way is to go to the source and verify that the source itself uses the wording. Not to ask for citations for information that is contained in the citations themselves. Please refrain from reverting changes for lacking citations, if the changes articulate information from the existing citations. 134.106.109.104 ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This editor is suspected of reverting edits on national grounds, as both their Cyprus and Armenia/Artsakh edits point towards that direction. 134.106.109.104 ( talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I saw you reverted me, but maps should be neutral on Wikipedia. Guyana invaded Suriname in 1969, and at the other side there is a disputed border with French-Guyana. Please read Borders of Suriname. Ymnes ( talk) 14:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hallo Chipmunkdavis, I have a question for you. An IP complained about the borders between Russia and Ukraine on this map shown on the Italy article. Apparently they have been changed some months ago to reflect the situation de facto. Do we have a policy prescribing whether the de jure or the de facto situation should be shown on a map in these cases? Alex2006 ( talk) 08:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. On 02:26, 1 August 2023, you stated addressing me in the Talk:Russia#Removal of maps, "The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard."
I will follow the steps listed on the civility policy, emphasizing that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Accusing me or implying that I make "a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted" is false and I feel it is an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" ( WP:ICA).
I explained in the thread that my motivation adding the maps was because I felt there was an informational gap that needed to be addressed. For some reason you decided to imply I was just making the additions to see where I was not going to be reverted. Maybe we misunderstood each other? Can you clarify? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
curprev 19:19, 3 August 2011 Chipmunkdavis talk contribs m 2,498 bytes 0 moved Motherland (Mauritius National Anthem) to Motherland (anthem) over redirect: Per WP:NCDAB and WP:TITLE undothank
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Population of cities
Moxy-
19:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I put the link on what seemed the most relevant page (as not my particular area) - and it mentioned a recent (November) change. Jackiespeel ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see you still disagreed with the removal of Noktundo from the List of territorial disputes page by the IP editor. If you have something good to say about the matter, it would be appreciated if you could join the discussion at Talk:List of territorial disputes to help form a consensus. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
untreaty1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).
Please avoid the perception of tracing my recent edits in country articles. You have specifically separated Etymology sections from History main section in country articles after the recent edits that followed the MOS History. From an outsider position your edits could be interpreted as a personal edit war. Please avoid this impression in the future. Because my edits have a solid base in the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (concerning the Etymology part) and yours haven´t, I have to ask you stop this. Italiano111 ( talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not concerning the Etymology recommendation, as this was already a recommendation before my recent edits on this Project Page. Italiano111 ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you or any other editor have NOT made a relevant proposal for changing the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in terms of positioning of the Etymology part. Am I wrong ? I´m afraid I´m right. Italiano111 ( talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither you nor any other editor have made a proposal for changing the recommended position of Etymology (preferably in History) in the relevant talk page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries ! There is NO evidence not even an edit made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that indicates a change from the established recommendation. This was the last comment concerning this issue here on your talk page. I expect any serious argumentation to happen on the specific talk pages. Italiano111 ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk
(Further to "(Undid revision 445147142 by Arrivisto (talk) Mention of the CoE is extremely WP:UNDUE, it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members) : I had not intended this entry to be biased, but rather a neutral statement that although the IoM was not a member of the CoE, nevertheless the CoE's European Convention of Human Rights can be made to apply via the "supervision" of the UK. I think this information should be on the IoM page, but I am content (pro tem) to be advised on a "less biased" way of doing it.
(Also: "it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members" I don't understand this! Whose members? ) Arrivisto ( talk) 14:53, 24 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)
Honestly man, this revert is a bit uncalled for. I'll start a discussion for this trivial edit, but I will not bother to revert if anyone objects. Tachfin ( talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, how can we reach a consensus to end this?
Collins432 (
talk)
02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with this user talk thing, but I just don't understand why you want to use the outdated orthographic map that only a fraction of the African country articles use. This map is pretty much shows whatever the other one does, and is more appealing to the eye.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins432 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are you vandalizing the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations? Buaidh 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
why have you reverted here [1] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [2] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. But wait, here's more:
As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. -- Jurisdr1975 ( talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
From my talk page about where the link was from: it doesn't especially matter (The note is a request not to randomly rename the section), but if you're really curious and didn't want to go through the linked here page, I'm using "Etymology of X" redirects to include the etymology sections of some national pages in {{ main}} hatnotes on the List of country-name etymologies article without having to include ugly hatchmarks or uglier {{ dablink}} headers. The hope is that information and sources can be more easily checked and shared across pages. Right now, that's it, but some articles could also use them for cross-comparison of etymologies (all the * walhaz cognates come to mind). — LlywelynII 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis, thanks for keeping an eye on the Germany article. I believe, you are sometimes a little too strict with citation requirements, but it's still greatly appreciated to keep the article in good shape. Do you have a suggestion regarding the last two "citation needed" issues?
Hi thank for the advice, this is exactly what i wanted to do but i can't find any link to upload new version of the file, can you help me please. Kingroyos ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
There is no one to revert the People's Republic of China link, it has now redirected to China. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Using the name "China" instead of the "People's Republic of China" and the countries of East Asia template has still linked with "People's Republic of China" article. The only thing is China is now the primary topic of "PRC". Thank you. ApprenticeFan work 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to provide a cite, I did have one ready in a sandpit. Sorry if I was being slightly petty but N2e irritates me when he does drive by tagging and then comes back and deletes information it would take very little time to find a cite for himself. Thats all he does. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, WP:Summary Style is new to me. I answer after reading it. Now there are technical difficulties to open it. Watti Renew ( talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What's confusing about describing Canada as a dominion during that period? Canada's status as a dominion is universally accepted... as the article is written now, it makes it appear as though Canada became independent in 1867 and ignores the fact that it held the same status as the other dominions (which all noted to have been such) up until the Statute of Westminster. There's no ambiguity in Canada's status between 1867 and 1931, it was exactly the same as that of Australia between 1901 and 1942 with the primary difference being that Canada didn't have to pass an act to adopt the Statute of Westminster as it automatically applied to every dominion but Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. This is reflected in every article on the matter, from dominion to Statute of Westminster to Balfour Declaration of 1926 to British Empire itself. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(sorry for the late reply. somehow missed your post and didnt see it till now). As for the official documents - instruments of accession signed by states that joined pakistan use that term. Gbooks search for the term "I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan" throws up some examples. For example, here is the accession document for Kalat (princely state) and that of Junagadh-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In order to give the historical perspective, I consider it important to maintain the link Portuguese Congo. This is why I reverted your edit where the link was eliminated. If you think the matter has to be discussed, please do so. -- Aflis ( talk) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I have the intention to write a page on Portuguese Congo and shall then re-introduce the link. -- Aflis ( talk) 11:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia country articles, and I think a new list I made might be of use to you. Best, - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please single out what you disagree? I've made some other changes apart from what you pointed out in the edit summary, and you've reverted all changes that I've made. Thanks. 119.237.156.46 ( talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images for India was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflected the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to mozy on over to the page and offer comments, they will certainly be appreciated. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey
I'm that one guy that was edit warring you a while back in the Kenya article :). Anyway, I wanted to request a huge favor from you. Since I am not very familiar with using every function of Wikipedia, I was hoping that you could petition 'Semi-Protection' for the article? I have noticed that it is experiencing increased levels of vandalism and I just needed your help on this. Please.
Thanks! collins432 ( talk) 10:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the try :). Although, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if it's protected or not. I think it would be ideal if all users had to be autoconfirmed to edit anything.. collins432 ( talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.
Please vote here.
Thanks. Nikkul ( talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss on page. You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [13] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, on October 7th you edited the artcle [14] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on ctober 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You may wish to know that XLR8TION is conducting a wide-ranging campaign of listing Turkey under Europe. (No need to respond to me about this.) Esoglou ( talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [15] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, on October 7th you edited the article [16] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on October 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe.-- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
HELLO. I made THIS edit which may be of interest to some. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Did you notice that the couple updated the IMF link and it was supporting their data (though I have no idea how IMF can seriously predict GDP for 2016. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Kindly put that back. You probably just need to clear your cache and see Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist?. 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Alarbus ( talk)
Q. Why did you revert that edit? Thanks, Alarbus ( talk) 14:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you seeing this problem as well? I reverted some of the formatting changes, but then I saw this on your talk page and thought it was probably just me. Nightw 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for all the orange boxes Chip. Nightw 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
HI Chipmunkdavis
Saw you reverted the changes I made to the British Empire article. Apologies if I offended the editing mores. I am new to this so still learning! I have started a new section on the artcle talk page so I welcome any comments
regards Freedom1968 Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on getting rid of the links to outlying islands on Template:United States topic. It'd get rid of a lot of perpetual red links... Nightw 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir; Would you please advise why did you undo my edit?
Best Regards -- Ibrahim Ghalghay ( talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. If you think that my wording at Northern Cyprus is preferable to Masri's POV pushing, then would you consider reverting him? Cheers. By the way, I didn't send that smile above, Watti Renew did. I don't know why it was labelled as being sent by "Taivo". Strange. Unless I accidentally clicked on that heart at the top of the page. But then why is it in the middle of Watti Renew's post? Strange. It's not that I don't like you, I don't know you personally, but clicking on a heart for you is a bit much ;) -- Taivo ( talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I've been a little busy this past week. I've responded on my talk page, and will post more thorough responses to Talk:Republic of China, as well as initiate a move request at Republic of China (1912-1949), in a short while.-- Jiang ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Glad to see you and Readin have finally taken the bull by the horns and decided to rename the Taiwan articles. I can see some people are refusing to accept there was consensus, but it seems to me that there was one. If necessary I suggest you ask for an uninvolved admin to help close the renaming discussion (the earlier one) formally. Or indeed a panel of three closing admins. If you like I would be happy to approach a couple. John Smith's ( talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, friend. Are you busy? I have at last managed to post, at WikiProject Denmark, that question we talked about months ago! Would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? You mentioned that Orange Tuesday had some thoughts also on the subject. Is there anywhere else we can recruit some more involvement? Rennell435 ( talk) 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I am letting you know, since it seems you are one of those who supports the moves, that I have created a subpage of my own user so that we can begin to create the proposed articles and give people their own input so we can use this as a test page for the articles, instead of reverting directly on the pages and continuing to discuss them on the talk page. The link is User:Jpech95/taiwan. Thanks! Jpech 9 5 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask why you removed my edit? It better reflects what the sources say and I have tried to talk this through on the talk page, unlike the other editor. No one objected to what I proposed there. BedsBookworm ( talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there,
Just wanted to mention, that though we probably won't see eye-to-eye on Western Sahara, I do appreciated the civil discourse and reasoned debate, which is so often lacking on WP.
Yours, NickCT ( talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The IP editor you are replying to at Talk:China has been blocked on behavioural grounds as being a banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood. Therefore its probably not worth replying ;). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Česká republika vznikla dne 1.1.1969, Československo se stalo federací protože Národní shromáždění Československé socialistické republiky přijalo ústavní zákon dne 27. října 1968 a vyhlášen byl pod číslem 143/1968 Sb. Takže Česká republika existuje 43 let. Historicky prvním předsedou české vlády, se stal v době od 8. ledna 1969 do 29. září 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. Po zániku federace, se již existující republika osamostatnila, ale datum vzniku je 1.1. 1969.
