![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The article
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to say a million thanks for the changes you made to Post-Soviet states. I am sorry it has taken me one whole month to notice. As is clear, I just didn't have the confidence to make what could have looked like a sensitive change. I mean you know the facts, I know the facts, but there are many sore points across the entire site with flocks of editors on hand to defend a specific point. Looks like nobody contests your revision which is good. So thanks again. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that none of the three major professional sports teams owned by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment have won a championship since 1967? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Harrias talk 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm happy that we've came to an agreement on the flag of New Caledonia, I will try to do more research on this topic, but the law in New Caledonia is just a nightmare, it's very unique and sometime strange. I have just one question, I've just saw that you help with the creation of a page related to Canada, are you from New Caledonia ? This is just a question as I would like to improve a little bit the article related to the flag.
Best regards, 203.147.79.224 ( talk) 02:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hiya!
If you come across RoniA20 again, could you please drop me a line on my talk page? Or ping me in the SPI? Going to try keep an eye on this one :)-- 5 albert square ( talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know that a comment you made at ANI was reverted by the user under discussion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
You reverted my changes I made to the UNSD statistics division articles while linking WP:CRITERIA. However, the rationale you hold per this WP is false, including the saying that it's "overprecisement", as the UNSD is just one of the many departments the UN organ has. Other UN (UNICEF, FAO, etc) departments define the regions of the world differently, and for different purposes. Therefore, putting these articles titled as "United Nations Geoscheme for..." is plain wrong, as other UN departments and definitions deviate from it. Look at the official cartographic UN maps, or the definitions provided by UNICEF, UNESCAP, UNDSP, etc. It needs to be therefore precisely United Nations Statistics Division in the title, as otherwise it's misleading and people will erroneously assume that these definitions are used by the whole organisation comprising the UN, which is absolutely not the case. When common people think about the UN, they usually think about exactly the main organ of the UN, and definitely not about its statistics department of which those articles are actually about, and statements/references rely upon a single page of the UNSD website.
On top of that, the UNSD website, where that whole concept is from, repetitively personally states that it's created by and for the United Nations Statistics Division department.
Regards and awaiting response,
LouisAragon ( talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks as if STP does not recognise right now. Would you like to add anything to Talk:International recognition of Kosovo before any changes are made? -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Danlaycock.
I was wondering how to add a brief explanation to already edits. I forgot to do it when i added a tenant to the BMO Field page
( NoArgosAtBMO ( talk) 01:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC))
@ Reaper Eternal: I moved this discussion here, so that Danlaycock's request at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks may be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I've done the two moves that you requested at WP:RMT and protected the pages against further moves by anyone but an administrator for the next week. You might want to leave a note on the talk pages suggesting a requested move discussion if anyone disagrees with the current title. Cheers, Philg88 ♦ talk 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Tell me my friend what's the difference between having been "recognized by the EU as having a European perspective and been able to apply for membership" and "recognized as official potential candidate"? ( 85.218.49.212 ( talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC))
Dan, there doesn't seem to be an archive link at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord even though I saw that you just archived an SPI to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord/Archive. Is this a glitch? General Ization Talk 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
سلام چرا شما نام خلیجفارس را به نام جعلی خلیج تغییر می دهید Amin joortani ( talk) 09:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, how are you doing? Someone changed this page despite the UNSD clearly mentions it as "statistics division". [8] Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey
hanteng, just a quick response from my side :-),
Some of the reasons as per why I agreed for a change, is that the UNSD uses the termination "statistics divisions" on several occasions including the too right corner. [10]. Furthermore, many of the groupings are not what, by most people, seen as "typical" groupings. Having a title that once again lays emphasis on the fact that it's purely for statistics, gives the reader more utility, for him to understand that's it's not a typical grouping, which is usually based on geography or geo-politics. "United Nations geo scheme" and "United Nations Statistics Geoscheme" have two different vibes when reading them. By using the first mentioned title, people will erroneously assume as if it's used by all of the UN for every reason (like a de facto UN country grouping for the world), while the second title clearly lays emphasis on the fact that it's only used for statistics and nothing else. It's more to the point, and it's what it's explicitly used for. Many different departments of the UN use different groupings (UNICEF, etc), and so does the official UN Cartographics Centre. So, by these reasons, I believe the previous title was better than the current one.
However, as I already mentioned above, I don't have the time nor will to take it to RM. Might you also agree with these reasons and perhaps see in why we changed the title, then you are obviously free and welcome to change it back. In any other case, thanks for sharing your reasonings with us as for why you changed it. :-) Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: I am not sure if I understand your reply above correctly:
If so, please allow me to repeat a bit on the following:
Therefore, it is not advisable to use the ambigous general term "statistical divisions", or the wrong organization term "Statistics Division" to refer to UN M.49 [11]. UN statistical divisions can refer to any agencies doing statisitcal work under the UN system, or imply that there are certain UN statistical categorization schemes in a general sense (not geographical).
I agree that UN geoscheme is widely used for stastitcs and ALSO mapping. Natural Earth has region_un and subregion metadata for each country. I use it quiet often. It is why I notice that most of academic work refer this geographic categorization/classification scheme as "UN geoscheme". Try Google BOOK search and you will find at least the following:
I also agree that many UN agencies, and in fact, many other reports, consultancies, etc. have different "statistical divisions" (in the general sense of categorization schemes) for research. This is exactly why I believe the term "UN geoscheme" is better. Although it is NOT official term or a technical term (UN M.49), I have not yet found an ambigous use of the term. Correct me if I am wrong on this, so far every online and academic citations that I have found when the term "UN geoscheme" is used, it refers to exactly the regions and subregions as defined in UN M.49 [12].
Moving forwards, since you don't have the time nor will to take it to RM, and if you do not have any further couter-evidence or -arguments with the evidence and claims that I layed out above, I can help by making the necessary editing without going to RM. Of course, if you still have lingering concerns, please summarize your current arguments (preferrably after considering the evidence that I have already presented) and new evidence/citations here, before I bring it to RM. --( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ontario Blues logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Danlaycock, I have 2 questions. I hope you could explain them to me:
Thanks in advance. MaronitePride ( talk) 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the newspaper mentions Croatia because it is a publication targeted at Croatians. But what Davor Gjenero actually says is that "In these conditions, the question is whether there will be an expansion of the Schengen regime, if the Schengen system survives at all". What this says is that the migrant crisis is an obstacle to Schengen enlargement in general, not to Croatian enlargement specifically. It has nothing to do specifically with Croatia, or the policies of the Croatian government. The table lists country-specific obstacles. General obstacles, which impact all countries, should be discussed in general above the table.
With regards to the WP:COPYVIOs, I suggest you carefully read the message I left you, including all the links. WP:NFC can only be used in very specific situations and in very limited quantities. Citing the source does not mean you can copy the source word-for-word. It would be like selling a book written by someone else but claiming you did nothing wrong since you left their name on it. Copyright holders have legal rights, and you are violating those rights.
At this point I strongly advise you stop adding content to articles until you understand Wikipedia's WP:NFC policies. You have already created a big problem that is going to take a lot of work for others to clean up. TDL ( talk) 17:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
...but what you are doing by archiving discussions in Talk:International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic just because you want to is, well vandalism. I am assuming good faith mistake for a third time and therefore I am only reverting your unjustified edit. If you insist on the mistake and unilateral closing of discussions (something that is not up to you), I think we'd better ask for outside opinion and official moderation, don`t you agree? All the best, Allemnisch ( talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's been confirmed that I do not know what Vhaslhv is nor do I have any connections to him/her whatsoever, I think you owe me an apology :) Allemnisch ( talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of neutral site Canadian Football League games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North American Football League. Since you had some involvement with the North American Football League redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cra sh Underride 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I must admit that your revert is at least partially correct. State recognition (or not) is a part of this equation however. The UN bit bothers me. The UN does not recognize states as sovereign or not. On the other part of the question; Other sovereign states have no way of interfering with the internal status of territories or associated states of other countries. This is a complicated situation but and apart from the UN situation we should not suggest that other states have anything to do with the internal workings of New Zealand in it's relations with its associated states. That is an internal matter. The notion that many states mentioned in the tables recognize these two countries as entirely sovereign bothers me as well. It's not explicitly supported by the sources given and I believe that that is a problem. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No, my argument is not about those words. It is about the fact that China does not explicitly state that it awards state recognition to the Cook Islands, and that the editors on Wikipedia should therefore not assume that it does. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. I think that would be more appropriate. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The article
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to say a million thanks for the changes you made to Post-Soviet states. I am sorry it has taken me one whole month to notice. As is clear, I just didn't have the confidence to make what could have looked like a sensitive change. I mean you know the facts, I know the facts, but there are many sore points across the entire site with flocks of editors on hand to defend a specific point. Looks like nobody contests your revision which is good. So thanks again. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that none of the three major professional sports teams owned by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment have won a championship since 1967? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Harrias talk 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm happy that we've came to an agreement on the flag of New Caledonia, I will try to do more research on this topic, but the law in New Caledonia is just a nightmare, it's very unique and sometime strange. I have just one question, I've just saw that you help with the creation of a page related to Canada, are you from New Caledonia ? This is just a question as I would like to improve a little bit the article related to the flag.