Czech Republic came into existence on January 1, 1969, Czechoslovakia became a federation because the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic adopted constitutional law of 27 October 1968 and was declared under number 143/1968 Coll. So the Czech Republic there 43 years. Historically, the first Czech Prime Minister, became in time from 8 January 1969 to 29 September 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. After termination of the federation, the republic became independent of existing, but the date of occurrence is 1 January 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.236.5 ( talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi arab league consider western sahara as part of morocco, please go and see arab league's web site, so don't revert my modification, thank you -- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
the map you put is not neutral, because it shows western sahara as full independent state, wikipedia is not UN or a political referee, the arab league's opinion and the fact that this territory is controled by morocco and not a no man's land must be taken in consideration...thanks to be neutral...-- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
this is a neutral map of morocco, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, it's used in many articls. When you put western sahara with international borders and in grey color (similar to independent countries) it means that this territory is a full independent state and this is extremely FALSE because the territory is under morccan control regardless international recognitions, I'm inviting you then to be neutral !!! Thank you -- 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
take a look to arab league members map in the arab league website : [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.105.212 ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the list you where asking about [ [19]], it is complete for all modern states and virtually complete for all extinct states the United States has diplomatically recognized (although i know of a couple obscure instances not included). XavierGreen ( talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit. Nobody is doubting that these brands a German. All of them have their own wikipedia articles where the source is given. Do you want me to add a source? Otherwise I will revert your edit.-- IIIraute ( talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Chip, I see that user Jrobin08 has just reverted a whole load of your edits. He has just been warned on his talkpage about the DR Congo one but not the others, and this is not the first time. Not all his edits are vandalism and sometimes it is not obvious whether they are or not. At the very least, it is clear that he hasn't yet got the hang of editing collaboratively. I and others have raised concerns on his talkpage but he just keeps blanking the page and doesn't reply to the points made. (He is a young schoolboy.) If you are sure he is mistaken about these edits, do you think further action needs to be taken about his behaviour? Can he be mentored? -- Alarics ( talk) 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I did not get back to you, I had been away. When I read there was no vote I had assumed it was an acclamation, but I didn't think of it as equivalent to an unanimous vote because, to me, it simply meant that no member objected to entry. This could have also included abstentions. That was my line of thinking, but if theres more to the story I'd like to know. I thought at first that if it were made an 'important question' that could limit member states' ability to abstain from voting, but I think this only makes a vote required to be a two-thirds majority, so therefore irrelivent. Again, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Outback the koala ( talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If I had to vote for my #1 geographic editor on WP, it would be you by a landslide!...We've corresponded before. I've seen good or exceptional edits of yours about a hundred times over the past 6 months. So I'm sure I'm missing something and that you have a good explanation--please fill me in--for your recent changes to the status of Cook Islands and Niue on the various lists of sovereign states....As per your guidelines above, I'll added a note to the discussion page for List of sovereign states DLinth ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I left a comment on the talk page. I suggest you respond and/or self-revert, otherwise later today I will be contacting an administrator to help sort it out. You are continuing an edit war that I attempted to end by refusing to bring WP:RS to the discussion and reverting edits that remove inappropriate, unsourced content. That's not how wikipedia works. 174.113.154.168 ( talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis! Just to clarify the edit history here, because maybe I'm missing something. I saw that Spesh531 moved Cook Islands to the "states row". [20] Then I moved Niue there, because it seemed as a minor omission - since both have the same status it doesn't have any sense each of them to be in a different row. You reverted me (Niue only, which was very odd for the reason stated here). Then the editor who made the initial change came back and corrected the minor omission himself. [21]
Later came DLinth and started moving both CI and Niue to "dependencies row". I reverted his changes. He didn't opened a section on the talk page and utilized only edit summaries to describe his changes - using strange reasons such as "not recog.as indep by UN or 190 of 195 states" [22] what (and who) are those 5 states (195-190) is a mystery, who are the 195 is also a mystery. On top of that the "not recog.as indep by UN" part is wrong (I provided a source in one of my reverts of DLinth [23]) and also not directly related to these edits.
Then you came, reverted to pre-Spesh531 version and asked to discuss pointing at another article. Then I restored the Spesh531 version and asked "CMD, what to discuss? Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to? If they are, then my edit is OK. I think they should be, because that's what sources show. Only if they aren't-then they can be moved to "dependencies". So, are they listed?" [24] You reverted again with "You know it's not that black and white."
But this doesn't answer the question: "Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to?" - if they are, then there is nothing to discuss and the Spesh531 version is both factually-correct (according to sources) and Wikipedia-correct (the same as the other article). If they are listed there why do you revert? Japinderum ( talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I notified Spesh531 that I mention his edits here
Oh of-course BE is American for over 100 years. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was away for a week...thanks for holding the fort with Japiderum (others?) who wanted (want?) to include Niue, Cook Is. in lists with no distinction between them and the ~190+ states that have actually declared independence, have fully distinct citizenship status, etc. I'm only an occasional, non-WP-savvy WP editor, but I did add more on that Niue-Cook Is. distinction in reply at the talk page for Associated states just now that I hope will answer his concerns. I appreciate your attention to detail and common sense there, at Niue, with Palestine, at List of Sovereign States, etc., etc. (and your similarly deliberate, practical, well-researched approach with emotion-laden topics (for decades!) such as East Sea (another full page NYT add last week....we see East Sea stuff like that here all the time!) DLinth ( talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user has expressed concerns that your vote on the above RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka is not genuine. I would appreciate if you could make some clarification to break the current deadlock as the user firmly stands by his opinion. Astronomyinertia ( talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Superficial niceness is achieving nothing on that page. I figure it's time to try another approach. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I acted in good faith to restore the comment that you have left at 01:22, 11 March which later disappeared. [25] I thought it was deleted by accident when you restore my comment at 18:43, 10 March [26] (which was removed by 114.229.255.127 [27]). Since Tiderolls questioned about it, could you help clarify whether your comment was deleted intentionally or by accident? Thanks. 202.189.98.134 ( talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the sentence on neighbouring states, the long form is needed or otherwise it is similar to constructions such as "pro-China president of Taiwan", which even supporters of the recent move have derided; this also is not a situation where using "China" instead of PRC won't create any precision issues, such as "China's space programme", or "Kyrgyzstan borders China". Remember this is article text, not article titles. GotR Talk 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I know you're a good regular editor in geography articles Chip. Could you keep your eye on Mtheory1 ( talk · contribs). He is on a fringe POV campaign to change all references to Iran from Middle East/Western Asia to South Asia. He apparantly is a "scholar" and "must do my duty to spread the CORRECT information" [28] to "FIX THESE PROBLEMS" [29]. Irānshahr ( talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see: Great Power → List of great powers by date. -- IIIraute ( talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Prince Ahmed Shah Khan is not a pretender he's the heir apparent to the throne of Afghanistan and is currently living in America, so is Prince Niaz Ali Khan (Spitfire202 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC))
@Chipmunkdavis: I find your intervention on the talk page of this article very helpful: "blatant POV" is exactly what has been in evidence there, in two opposite directions. However, you have now deleted a portion of the text which contained a source (Atmore) which I think should be maintained. Is there any reason why you think it should not? -- Aflis ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis, I got confused and said Cyprus instead of Country. This was a Lapsus L. I did not do anything wrong nor ridiculous by replacing Country with RoC, given the state of affairs on the island of Cyprus. I consider your labeling my edit or whatever act or attitude (I know, it is not the Lapsus) as "ridiculous" and announcing it to the WP community in an edit summary is a rude behaviour. I wanted you know that. Sorry for disturbing you and all the best, -- E4024 ( talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
I requested a change in the article about "Bahrain" stating:
Please change "Bahrain is a Constitutional monarchy" to "Bahrain is an absolute monarchy which claims to be a constitutional monarchy".
I provided just a sampling below of the hundreds of sources which agree with this classification.
Sources: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/bahrain-western-pr-firms-to-the-rescue-of-this-absolute-monarchy/ http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/11/brutal-face-of-bahrains-monarchy http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/bahrain-demonstrators-repressed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18voices.html http://www.enritimes.com/countries/bahrain.aspx http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=259276&sid=2163172 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/bahrains-war-of-attrition.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/middleeast/21bahrain.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8304-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-bahrains-revolution http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50527 http://www.FIXURL_liveleak.com/view?i=610_1300114588 http://wspus.org/2011/02/bahrain-resists/ etc., etc., etc. Clioveritas (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You responded by stating:
Not done. Many of those sources aren't reliable, and we have sources like the factbook noting it is a constitutional monarchy. CMD (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
May I inquire as to which--other than the CIA World Factbook--sources are considered reliable by you?
regards,
Clioveritas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioveritas ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
Could you please stop reverting my edits in which I changed the wrong links to Dutch Guiana to either Suriname (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)? I created both Suriname (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) to end the confusion once and for all; despite common misconception, the Dutch colony which is now the independent country of Suriname, was never known officially as Dutch Guiana. The name Dutch Guiana only became prominent on maps etc. after the United Kingdom united Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara to British Guiana in 1831. Even maps that do refer to "Dutch Guiana", as an analogy to British Guiana and French Guiana say something like "Suriname, or, Dutch Guiana", like this one for example. From 1683 until 1795, the colony was governed by the Society of Suriname and never known by the name of Dutch Guiana. And from the moment the Dutch state took control of the colony in 1795, until the moment Suriname became a country within the Kingdom in 1954, the colony was referred to in official documents as "Suriname", not as "Dutch Guiana". The governor was always known as the Governor of Suriname, never as the Governor of Dutch Guiana. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems the British government prefers Surinam though (which may indeed be better than Suriname, which is actually Dutch, I'll change my articles accordingly). It remains a mistery to me why you insist on directing people who read about the abolition of slavery in 1863 in the article " Netherlands" to Dutch Guiana instead of Suriname (Dutch colony)... The latter article is far more relevant, don't you think? If not, please explain why. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Het Nederlands Guiana word verdeeld in de Colonie van Essequebo, waar onder de Rivier Bouweron, of Poumeron en verdere onderhoorige Rivieren en Districten behooren; mitzgaders de Colonie en Rivier Demerary; welke Colonien thans bestierd worden door de Westindische Compagnie ter Kamer Zeeland: de Colonie de Berbice, die door byzondere Directeuren van zekere Maatschappy, volgens het hen verleende Octroy, wordt geregeerd. En de Colonie van Suriname, behoorende voor één derde deel aan de Westindische Compagnie, één derde aan de Stad van Amsterdam, en één derde deel aan het Huis van Aarssen van Sommelsdyk, allen echter onder de Oppermagt van de Algemeene Staaten der Vereenigde Nederlanden.
with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.: sigh... the adjective "Nederlands" in the Dutch language means "Dutch", the Dutch term for "Dutch Guiana" is "Nederlands Guiana", the Dutch language itself is called "Nederlands". I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. The Britannica article about Paramaribo stating it was once known as Dutch Guiana says it all really... these encyclopedias also contain errors, this is obviously one of them. It makes absolutely no sense that Paramaribo itself was once called Dutch Guiana.
I never disputed that Dutch Guiana is used to refer to colonial Surinam, I only contend that Dutch Guiana is a confusing term and that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better term, especially since that term was used in official English-language texts of the day (please name me one treaty which refers to the colony as Dutch Guiana!). Referring to the colony as Surinam is not uncommon, the only English language historical map of the colony on Wikimedia Commons says A map of the Colony of Surinam.
You refuse to answer my question. Do you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How is that factually correct. Could you please explain that to me? Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In August, 1799, an expedition was prepared for the reduction of the Dutch settlement of Surinam on the coast of Terra Firma; the squadron, consisting of two ships of the line and five fifties, was under the immediate command of Lord Hugh Seymour; the land-forces under Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Trigge. -- Edward Pelham Brenton (1823) - The naval history of Great Britain: from the year MDCCLXXXIII to MDCCCXXII, page 447.
Between the English and the Dutch it was determined that each power should keep the conquests in its possession as of 21 May 1667. This confirmed the loss of Surinam to the Dutch in exchange for having New Amsterdam (New York) remain English. With the death of Francis Lord Willoughby there was nobody to defend the interest of British planters. -- Mordehay Arbell (2002) - The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean: The Spanish-Portuguese Jewish Settlements in the Caribbean and the Guianas, page 88
The Dutch possessions in Guiana in 1803 included the four settlements of Surinam, Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo. -- The English Illustrated Magazine (1891), Volume 8, page 379
While the Dutch Caribbean islands -- St Eustatius, St Martin, Saba, and Curacao -- were small trading colonies, Surinam, on the 'Wild Coast' or Northern littoral of South America, had considerable plantation potential. -- Robin Blackburn (1998) - The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800, page 501
None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that only the pre-1814 Colony of Surinam, rather than all Dutch colonies taken together, is nowadays referred to as Dutch Guiana. All your sources say something like "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" without going into details about what that term implies for the situation before. There is actually nothing factually incorrect about stating that the colony of Surinam equals Dutch Guiana, it was the only part of Guiana administered by the Dutch after 1814. Before 1814, that term applied to all Dutch possessions in Guiana. I have already provided sources for that, an English one from the English Illustrated Magazine, and a Dutch one from Hartsinck, but as you keep insisting that only the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guina (which none of your sources say), I'll give you some more:
In time, he felt it his duty to take an active part in the missionary work. After a training period he was dispatched to Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, as the leader of the mission station of the Brethren. -- Øystein Ore (1974) - Niels Henrik Abel: mathematician extraordinary, page 135
The colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana, extending a hundred miles along the north-east coast of South America, between the fifth and seventh degrees of north latitude, has been known for many years past. -- Thomas Christie (1796) - The Analytical review, or History of literature, domestic and foreign, on an enlarged plan, Vol. 24, page 225
When terms of pacification next took place between the English and the Dutch, the latter resigned rights over the late New Netherlands, and accepted, in exchange, the colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana. -- François-Xavier Garneau (1866) - History of Canada: from the time of its discovery till the union year 1840-41, Vol. 1, page 225.
Every part of the world where domestic slavery is established, may be occasionally liable to insurrection and disquiet, more especially where the slaves constitute the majority of the inhabitants; but the colony of Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, has been peculiarly unfortunate in this respect. -- John Gabriel Stedman (1963) - Expedition to Surinam: being the narrative of a five years expedition against the revolted Negroes of Surinam in Guiana, on the wild coast of South America, from the year 1772 to 1777, elucidating that country and describing its productions, with an account of Indians of Guiana and Negroes of Guinea, page xi
In 1796 a Colonial Expedition was sent to South America, 1796. where the Dutch settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice in Dutch Guiana peacefully surrendered at the end of April to Captain John Parr of the Malabar. Marcus Robert Phipps Dorman (1902) - A history of the British empire in the nineteenth century, Vol. 1, page 27
As commander, on 5 June, 1795, he obtained a victory over a French division off Porto Rico, and he aided in 1790 in the capture of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, of which he became the governor. James Grant Wilson, John Fiske (1888) -- Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Vol. 4, page 334
Early in 1796 they also took Ceylon, Malacca, Cochin, Trincomalee and the Spice Islands, in the East Indies, from them; and Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America, in May, 1796. -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1402
AMSTERDAM, NEW, the seat of government of Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, is situated between the rivers Berbice and Canje, near their confluence, and extends along the banks of the former, about 1,5 miles, with the houses facing the waters. -- (A. Constable and co., 1822) - The Edinburgh gazetteer, or geographical dictionary, page 166
On some occasions, African rebels tried to come to an agreement with the colonial power. In 1763, in the colony of Berbice in Dutch Guiana, enslaved Africans led by Cuffee rebelled for the fifth time in 30 years, seized part of the colony and threatened to take over the whole island. When the Dutch brought reinforcements, the enslaved initially suggested a partition of the island and sought to establish an alliance with the maroon communities in neighbouring Suriname. Understandingslavery.com - Resistance and Rebellion
He had left France about the year 1782,7 and probably had gone to Demerara in Dutch Guiana, where some members of the Rousselet family lived and where at least one of them was then occupying an official position. -- Robert Howard Lord, John E. Sexton, Edward T. Harrington (1944) - History of the archdiocese of Boston in the various stages of its development, 1604 to 1943, Vol. 1, page 414
When van M died, a few years later, at Demerara, in Dutch Guiana, I learnt that his will contained several clauses in my favour. It merely remained for me to avail myself of them. Ida Saint-Elme (2008) -- Memoirs of a Contemporary: the Reminiscence of of Ida Saint-Elme, page 28
Along with the Leewards, several other slave colonies close to Spanish territory lost slaves because of this tolerant policy: Dutch St. Eustatius and the Danish islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix to Puerto Rico; Jamaica to Cuba; South Carolina to Florida; and Essequibo in Dutch Guiana to Orinoco or Spanish Guiana (Venezuela). -- David Barry Gaspar (1993) - Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua
A British fleet reduced the settlements of Demerara and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America; but a British squadron on its way to attack the Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope was defeated off the Cape de Verde Islands by the French fleet under... -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1306
I hope you are finally convinced now. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Why Azawad is shown on File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg? This is a file for Mali, not for Azawad. This file is used in many Wikipedias, so why they must use this pro-Azawadian image? Why there is no a similar file without Azawad? Moreover in the case of Somalia, the File:Somalia (orthographic projection).svg doesn’t show Somaliland (Somaliland is real non-recognized state, not only postulated as Azawad). Similarly File:Georgia (orthographic projection).svg is without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So, current File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg is ordinary POV – they should be changed for file with map similar to map used in files for Somalia or Georgia. Aotearoa ( talk) 06:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) PS. In the case of Somalia I’ve found map with Somaliland (with de facto controlled area, not claimed) highlighted ( File:Somalia (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg). So, it is possibility to add map of Mali with Azawad, but in different title (not File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg, and with correct borders (i.e. de facto controlled area, not postulated and de facto never controlled one). Aotearoa ( talk) 10:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please not add controversial items to the infobox for the Mali-article without at least trying to reach concensus for your edit at the talk page. I cannot see you've been participating there lately. The use of "LocationMali.svg" is used on older editions of the article than "Mali (orthographic projection).svg", so status quo is use of the traditional map. Disrespecting status quo and the current discussions in the article, and still reverting, is pretty much starting an edit war. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You are on 2RR, please explain why you are removing content which has achieved consensus through the RFC, which you did not even take part in I note, nor have you posted to the talk page. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi CMD, can you help me out here with these articles?
Mtheory1 ( talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi CMD,
Would you care to revert San culottes'
recent edits to the
Syria article? I would, but I'm bound by the
1RR whereas the last edit you made to that article was more than 24 hours ago. Thanks. -
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk)
10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the second half of this edit summary may be true, but you are the one who is bizarre (and desperate enough) to finally start referring to the ISO all this time. GotR Talk 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you could have a look in the talk page before reverting. 2 editors already agree on the changes. If you disagree you should enter the discussion. Masri145 ( talk) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted the anthem file in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and mischaracterized your action as "shifting." Such actions are known as sneaky vandalism per WP:SNEAKY and can be punishable under AA2. Sprutt ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You two (you and F&F) are well-meaning editors. I think you have misunderstood my edits on India and reverted it twice. Please help me navigate through this gloomy phase. In your judgement, I trust. As the reverter you did not look closely at my additions and that's what spurred the argument I guess. I simply don't understand why my edits were reverted in the first place. Yes, I know what I could have done but I just don't get what I did wrong. Help me dear! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Text that I (Mrt) want to add | Sources | remarks |
---|---|---|
1. The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism) | 1. (Barth, Fredrik (1962). E. R. Leach (ed.). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon, and North-West Pakistan. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
978-0-521-09664-5.) 2. (Martin A. Mills (2002). Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism. Routledge. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-7007-1470-4.) 3. (Kenneth Ballhatchet (1998). Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914. ISBN 978-0-7007-1095-9.) (Elijah Obinna (2012). "Contesting identity: the Osu caste system among Igbo of Nigeria". African Identities. 10 (1): 111–121. doi: 10.1080/14725843.2011.614412.) |
This was after RegentsPark checked it, and pruned some. |
2. Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population. |
(
"Constitution of India". Ministry of Law, Government of India. Retrieved 2012. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= (
help))
|
Important piece of information that shows Indian Government's initiatives to stem the issue of caste-system. |
3. The Indian economy is $1.848 trillion by nominal GDP and corollary changes owing to that. | (" GDP (current US$) Data in 2011". World Bank. Retrieved 27 August 2012.) | This was partly discussed on the talk of Economy of India. |
I left aligned the image as you asked in this edit summary. If not I will self-revert. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 08:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You have given me quite the welcome to Wikipedia authorship, as you reversed my very first entry! I must, however, disagree with your assessment that Israel "unilaterally annexed" the Golan Heights.
1) Annexation, by definition, is a unilateral political act. The modifier, therefore, strikes me as unnecessary, verging on pejorative.
2) The Golan Heights Law was not a legal annexation of the territory. It was an effective annexation, agreed, hence why I thought de facto was a fair rendering. For the Golan Heights Law simply does not annex the territory into Israel. The entry itself provides proof in two ways: 1) The language of the law does not say that the territory is now part of Israel, but rather extends the Israeli law through it. If they had truly annexed it, why not make it abundantly clear? Can there be a secret annexation? This leads to 2) which is that the Prime Minister at the time denied that it was annexed. Again, if it was a true, proper de jure (as you say) annexation, why deny it? Annexation is a clear, unambiguous act. Israel's action with respect to the Golan Height is politically and legally imperial. It is not, legally speaking, annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooshj ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:India". Thank you! Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding [33]. You confirm that you agreed with "the change from recognitions to diplomatic relations." I deliberately didn't touched the NZ extent, because there wasn't agreement about these other changes. But now you repeatedly revert the recognition-to-relations change that nobody disputes.
What's the difference between those? The relations change you agrees with. Re-arrangement of the other sentences so that they match other extents. Head of state clarification - previous variant mentions neither the Commonwealth nor the Realm of NZ (not the state of NZ)! Previous variant was the ambiguous "shares a head of state with NZ" - UK shares head of state with NZ. Australia shares head of state with NZ. CI and Niue too. But the point here is different - that all three states - CI, NZ, Niue - share the Queen in the right of NZ the realm - and as a separate issue - that Queen happens is the same as the Queen of other Commonwealth realms such as Australia. Japinderum ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Same for Niue:
What do you disagree with? Japinderum ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
i need your help to protect the Somaliland page and if you go back in the view history you will find that the paage was blanet several times so if you can or someone can protect the page so it becomes hard for vandalism.
Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello
1/Why did you choose to talk about what you don't understand?
If you read the "accord de Nouméa" it say than WE people of new-Caledonia will choose the future of OUR country between 2014 and 2018 ;The discution about the flag was about show it on the mayors offices or not (for your information not all the mayor offices show it some of theme only show the France flag) IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL FLAG AND NEW CALEDONIA IS STILL PART OF FRANCE. http://www.gouv.nc/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/12320003.PDF this is a REAL OFFICIAL SOURCE
2/why you choose to ignore people who are concerned
It is not the first time some people from other country choose to trust what they see on the net (witch mean nothing than we can trust). You just increase tensions here whit wrong informations for that you are clearly responsible so when it is gonna explode (and it will thanks to you and other of the same kind ...)i will send you pictures and documents so you can see what you've done from your country in your comfortable office ...
3/Why you undo things about a country that is on the other side of earth.
I don't even care about your country (the genocide of Tasmania, the civil war, ...) why don't you do the same. Or maybe your are omnipotent and knows every things just with your spirits, in this case may i call you god ... but in if not just try to talk about what you know it will be the best for the rest of the human kind.
so thanks again for you infinite knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! In your map File:Recognition of Israel.svg, Iran needs to be colored in pink, because from the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Iran did recognize Israel and in addition had diplomatic relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.20.246 ( talk) 14:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis!
I understand your rationale and, personally, don't think I mind whether or not the template includes a WikiProject link, but I'm wondering if removing it might have more of an impact on those WikiProjects than imagined. On a page that includes the template, for instance, the WikiProject link provided by the template might've been the only indication that the WikiProject exists..? (Or maybe the idea of WikiProjects is being wound down..?) CsDix ( talk) 08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
When you say the Italians took Eritrea from Ethiopia that is not at all true. If you merely read some books, it has been written that Eritrea had been separate from Ethiopia before the Italians took over. They had the kingdom of Medri Bahri. Before Axum, Eritrea was also separate: they had city-states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nummies ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
See the last few posts in this UK Talk thread. The country infobox template seems not to be designed to have a source citation for a country's ranking. This is the sort of thing you usually know the history/reasons for/background on! Care to comment? DeCausa ( talk) 07:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, please archive your talk page content, its too big now.
Based on consensus, as shown on Talk:Puducherry, the wikipedia page on union territory of India has been moved from Pondicherry to Puducherry. Since, there is no consensus yet on city or district of the same name, I am not changing it on other pages; didn't change text on page of historical documents. However, this page is not a historical topic, it is a list of current such territories as noted by UN.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .
Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I'm just dropping a note regarding my rv of your edit in the Falkland Islands article. As I said, I believe regarding the islands as a comparable "entity" as the UK or Argentina has a possible political undertone since they are actually a British overseas territory and not a country. Even more, their right to make political decisions regarding the islands (as a physical object) is clearly contested by Argentina which would make referring to the "Falkland Islands" instead of the "residents of the Falkland Islands" all the more controversial. I could be wrong here though. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't come across the term Y-chromosomal Adam in any subject other than human genetics, then why the article starts with "In human genetics". Then why you made this edit summary? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 08:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely the article name is clear? Why do we need a special section with vague definitions? Is it to satisfy some people's inability to work within Wikipedia guidelines? The ones I left there are ones that arguments could be made for, like Greenland, French Polynesia and Aruba. Could you explain why uninhabited islands and integral territories need to be included? Can you explain how Macau qualifies as an island country when it has a glaringly obvious mainland peninsula? 212.113.145.253 ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
As to my contention that Bahrain is in no way a constitutional monarchy but, instead, an absolute monarchy, I refer you to one of the latest articles in this regard: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/13d9671763240907
regards,
csc [6]
Hi, BFBS's TV channel lineup changed a few weeks ago - http://www.bfbs.com/radio/article/bfbs-tv-set-for-a-makeover-on-27th-march As a result, the channels available to civilians in the Falkland Islands changed as well. The Penguin News publishes TV listings with the new channels, but in order to view its TV page, you need to log in with a password, while the BFBS website, obviously catering for its intended audience, doesn't distinguish between the channels only available to HM Forces (Sky Sports 1 and 2, and BFBS Sport) and those available to everyone. Quiensabe ( talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I want to know some information about the Vatican City State. You have already said me that PRC doesn't have any diplomatic relations with Vatican because it recognises the ROC. But I think that "internationally recognised sovereign state" means that state received a recognition from all permanent members of the UN Security Council, isn't it? I want to know: 1) Is Vatican recognised by the PRC, 2) What is the correct number of INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED SOVEREIGN STATES ( I think 194 - UN members and Vatican City (Palestinian state is not internationally recognised)). Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 10:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If I'll use my criteria which defines state only if it is recognised by absolutely ALL states in the world as sovereign and independent state, there will be 188 states around the world (187 UN member states (excluding 6 not fully recognised - Armenia, Israel, Cyprus, PRC, North and South Koreas), and the State of Vatican City (not Holy See, that is the governing body of Vatican City State), recognised by ALL states as sovereign). Is it such as I say, are all states I've named are recognised by each other? Please answer, are all states I've named are absolutely recognised and my criteria yare can be right? User02062000 ( talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Which states do not recognize the State of Vatican City? I know that the Holy See has no any relations with PRC and North Korea and some other states. Is it means that these states do not recognize Vatican City. Is it? WHAT SOURCES can prove that Vatican City is recognized by those states that have no any relations with it? And also, what entity is a state: Holy See or Vatican City? User02062000 ( talk) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday in the list of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent there was only one UN non-member state: Vatican City. Today, when I added an amendment that Palestine is sovereign, and then deleted it, you have reverted list to version in which Palestine is considered sovereign state. Then, there is a question: why Palestine was not considered sovereign yesterday and earlier, but today it is considered? Why did you delete my re-contribute?Also, there is a question: how many states recognised by the UN as sovereign are not its members? User02062000 ( talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, currently there are only two states de jure recognised by international community that are not members of the UN: the Holy See (Vatican City State) and the State of Palestine. But what we must to do with other entities in the List of sovereign states? I think, the section "List of states" must be divided into two sections: "Internationally recognised sovereign states" and "States with limited or no recognition". The 195 UN-recognised states must be included into the first section, and other states that are considered to be non-sovereign (part of a parent, recognised state) by the UN. I think it is a good idea, isn't it? User02062000 ( talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw that in Wikipedia on another languages, such as bahasa Indonesia or Russian Wikipedia, State of Palestine is considered a state with limited recognition, and fact that Palestine does not recognised by approximately 60 states, including 3 permanent Security Council members, is considered a lack of recognition. But the last updates of that lists were not so much time ago, not more than 1 month. There is a question: how much time ago did the State of Palestine become a fully independent sovereign state, if in other Wikipedias Palestine is considered not fully recognised, but with limited recognition? And what pages can ARGUE a fact that Palestine is fully recognised? User02062000 ( talk) 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The second problem is: in the "List of states with limited recognition" in section "criteria for inclusion" there is a criteria: state must be recognized as a state by at least one other state. But Somaliland is not recognized by any state! Then, it must be excluded from this list! And also, there are some states, for example, Niue, Wasiristan, Azad Kashmir and other unrecognized states are not included in this list, but unrecognized Somaliland is included. Why? User02062000 ( talk) 05:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But in what section must CI and Niue include? Recognised states, states with limited recognition or dependent territory? What criteria do CI and Niue meet? I know, that they are both with complicated status, but in what section they must be included more specifically? User02062000 ( talk) 11:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
If my sections are "internationally recognised states", "states with limited or no recognition" and "dependent and autonomous areas"? Where must CI and Niue be placed more specifically? When I had deleted CI and Niue from the list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, you said that they are "rarely described as sovereign states, but as they are sometimes, they are included in the List of sovereign states". If they are SOMETIMES described as sovereign states, it means that they are more often described as dependent, non-sovereign territories. Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But are they (CI and Niue) usually described as "states with limited recognition"? They are recognised by few states but they are not placed in the list of states with limited recognition. Also, what criteria of statehood are usually used in international law and how many states are those criteria define? User02062000 ( talk) 17:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But why must we include CI and Niue, if they are not usually considered sovereign states? Even in the lists of countries by continent they are in the section "dependent and other territories". I think we must EXCLUDE CI and Niue. User02062000 ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Why are they included in the section "Dependent and other territories" in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania? And in other lists of states they are considered non-sovereign? Only in the List of sovereign states CI and Niue have its own sections. And also, about criteria of statehood: the second criteria is "state must be recognized by at least one other state. Is Azad Kashmir recognised by Pakistan, or no? If it s rscognized, it must be included in the list of sovereign states because it meets the second criteria. User02062000 ( talk) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, Niue and CI are more often described as dependencies (if we must choose between sovereign states and dependent territories) , isn't it? (Answer me: Yes or No). User02062000 ( talk) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How many from 206 states in the List of sovereign states are meeting the four criteria of Montevideo Convention? Are there any states excluded from the list but meeting Convention's criteria? Are CI and Niue meets all of these criteria as other sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 19:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There are 195 countries that are recognized by the UN and independent states. But are CI and Niue are recognised by the UN as states, or they are considered non-sovereign self-governing territories controlled by New Zealand? User02062000 ( talk) 11:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
But you can see List of non-self-governing territories, there are 16 entities, and CI and Niue are excluded. They are in section "former entities" and now in the UN they are not belong neither to states, nor to dependencies and other. Why? User02062000 ( talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have 2 questions: 1) Are CI/Niue are recognized as sovereign states by the UN or no, and there will be only 195 recognised states by the UN; 2) Why in the UN is used the designation "Holy See", but not "Vatican City"? Vatican City is a state, but not the Holy See! User02062000 ( talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Are there any states except CI/Niue that can be considered as sovereign, but most often described as dependencies? If there are some such states, they must be included in the List of sovereign states. User02062000 ( talk) 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But why in all pages about freely associated states and CI and Niue, they are described as STATES in free association, but not any other entities? Also, you can see "List of dependent territories", in which CI/Niue are included. There is a question: why in all lists CI/Niue are listed as dependencies, but in notes they are described as sovereign states??? And I can't understand: must CI/Niue belong to sovereign states or dependencies? They are rarely described in pages on Wikipedia as "self-governing in free association", but they are described as I wrote before. Explain why? User02062000 ( talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, HOW MANY states are de jure (and de facto, of course) recognized by the UN? (say me a number of states). Please answer exactly as you can! User02062000 ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The List of sovereign states contains 206 states. The UN accepted 195 states. Other 11 states are not in the UN System. Then, other states must be accepted by the UN as part of member state (Kosovo - Serbia, Taiwan - China, Transnistria - Moldova, NKR - Azerbaijan, Somaliland - Somalia, Turkish Cyprus - Cyprus, SADR - no state, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - Georgia, and CI/Niue - New Zealand). Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But is Kosovo considered a part of Serbia by the UN? I know that there is a peacekeeping mission of the UN in Kosovo. Do you know, is Kosovo is internationally recognised as part of Serbia (by the UN)? And what other countries of the world (except those which accepted CI/Niue as subjects of International Law) think about CI/Niue? Are they recognize these entities as sovereign or as partly sovereign but controlled by NZ? For example, CI/Niue are considered states with limited recognition in German (deutsch) Wikipedia. User02062000 ( talk) 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Some lists are consider CI/Niue as NON-MEMBER STATES of the UN, and the map "world today" also consider Niue and CI as non-member states. Why? In all other maps CI/Niue are considered by the UN as part of New Zealand. User02062000 ( talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you say me in brief why in Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue editors have decided to add CI/Niue to the List of sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
1) Are CI/Niue meet ALL 4 criteria of Montevideo Convention? 2) Are ALL 16 states with limited recognition meet these 4 four criteria? 3) Are other 187 UN member states and Vatican City meet these 4 criteria? You can answer in such way: 1) yes/no; 2) yes/no; 3) yes/no. Add a note if you feel it necessary. User02062000 ( talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think that so does every inhabited dependent territory? It has no capacity to have relations with other states. Also, are all states in the List of sovereign states meet the criteria used for this list (a, b)? User02062000 ( talk) 03:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any states that meet criteria of the List of sovereign states, but not included of that list? Can you name them? User02062000 ( talk) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But what is the source of these two criteria used in the List of sovereign states? Where were it found? Who used these criteria first? User02062000 ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
What states are meet only declarative theory criteria, and what states are meet only constitutive theory criteria? (Please name those states that are not defined as states by declarative theory, and states not defined as such by constitutive theory) User02062000 ( talk) 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
What with NKR, PMR, Palestine and Somalia? What theory of statehood are they meet? In what theory have they disputable status of considering state? Also, you have already said that every inhabited dependent territory meets the criteria of declarative theory. Then, dependent territories such as Tokelau must be included in the list, but they're not. Why? (I have read the Montevideo Convention, in which the declarative theory appears. There are no point in which say that "state must declared independence and is often regarded as ... Etc.", but in the criteria (a) in the list of sovereign states there is such text. You said that the point (a) is the point for declarative theory. And, how I have said, in the declarative theory there is no such point. Why are dependent territories not included in that list, if they are meet the criteria of declarative theory, as you have said?) User02062000 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are all states in the list of sovereign states (206 entities) meet the criteria of the declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine including)? The Montevideo Convention is apply to CI/Niue, isn't it? (As you've said, the convention is apply for states that have received diplomatic recognition from another one as sovereign state. Then CI/Niue are defined as states by the declarative and constitutive theories) User02062000 ( talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are Montevideo Convention and declarative theory are the same? Why did you say that every inhabited dependent territory meet 4 criteria of the convention? You have said later that Montevideo Convention is only about STATES, but not DEPENDENCIES! Also, only 204 entities of 206 are defined as states by the declarative theory of statehood, isn't it? CI/Niue are not defined as states by only the constitutive theory! User02062000 ( talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it means that CI/Niue are not considered sovereign states by the declarative theory? Yes or no? (Add a note and please, give me a correct NUMBER of states that are define as such by the declarative theory. User02062000 ( talk) 17:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
But you have said that CI/Niue meet only CONSTITUTIVE theory, but not DECLARATIVE! Isn't it? Also, are there any states meeting both theories but not included on the list? User02062000 ( talk) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, there are 206 sovereign states defined by two main theories of statehood. Is it a right conclusion? Are there any other theories of statehood? User02062000 ( talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Why CI/Niue are not belong to sovereign states in other lists? They are recognised by some states and defined as states by statehood theories. We can add a note about recognition of their sovereignty. User02062000 ( talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I understood that they are not fully independent from NZ, and then rarely considered sovereign states. But they are include in the list of states because they are recognised as independent by some another countries. Is it so? User02062000 ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Also I have the next question: CI/Niue in some lists are consider to be UN non-member state. But on other pages they are considered not to be recognized by the UN. IT CAN'T BE DIFFERENT AUTHORS, THE UN IS ONE! UN must have a definite position: or to accept CI/Niue as states, or not. What is the CORRECT position of the United Nations? User02062000 ( talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
then, which sources are right: those which describe CI/Niue as sovereign or those that not describe them as such? User02062000 ( talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, List of sovereign states includes all states defined by at least 1 another state or theory as a state (there are no any states that are described by anybody as such). Is it a correct conclusion for the end of this discussion? User02062000 ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a question: Are CI/Niue meet only constitutive theory or both? As you've said earlier, they are included per the constitutive theory. Is it so? And also, why associated CI/Niue are most often considered to be non-sovereign territories, but such associated entities as Palau are considered to be fully independent from their parent country? Also, I've heard that CI/Niue are often considred constituent countries (such as Nothern Ireland or Greenland), but not states. Is it such? If it is such as I've said, I have a conclusion: CI and Niue are not considered sovereign states by NZ and international community. User02062000 ( talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Couple of your sources describe CI/Niue as sovereign, but other don't. Which sources are more correct? Are CI/Niue described as sovereign by the most of sources or no? User02062000 ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I have four questions: 1) Why does the UN specialized agencies have a members such as CI/Niue or Kosovo, which are does not considered sovereign states by the UN? 2) What entity is considered a state by the UN: Vatican City or the Holy See? 3) Is Palestine fully occupied by Israel and considered by it as part of its sovereign territory? 4) Are CI/Niue considered by NZ as its territories but not sovereign states? User02062000 ( talk) 09:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
How many states are recognized by the international community (de jure and de facto)? What states can be the members of the international community? User02062000 ( talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please answer: 1) There are 204 entities that are defined as states according to the Montevideo Convention and declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine are included, of course). CI/Niue are not included because they haven't declared independence yet. Is it (Yes or No)? 2) There are 203 entities (or 205, if PMR and NKR are included) that are defined as states according to the constitutive theory. Is it? User02062000 ( talk) 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any entities that have declared independence but have no control over its territory and population? User02062000 ( talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
But the Republic of Ichkeria is a government-in-exile, isn't it? These entities have no boundaries and they are claiming to be only government, but not a country. Is it so? And please answer the second question: what theory of statehood is the dominant and the main: constitutive or declarative? And as I understood, the declarative theory is only for STATES, that have declared independence. Then, dependencies (inhabited) meet the criteria of convention (CI/Niue are include as dependency), but they all don't meet main point: they must declare independence, but dependencies fail this point that applies to states. Am I right? User02062000 ( talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. But please, answer exactly: what theory of statehood is the main theory? Declarative or constitutive? Which of these theories is the main? And also, if you mention realpolitik, what is it mean? User02062000 ( talk) 04:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you say why our list of sovereign states include only that entities that have been described as states by theories of statehood, but not realpolitik and other ways? You have already said that the world runs not on the academic theories. User02062000 ( talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
But then, why are we include states defined by theories but not other criteria or different ways? User02062000 ( talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my repeated reversions on the Nauru entry--I thought I was having technical difficulties. I accept your point, that form of government is not relevant to this geographical table. I added the comment only because I saw "world's smallest republic" prominently featured in the Nauru article. Goustien ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I want to know correct number of dependencies in the world (including CI/Niue, but excluding territories without international recognition as dependencies and territories that are considered to be an incorporated part of another country). Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, why the UN does not include some dependencies in its list of Non-Self-Governing territories? User02062000 ( talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. This topic is about citizenships of different countries. I want to know answers on some questions. The questions are: 1) Are all people of dependent territories citizens of its mother country (for example, people of Wales or British Indian Territory are citizens of the UK, is it?) 2) Are all population of unrecognized and partially recognized states (excluding recognized UN members, of course) must be citizens of mother country? 3) Are Western Sahara population are citizens of any country? 4) How many citizenships are there in the world (add a note if you feel it necessary)? User02062000 ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Chipmunk My Friend,
re: the United Nations article#membership section.
I believe Palestine is now in the same UN status as the Holy See (Vatican State) as a non-member permanent observer. Please see the article on permanent UN observer states. Why then, are we not going to recognize this?
What makes a state "fully recognized"? If it means recognition by all of the powerful states, then this gives these states unequal power and is not democratic. If, however it means all states recognize the state in question, then several are members of the UN which are not "fully recognized". Take for example the State of Israel recognized by only 160 of the UN members, only 28 more than the State of Palestine with 132. Which should be "fully recognized"? Just because the powers that be recognize Israel and they can get this voted by all Permanent Security Council members, they are a "fully recognized state". The other state is not and is banished from sight.
I was only attempting to show that, though recognized by the UN as a non-member permanent observer, the State of Palestine is not yet a member. But it should still be recognized as a "recognized" government by the UN, but not fully, as is Israel, Armenia, China, etc. which do not have recognition by all members.
Then the UN treats the Cook Islands and Niue as states capable of making international treaties and able to hold memberships in many international organizations. They have power to unilaterally declare independence. This means they are sovereign in their own right and are freely associated as is Monaco and Liechtenstein.
How can we show they are all "fully recognized", but not members? Can you suggest a way to make these states exist and not fade away into the netherworld? I can assure you Palestine and several others won't go away anytime soon and will be recognized in the future. We should show we are aware of these states, and their progress in this article in some way. What do you think?
Briefzehn 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
Hi Chipmunk,
You still have not convinced me. I was making note of the State of Palestine in the section on Membership where it notes "all fully recognized sovereign states" except the Holy See/Vatican. Though the article may mention Palestine elsewhere, it is deceiving not to mention it here as well using the statements put forth. It is all a matter of arbitrary rules from what I can see.
On the matter of the Cook Is. and Niue, they are states as the Wikipedia defines state as "A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government". If they have sovereign rights to make treaties and declare their independence and are by definition a state, then they are sovereign states and are recognized officially or unofficially by many UN members. I know you have a lot of questions like this but this is because your actions make you appear to be an expert. It is all clear as mud to me. Is there some way to clarify the article for simple folks to read?
Briefzehn 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for taking the time to explain for my muddled mind to understand with the complexities of "independence" and "recognition" in the world today. I do believe DLC has at least partially clarified the article with the changes made. I now can also see the State or Palestine DLC mentioned as an observer in the section. By the way, I know Cook I and Niue have not declared independence, however, they are included in the article for independent states as "other states" not UN members or observers and they both have no disputes. How do we reconcile this in the UN article? I saw where in one part a mention was made at the end of the section that both are considered by the UN as working states which are able to make treaties and join various UN agencies as states. They do take a little extra explaining as they are extraordinary cases. Thanks for your time. Briefzehn 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle ( talk • contribs)
You're probably right; on the other hand I'm reasonably sure I have made statements to that effect on Azer/Arm pages. I don't comport myself well when frustrated with rambling people. :P -- Golbez ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work on the rewrite! It has desperately needed it for some time now, but I've avoided doing it myself due to the inevitable WP:IDHT debates that Ci/Niue issues tend to descend into. TDL ( talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis,
The Commonwealth of Nations is an "intergovernmental organisation of 54 independent member states", therefore not a state, consequently it has no relevance to the article about state leaders. Furthermore the link which I keep deleting and you keep re-adding is about the list of members of this organization (only 16 of which have the head of the organization as their head of state). And Elizabeth II is correctly listed under each Commonwealth realm as head of state in the List of current heads of state and government article, therefore a link to the membership of the Commonwealth adds no relevant information.
Could you please explain how you see this question?
ZBukov ( talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You can see on www.rulers.org or on www.worldsatesmen.org, in the sections about history of the Palestine, it is a State of Palestine, proclaimed in 15 Nov 1988 by Palestine Liberation Organization which remains ineffective but receives diplomatic recognition from some states) which has a own organization of the state and which has in common with Palestinian National Authority only the person of the president. Te Parliament is Palestinian National Council and the government of that is Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. For PNA the Parliament is Palestinian Legislative Council and it is a government lead by a prime minister. On 29 Nov 201 2 Palestine represented by PNA obtained the status of non-member observer state status in the United Nations and in 6 Jan 2013 Palestinian Authority renamed itself State of Palestine (move not recognized by Israel). So, at this moment it is a big difference between the state of Palestine proclaimed By OEP, which has nor a prime minister nor an elected Parliament and State of Palestine which is the new name of PNA. Maybe in the future will be an unification between the two entities, but in present they are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! Answer please, why does the Holy See not a member of the UN? Has it a plan to become its member? User02062000 ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Why does the Vatican City is often considered a state, but the Holy See is an observer state in the UN? User02062000 ( talk) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
But then why the Holy See is in a category 'Non-member states in the UN list? On all pages in Wikipedia the Vatican is considered a state, not the Holy See! Even on the website of the Vatican City it is considered a state, not the Holy See! Why the Holy See holds a STATE section in the UN, not international organization? Please explain! User02062000 ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain or show sources where mentioned that Holy See applies to the UN under its name, not Vatican City State! All sources say that Vatican City is a state, Holy See is only a sovereign entity controlling a state of Vatican! That is not logic if Holy See appears to the UN under name of international sovereign organization, not under the name of state they controlling? Please help! User02062000 ( talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand it, my question is 'Why the Holy See is considered a state in the UN? It can be considered an international organization, such as the SMOM! Please answer, why the Vatican City is internationally recognised and considered a state, but in the UN the state is Holy See, that is considered just a government of the Vatican? User02062000 ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Then, why the Vatican City is considered a sovereign state on the List of sovereign states and the page about Vatican? There are so many pages where Vatican is the entity which is considered sovereign state, without any mention about the Holy See as a state! It is so unclear situation: all encyclopedias say that Vatican City State is a sovereign, while in the UN the Holy See is considered a state! You can see website of the Vatican, where mentioned that Vatican is an independent state, and there is no mention that Vatican City and the Holy See are entwined! Even the website of Vatican proves that Vatican is a state, but you say that Holy See is a state too, isn't it? I think the website of the Vatican City is the main source where the right information can be found! Then, Vatican is a state, not Holy See! And the Holy See holds observer state status. It is not logic, if Vatican website proves that Vatican is a state, while Holy See don't mention about that they are the state, and holds observer state status!!! Don't you think so? Please clear this unclear situation! User02062000 ( talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. You say that "they are different aspects of the same state". What is this state? I just want to know what name (Holy See or Vatican City) is an official name of the state? User02062000 ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have one question: if you say that Holy See is more closely associated with diplomatic presence of state (but is used as one official name of the state, can you explain why in the article about Vatican City State I've found this: "The two entities have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country,..."??? How can you explain this words? They say that Holy see is not a country (or state)!!! But you ask me, "Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See?" We must either delete the proposition I've found, or you explain me your point of view! How you can explain it? User02062000 ( talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have a conclusion for the end of discussion: The Vatican City is traditionally considered a state, while the Holy See is considered its government, but represent a traditional state in international organizations as a sovereign entity. If it is right (say me), the discussion would have a happy end! User02062000 ( talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Gibraltar and the UK may claim whatever they want, but what they cannot do is to change the Treaty of Utrech. The history cannot be rewritten according to what you would like it to be. So please read the Treaty of Utrech and inform yourself before introducing misleading information. Whether you like it or not, there are no maritime borders between any British Overseas Territory and Spain. Have a little bit of respect for History and for international treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmtnez ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Many pages say that Palestinian territories are under Israeli occupation. Then there is a conclusion that Palestine is not an independent country (even a lot of websites which try to answer how many independent countries are there in the world say that there are 193 UN members, Vatican and Taiwan). I don't argue that Palestine is not recognized by the UN, but it is not independent! User02062000 ( talk) 08:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Do read the article Hindu Nationalism and Akhanda Bharata. Hope u r not a pov pusher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.65.173 ( talk) 10:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I have a question about international community: is it the same as the UN? User02062000 ( talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! But don't forget to answer me in the Vatican Section above, I have a new question there! User02062000 ( talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis! I want to ask you about de jure and de facto states. Here are my questions (answer in this order): 1) Is de jure recognized means "recognised by the UN"? 2) Why in Vatican City article mentioned that "VAtican is smallest internationally recognised sovereign state"? Holy See is internationally recognised - it is a subject of international law, isn't it? User02062000 ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Chipmunkdavis! Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 ( talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Why don't you answer me for a long time? Please be faster if you can! User02062000 ( talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a reason for that wording in the states and dependencies of Oceania page. One thing is to say: "the Cook Islands have engaged with other states in diplomatic relations", which is a proven fact and describes a precedent. Another thing entirely is saying "they engage in diplomatic relations". We know they do, but since they have only engaged in such relations with a minority of states, this wording may suggest a larger degree of independence in their foreign affairs than they really have. In other words, it would lead to giving CI and Niue undue weight. Ladril ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis!
My question for you is: Why do we consider CI/Niue as UN-recognized, but put them into such sections as "other states" etc.? And why does the Un general assembly haven't yet recognized CI/Niue as observers, if they are 'recognized'? User02062000 ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do we consider "internationally recognized states" only those states which hve already become UN members or observers? For those 9 states which sre not recognized, I agree with, but I think CI/Niue then mustn't be in section "other states" they must be among recognized! for example, in List of Sovereign states they are in other states section, and in countries of oceania list they have an unique section, while Palestine and Vatican have no separate section in such as List of sovereign states of Eurasia or Asia, or Europe. User02062000 ( talk) 11:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are CI/Niue have right for signing treaties and self-determination, but they have not use it yet? I think CI/Niue can't be described as sovereign countries because they have not used right for self-determination and there are only few states recognizing them (without their declaration or some other treaty). What do you think about? And also, my main question: does UN recognize CI/Niue independence? For example, I saw an article in French Wikipedia, and they consider CI/Niue to be sovereign states... and you can see that in lists of s.s. and dependencies by continent the sections named "recognized states" but in list of Oceanian countries sections named "member states of the UN" and "states not members..." which include CI and Niue respectively. i think we must either rename section "member staets" to "recognized states" and include or not CI/Niue, or we must create section "states with limited recognition" for CI/Niue as German Wikipedia does. Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 ( talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chupmunkdavis. What do you think about current status of CI/Niue 'self-governing in free association': is it mean they're independent from New Zealand, or they say that they don't want to be fully independent, but don't want to be dependent from NZ? And then, why don't they had to ask UN to be its member or observer? Or why don't they ask NZ to be independent from then, and would it be, what's your opinion? What NZ thinks about their current status and wish they to change it? Please answer! User02062000 ( talk) 18:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, but I'll rename sections I've said above. User02062000 ( talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunk. Thanks for not reverting my revision again (some people do things like that). If you happen to be interested in why the articles were incorrect in this particular instance I'll be happy to attempt an explanation. If not, then never mind of course. All the best, Tdls
Hello again. As I've seen, a lot of other Wikipedias include State of Palestine in "states with limited recognition". Yes, as you've said Israel or PRC have LR too. But in those wikis there is a note that Palestinian state is not fully exists yet. I've seen a lot of atlases, and all of them prefer "Palestinian territories", not "State of Palestine". Not only English atlases, but foreign too, including atlases published in countries which recognize Palestinian state. I think it is a propose to change Palestine status in wikipedia to "state with limited recognition" and then change it back to "recognized state" when it will be formed and established as a state like Israel, which occupies Palestine. Let me know what you think. User02062000 ( talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
But what about atlases? They all prefer name "Palestinian territories" instead of "State of Palestine". And all the map I've seen have a note that Palestinian territories are occupied since 1967 and state is now forming there. User02062000 ( talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Recently I visited Russia and I'm interested in its politics. I know that Russia recognizes 197 states: UN members, Varican City, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and State of Palestine. Also I bought some political world maps. I've seen thay're all show that: 1) Abkhasia and Ossetia are marked as sovereign states (Russia recognizes them, and it's sure); 2) Palestine is marked as "Palestinian territories", not the State of Palestine (and this is data of the latest maps, March or August 2013, when Palestine had already became observer) 3) All the maps have 6 notes including this (translation): "Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) were occupied by Israel in 1967. Nowadays palestinian self-governing process is going on". As you see, Palestine is recognized by Russia, meanwhile on the map it is showed as occupied territories. also you can see one russian document ("Общероссийский классификатор стран мира" in russian). The same article is on russian Wikipedia. Read it and you'll see a list of countries with its codes based on ISO 3166. However, in ISO standard Palestine have name "State of Palestine" while in russian document it has name "Palestinian territories, occupied". What can you say? User02062000 ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
And what about maps and the document I've talked about? User02062000 ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. But can you explain why on the newest official russian (not matter) maps Palestine is considered occupied, while Russian government had recognized Palestine's independence few years ago? Why don't they use designation "State of Palestine" instead of "(occupied) Palestinian territories"? If the map is official it must satisfy the point of the government, which considers Palestine independent! Can you explain? User02062000 ( talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not matter is it Russian publication or not - I want to know why on the political maps of countries which recognize the Palestine it is showed as non-sovereign nation? How can it be - state recognizes another state as sovereign, and in the meantime the state is showed as not independent on the maps? Again, it is not matter, is it Russia or not. User02062000 ( talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they don't. But they also don't say that Palestine is a state: they say that Palestinian state is now forming (I think it is why Palestine is showed as separate occupied territories and not showed as an independent, sovereign nation). Do you agree with map data? User02062000 ( talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Forget about limited recognition, I don't argue on the topic. I just want to know why Palestine is showed as forming, occupied and non-sovereign territories. I want to know exactly this point: why Palestine is showed as "occupied Palestinian territories " on every map and is considered a forming nation, not an independent State of Palestine, recognized by the country's government which regulates the standards for cartographers? For example, if country recognizes Abkhazia (for example) it is showed on every that country map as sovereign state without any note, while Kosovo, which isn't recognized (example again) is not showed as independent. Palestine is named "occupied Palestinian territories" with note on every map. Explain if you can. User02062000 ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think they make the point that Israel now has a great control, especially military in Palestine, and independent Palestinian state is not marked as a state because it doesn't fully exists and it continues its forming process. Can it be? User02062000 ( talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Then, Palestine could be presented as a non-state entity on maps because it is not fully exists as a state now and considered territories under Israeli-occupation, in which the future, independent and sovereign Palestinian state will exist. Is it a right consensus? User02062000 ( talk) 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Iraq was always marked as a state on the map because it was already formed state, while Palestine is considered there not only occupied, but also not fully created yet. Then it is marked as two separate territories (West Bank and Gaza) and the note says that Palestine is not fully created now and it will be established in international community when Arab-Israeli conflict will be finished. Again, every map shows Palestine as such. Or you've seen any map where you can see Palestine called "State of Palestine", but not "Palestinian territories"? User02062000 ( talk) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
But most maps marks them as "Palestinian territories", and again, they note that state creating process goes on, i.e. that state hasn't its own military forces (only paramilitary) and some other aspects of being a state. I don't argue that Palestine is shown as 2 territories (US or France are shown as such too), I argue that these territories are shown as only territories, but not sovereign state. User02062000 ( talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but then why mapmakers define the geographical area, not a sovereign state located in it? User02062000 ( talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if the map is physical. But on political world maps they must map boundaries of states or their dependencies. Palestine is a state now. Then, why do mapmakers show the boundaries of areas on which the state is situated? It seems to be not correct. But mapmakers have a cartographic base and they surely know the topic better than us. But can you assume, why do they show areas where the state is situated, but not the name of that state itself (i.e. State of Palestine)? User02062000 ( talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Here you are a phrase from page Palestinian territories: "The international community regards the West Bank as territories occupied by Israel." User02062000 ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. But when Palestine will become fully recognized UN member state, do you think that mapmakers will continue showing Palestine as territories, but not a state? I don't think so. Also, please show me or give any web link to map where you saw Palestine marked as "State of Palestine", if you can... User02062000 ( talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Then, you want to say that in near future Palestine will be labelled as Palestine on the maps, not Palestinian territories? If yes, explain when and why. User02062000 ( talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
But why do mapmakers label the Palestinian territories without a notification that there is situated State of Palestine? They only write that these territories are occupied and there is an ongoing process of Palestinian self-governing formation. You say the state is already formed, then why it is even on the newest (2014) maps? I've seen a lot of 2013 and some 2014 maps in different countries and languages, but is still so... User02062000 ( talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Do mapmakers consider Palestine a sovereign state while mapping it as Palestinian territories? What do you think? User02062000 ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI. And this much of a change in an article by one user, without consensus, is acceptable? Best regards. -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a reason why historically it is called the annexation of Texas. I have never heard of the annexation of East Germany, nor the annexation of one part of Yemen by the other. Those were state mergers. At the same time you never hear of the merger of countries to form the Soviet Union, but of annexation such as of the Baltic republics. But, this page is in the hands of a bunch of people with fanciful ideas, as you yourself have made clear in edit summaries. You have also previous rejected other inclusions on the basis of their being annexations and not merders. But guess what - this page survives only for the simple reason that no serious editors ever take an interest in it. I come around once in a while and delete half of the pending mergers between Portugal and Spain and the like. So, without any input from any serious editors (if anyone else joins in it will be the nuts that see mergers around every corner) I see no reason for wasting my time here. For your information, even from the US side it NOT a merger, not even a proper legal annexation, as the whole thing was shrouded in lies and cover-ups with congress knowing very little of what was going on. But I am sure that differences aside, we can work together on comabting the nuttier proposals. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, As you seem to show keen interest in this page, why not create an additional column for the mergers that fell apart? There is plenty of white space in the "Notes" column that would easily allow for an additoinal column. The eye is a strange animal - it will glance down the page looking at the pink/ green outcomes and very few people will read the note alongside. Just an idea. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Azad Kashmir Claim is already present. Claim of Jammu is not based on facts and not supported by any fact/actual happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.62.12 ( talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Chipmunkdavis, I just want to clarify the proposed state mergers. So, you said Canada and Australia couldn't qualify as they were not independent. These territories did become independent after the mergers, but they weren't before that. If Canada and Australia can't be on here I would like you to clarify why the West Indies Federation is included, even though it wasn't previously independent. Thank you. Viller the Great ( talk) 07:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Chipmunkdavis. I think, it would be nice idea to put the sub-headings to "Northern Cyprus-History" part. Alexyflemming ( talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)#Independent_or_Russian. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I added the following to Northern Cyprus:
which you reverted with the edit summary:
The ISO 3166 codes are used in a lot of commercial applications. For example, right now I'm mapping country codes to default currencies for the entire world. In general, any entity that uses Template:Infobox Country shows the ISO 3166 code in that box. I think I would be reverted if I just put "iso3166code=CY" in the infobox, because that applies to more than Northern Cyprus. The situation with Northern Cyprus is confusing, so I think it is quite helpful to people who care about ISO codes (mostly because they have to use them) to have an explanatory note on this article. I'm happy to move it to the infobox, but the syntax for iso3166code right now doesn't really allow that. That's why I put the note in the article text. -- Beland ( talk) 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I proposed the deletion for the article Venetian Republic (2014), because actually the referendum was an online survey without official data about the participation. There are not valid reasons to consider it as an unrecognized state. Could you confirm the proposal? Thank you in advance.-- Ghepa90 ( talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the fact it is your personal opinion of preference and not a consensus not to use Sodacan's new SVG, calling another user's work "ugly" (especially a work by one of our most prolific contributers) is really out of line and I'm sure you know it. Please have the decency not to say that again. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm more than a little concerned about use of Global Replace. It seems to me that because of its power it should be like AWB in that you should have to be authorised to use it. I had to revert 6 posts in addition to the 4 you did today. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently User:Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. — SPESH 531 Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved this conversation to Talk:List of sovereign states#Sealand again, really?— SPESH 531 Other 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The date is given next to the flag. Unless written Nazi-Germany, a source should be given next to the icon for the reader's understanding of why it was used to avoid any... insinuations and/or ambiguity. :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.172.218 ( talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry for undoing your changes, but I believe that adding the word "microstate" to both articles may help some readers to get a better picture of the Cook Islands' and Niue's political status. In other words, while micro-statehood suggests a tiny size (and you are right that readers may want to decide that for themselves), there are many arguments in the literature that "microstates" are not only small, but quite distinct from other types of political units. It is often argued that their distinctiveness lies in the peculiar politico-economic challenges and opportunities created by tiny size. But, if you feel that this justification is insufficient, then I wouldn't want to stir any new heated debates on the Cooks'/Niue's status and can agree to leave it out from the main description (perhaps I could then add an info that many academics view both of these countries as "microstates" somewhere in the politics sub-section?). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis Ok, I understand. feel free to undo my change then. I will perhaps try to include the info on micro-statehood/implications of small size into the politics/economics sections (with an explanaition on talkpage) at some point. Thanks for your replies and sorry for any mistakes - I am still learning how to use wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've just wondered because of your reverts! You really don't have any convincing reasons for your reverts and I really don't know why are you doing this, but please stop. Those maps are exactly based on en:Köppen climate classification map. Also the new maps that I've uploaded are in vector format (their quality won't be lost by zooming). Many users have thanked me for those maps and I've just so wondered that why you are reverting! Please respond. Yours Sincerely Ali Zifan 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you oppose the recent inclusion of content at Australia, but I feel obligated to point out that you have made 3 reversions at the article since 12:30 pm yesterday. [38] [39] [40] Another reversion before 12:30pm today, or even soon after, could see this matter resolved at WP:AN3, rather than on the article's talk page. I have warned Skyring, who has also made 3 reverts, as well as pointing out a flaw in his latest edit summary, and reverted the article to the status quo while consensus is sought on the talk page, where I will shortly open a discussion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I have now opened a discussion at Talk:Australia. I encourage you, Skyring and Wrestlingring to work toward gaining consensus for the disputed edits there. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Euler diagram you created seems to be working now, the flag of the Gambia is fully visible. Could you update the template? Thank you. WBritten ( talk) 17:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The local elections are scheduled for 15 August. Along with the municipality elections, is a "decentralization election". The latter election is under a new decentralization law that establishes governorate councils with limited legislative powers, aimed primarily at organizing governorate development plans. Does this deserve a separate article from Jordanian local election, 2017? If so what named should it have? Barely any coverage of this in English media, yet. But I have read some info in Arabic media.. Also if you seem interested in developing this/these article/articles soon? I will start working on them in a month, any comments are appreciated. Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Kevin McE,
i am proposing that palestine be merged into the main section of states on the list of sovereign states in asia which should be renamed into un member and observer states, taiwan and the rest should be left in the same category, do you agree with my proposal?
Arabistan ( talk) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me with adding Palestine to the "Sovereign states" section and remove it from the "States with limited recognition" template? I told them that being included within the United Nations membership even as just an observer state and that the biggest nations choose to ignore it is enough to be added to the "Sovereign states" section of the template. 2601:407:4100:87A0:F1D4:7D4C:9E15:4789 ( talk) 20:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Australia is an island country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrin Orlanes Politico ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I warn you against removing a united Ireland from the list of proposed state mergers, as long as the idea of a united Ireland is relevant to this day. Don't try to do it again. 197.60.41.31 ( talk) 19:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm kinda confused here. Is Snowded responding to your 12:11 post of May 9, 2020 at Talk:National Assembly for Wales? or was he responding to my May 9, 2020 post? GoodDay ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis: Greetings.
I happened to notice that China has a representative office of Somaliland but it is not pointed out on the corresponding map. Is there a reason why this might happen? If not, could you correct it please? Thank you.
Your Sincerely A Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.200.176 ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, your edit summary says "headers consistent with others in the series". I assume List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia is in the series? There, the headers go:
and in the other they go
That doesn't seem consistent to me? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask you why did you Erased Somaliland events. This events are true and you can read them. I put the current constitution of Somaliland in there and you erased it, what happened. What about Somaliland Declaration of Independence link? What is going on? How about the history of Somaliland and the establishment of Adal Sultanate. Also the establishment of Sultanate of Ifat in Zeila, Somaliland. Everything that was there was correct. Please revert it back Buufin ( talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
excuse me, who gave you the right to erase my edit of putting falasteen and taiwan and israil and china in the same category?? are you the UN are you ban ki moon or something?? You just want to create more problem on wikipedia. Please grow a brain. Thank you and have nice day ;)
Samar al-hejazi ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi CMD,
I don't agree with your good faith edit here. I can't see a valid reason behind enforcing Taiwan as the country name in that article. Taiwan is only an informal name for the country, the formal/offical name of the country is the Republic of China. I don't mind people use Taiwan in a less serious article, say an article about a sports league or a cultural event, but in a serious political article like the List of territorial disputes, the formal name of the country should be used.
By the way, someone has raised an issue in your username page concerning the name of Wake Island. That is a pretty rude way to initiate a discussion. I will copy and paste that discussion into the talk page of Wake Island to properly start the discussion. 120.16.220.60 ( talk) 08:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, so you refused to remove the turkish form the Republic of Cyprus wiki however I explained why it needs to be removed, im not going to argue with you because you dont seem as someone who particularly cares but if youre not going to be productive when it gets to Cyprus, stay away from the page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas Markou ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for you edits on the Turkey article. you said 'Turkey didn't really "Form" over a period of time it is quite clearly dated' I was wondering if you could send me some sources regarding that. I want to expand my knowledge and it would be great if you could help me out. thanks! happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherKhaan ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we have to remove similar things like on Russia's page and others. What do you think? Is there any rule about this? Beshogur ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Good evening CMD (or morning, well... it's evening here :p). I just wanted to inform you that I have moved the culture section we discussed earlier, it had multiple issues from poor sources, to soapbox sentences...etc. So I rewrote it in this format. Just wanted to inform you and get your opinion on it. Cheers A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there @ CMD, just wanted to let you know that I think our edit dispute is based on misunderstanding. The discussion in the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article was too broad and it got confusing, which is understandable since we've discussed multiple issues and it got tangled. I want to resolve the issue so that we both reach a consensus. To that end, I will open a new section in the talk point to negotiate a merger between that article and ' GCC states' and ' Eastern Arabia'. I will present the problem, sources, and proposed solutions and I would love to hear from you. It will take me some time (or days) however before posting the new section since I intend to study the problem (the article and sources). Hopefully our effort can make wikipedia a better place one controversial article at a time! Cheers, A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 07:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Good morning @ CMD I hope you're doing well! For the last three days I've been studying the sources that refer to the Gulf states and organizing the discussion board in the talk page. I have created a new section in a multi-part series to clean up the article (in the post I've explained why it's a multi-part discussion). Last time you and I were confused in the discussion and it's clear to me now why that happened, simply, the article definition was unclear. I like to think of myself as a rational person(humble brag/s), so instead of talking to void I have identified the problem and saw that the best course of action to take is to take on the issues one by one to reach a consensus between us and anyone who would like to join in the discussion. By isolating the problems and identifying them we can rationally agree on the best course of action to take. Cheers! — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 02:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
New Zealand Unitary State = Hoax
New Zealand Federal State = True Cyberllamamusic ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm Chipmunk Davis I am the wrong editor for the new Zealand article. Cyberllamamusic ( talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Somaliland is a independent country please edit it and make it like it was before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:A500:2282:6097:BD80:5F02:B7A7 ( talk) 22:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
'Greetings Chimpmunkdavis,
The reason I am writing this message is because I would like to discuss adding new improvements to the Ethiopia article, specifically the lead section. Upon first visiting the page, users are greeted by the "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article" tag. The lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs and provide a short but useful summary of the topic. In order to condense the article, I believe we should remove information about Ethiopia's geography (fourth paragraph of the lead section) to the "Geography" section of the Ethiopia article. Additionally, I suggest removing information about Ethiopia's religious demographics from the lead section of the article, because that information is already provided in the religion section of the article.
I believe the fourth paragraph of Ethiopia is in need of trimming but would like to have your approval before making any changes. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia so please keep me informed if there's anything else I am missing.
To summarize my points:
1) Move information about Ethiopia's geography in the lead section of the article to the geography section
2) Remove information about Ethiopia's religious demographics in the lead section of the article because it is already provided in the religion section.
There are still other improvements that can be made, but I believe we should tackle the main issue of the lead section being too long first.
-- DarkEnergyMan ( talk) 16:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The article in question is being cleaned per the previous Afd discussion. It was poorly written, a collection of countries summaries synth, tagged for cleanup since 2018. In the Afd discussion the issue of the title term multiple historical subjects have been discussed, which is why we're pointing it out in the article. If you do want to add to it feel free to help, as long as you're not resurrecting irrelevant content ( WP:Synth) and provide verifiable sources on the article subject.— ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 04:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If we google "Mainland China", we can get 218,000,000 results and it's really an indication that English speakers are not so unfamiliar with the term as you had expected. And it's really tricky to say "Taiwan and China" since the official name of Taiwan is actually Republic of China and that one-China priciple is a widely-accepted policy. -- HypVol ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid "per previous" is not a valid argument. And accessibility is definitely not affected simply by using the correct term. -- HypVol ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. By no means Wikipedia has banned the use of appropriate and precise terms. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The term "mainland China"...it should only be used when a contrast is needed. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable.. In this case, the conditions are appparently satisfied. The original article said Taiwan's
Main export partnersinclude China and Hong Kong and that Taiwan's
Main import partnersinclude China. If you would insist that the use of mainaland China here is a "jargon", we may have to resort to a RfC. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Mainland China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, accounting for 23.9 percent of total trade and 18.6 percent of Taiwan’s imports in 2018.; Statista:
Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export partner.; South China Morning Post:
The mainland is Taiwan's largest trading partner – ahead of the US. -- HypVol ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided: Would you mind explaining why? HypVol ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Use jargon and acronyms judiciouslyinstead of banning the use of "jargons".-- HypVol ( talk) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
A bullet in a list has no context: No, the biggest context is the article's name itself Economy of Taiwan. The trading partners here are Taiwan's trading partners. -- HypVol ( talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export market, largest source of imports.(per Bureau of Foreign Trade). -- HypVol ( talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It's becoming off-topic. Back to the original discussion, the use of Mainland China here is by no means far less understandable term to most readers
. But rather it's totally legitimate per
MOS:NC-CN. --
HypVol (
talk)
15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
And shall we move the thread to Talk:Economy of Taiwan to request for a possible third-party opinion? -- HypVol ( talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are interested, I've started a discussion here. Catchpoke ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Islamic Emirate is an unrecognized state, not only their government. Only the defunct Islamic republic was recognized. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It is false. We need an RfC about Afghanistan. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There was ANY RfC about the specific case of IEA in IEA or in SLR talk pages. The case of Taliban state is inedite. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
IEA is a State, not a government. It is described as an unrecognized state in the article. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, in regards to the infomation I added to the page, yes I transferred some of it over from a previous revision of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) article as my original basis for the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwar1989 ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, option 3 in the RfC is the one that matches the page as currently written. Or, at least it should, although I'm never sure Leechjoel9 won't attempt to edit war that. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything more you wish to add to the discussion about the inclusion of a flag for Palmyra Atoll at Talk:Palmyra Atoll? Reywas92 and I aren't making much progress on finding a resolution that seems reasonable to both of us; input from ADavidB and some IP with one contribution under its belt doesn't seem to have made any progress. Clogging up WP:DRN over a dispute over the importance - not even accuracy, just importance - of a single image with a caption on a relatively obscure topic feels excessive to me, but I'm running out of other ideas. As a new user I realize I am not, however, necessarily familiar with best practices for resolving these sorts of disputes, so I'm reaching out to you for guidance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Chidgk1 edits at these two articles. Think they are just new to country articles thinking that all stats need to be from this month or somthing. We are talking about the tagging adding updated sources if posible...but not sure if we can keep up with there pace of tagging . Dont think they are trying to get this article demoted as has been suggested
here...I think they belive they are doing good work. --
Moxy-
16:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Privet comrade. The Russian page content you deleted had been agreed by consensus on the talk page of the article. If you want to remove content do not just delete it, in the future start a discussion on the talk page. If you are a paid Wikipedia editor you should not be editing this type of content either... conflict of interest. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Dependent_territory&action=edit&undoafter=1108288400&undo=1108535134 I'd like to request to at least add Mong Yawn back to the list of similar entities. As it does not have an officially recognized status it is obviously not part of most lists, but that does not change the way it is de facto ruled (That's why I put it in italics, one could add a more detailed description)
Greetings, Ly.n0m ( talk) 03:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Who defined "states with limited recognition"? In which literature? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 01:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey, it appears User:RovingPersonalityConstruct has undid the ROC’s tricameral section. Please help me discuss this at the Talk:List of legislatures by number of members#Republic of China section for help. - 76.68.77.224 ( talk) 11:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to be so arrogant and annoying when commenting on what someone has spent a lot of time on. Pull yourself together Thomediter ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The change in question is a change of wording so that it reflects the sources better. You do not add more references because the change displays the information of the existing sources. The information is already accessible through the existing sources and if you doubt it the correct way is to go to the source and verify that the source itself uses the wording. Not to ask for citations for information that is contained in the citations themselves. Please refrain from reverting changes for lacking citations, if the changes articulate information from the existing citations. 134.106.109.104 ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This editor is suspected of reverting edits on national grounds, as both their Cyprus and Armenia/Artsakh edits point towards that direction. 134.106.109.104 ( talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I saw you reverted me, but maps should be neutral on Wikipedia. Guyana invaded Suriname in 1969, and at the other side there is a disputed border with French-Guyana. Please read Borders of Suriname. Ymnes ( talk) 14:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hallo Chipmunkdavis, I have a question for you. An IP complained about the borders between Russia and Ukraine on this map shown on the Italy article. Apparently they have been changed some months ago to reflect the situation de facto. Do we have a policy prescribing whether the de jure or the de facto situation should be shown on a map in these cases? Alex2006 ( talk) 08:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. On 02:26, 1 August 2023, you stated addressing me in the Talk:Russia#Removal of maps, "The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard."
I will follow the steps listed on the civility policy, emphasizing that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Accusing me or implying that I make "a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted" is false and I feel it is an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" ( WP:ICA).
I explained in the thread that my motivation adding the maps was because I felt there was an informational gap that needed to be addressed. For some reason you decided to imply I was just making the additions to see where I was not going to be reverted. Maybe we misunderstood each other? Can you clarify? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
curprev 19:19, 3 August 2011 Chipmunkdavis talk contribs m 2,498 bytes 0 moved Motherland (Mauritius National Anthem) to Motherland (anthem) over redirect: Per WP:NCDAB and WP:TITLE undothank
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Population of cities
Moxy-
19:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I put the link on what seemed the most relevant page (as not my particular area) - and it mentioned a recent (November) change. Jackiespeel ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see you still disagreed with the removal of Noktundo from the List of territorial disputes page by the IP editor. If you have something good to say about the matter, it would be appreciated if you could join the discussion at Talk:List of territorial disputes to help form a consensus. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
untreaty1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).