Best regards, 203.147.79.224 ( talk) 02:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hiya!
If you come across RoniA20 again, could you please drop me a line on my talk page? Or ping me in the SPI? Going to try keep an eye on this one :)-- 5 albert square ( talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know that a comment you made at ANI was reverted by the user under discussion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
You reverted my changes I made to the UNSD statistics division articles while linking WP:CRITERIA. However, the rationale you hold per this WP is false, including the saying that it's "overprecisement", as the UNSD is just one of the many departments the UN organ has. Other UN (UNICEF, FAO, etc) departments define the regions of the world differently, and for different purposes. Therefore, putting these articles titled as "United Nations Geoscheme for..." is plain wrong, as other UN departments and definitions deviate from it. Look at the official cartographic UN maps, or the definitions provided by UNICEF, UNESCAP, UNDSP, etc. It needs to be therefore precisely United Nations Statistics Division in the title, as otherwise it's misleading and people will erroneously assume that these definitions are used by the whole organisation comprising the UN, which is absolutely not the case. When common people think about the UN, they usually think about exactly the main organ of the UN, and definitely not about its statistics department of which those articles are actually about, and statements/references rely upon a single page of the UNSD website.
On top of that, the UNSD website, where that whole concept is from, repetitively personally states that it's created by and for the United Nations Statistics Division department.
Regards and awaiting response,
LouisAragon ( talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks as if STP does not recognise right now. Would you like to add anything to Talk:International recognition of Kosovo before any changes are made? -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Danlaycock.
I was wondering how to add a brief explanation to already edits. I forgot to do it when i added a tenant to the BMO Field page
( NoArgosAtBMO ( talk) 01:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC))
@ Reaper Eternal: I moved this discussion here, so that Danlaycock's request at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks may be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I've done the two moves that you requested at WP:RMT and protected the pages against further moves by anyone but an administrator for the next week. You might want to leave a note on the talk pages suggesting a requested move discussion if anyone disagrees with the current title. Cheers, Philg88 ♦ talk 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Tell me my friend what's the difference between having been "recognized by the EU as having a European perspective and been able to apply for membership" and "recognized as official potential candidate"? ( 85.218.49.212 ( talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC))
Dan, there doesn't seem to be an archive link at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord even though I saw that you just archived an SPI to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord/Archive. Is this a glitch? General Ization Talk 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
سلام چرا شما نام خلیجفارس را به نام جعلی خلیج تغییر می دهید Amin joortani ( talk) 09:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, how are you doing? Someone changed this page despite the UNSD clearly mentions it as "statistics division". [8] Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey
hanteng, just a quick response from my side :-),
Some of the reasons as per why I agreed for a change, is that the UNSD uses the termination "statistics divisions" on several occasions including the too right corner. [10]. Furthermore, many of the groupings are not what, by most people, seen as "typical" groupings. Having a title that once again lays emphasis on the fact that it's purely for statistics, gives the reader more utility, for him to understand that's it's not a typical grouping, which is usually based on geography or geo-politics. "United Nations geo scheme" and "United Nations Statistics Geoscheme" have two different vibes when reading them. By using the first mentioned title, people will erroneously assume as if it's used by all of the UN for every reason (like a de facto UN country grouping for the world), while the second title clearly lays emphasis on the fact that it's only used for statistics and nothing else. It's more to the point, and it's what it's explicitly used for. Many different departments of the UN use different groupings (UNICEF, etc), and so does the official UN Cartographics Centre. So, by these reasons, I believe the previous title was better than the current one.
However, as I already mentioned above, I don't have the time nor will to take it to RM. Might you also agree with these reasons and perhaps see in why we changed the title, then you are obviously free and welcome to change it back. In any other case, thanks for sharing your reasonings with us as for why you changed it. :-) Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: I am not sure if I understand your reply above correctly:
If so, please allow me to repeat a bit on the following:
Therefore, it is not advisable to use the ambigous general term "statistical divisions", or the wrong organization term "Statistics Division" to refer to UN M.49 [11]. UN statistical divisions can refer to any agencies doing statisitcal work under the UN system, or imply that there are certain UN statistical categorization schemes in a general sense (not geographical).
I agree that UN geoscheme is widely used for stastitcs and ALSO mapping. Natural Earth has region_un and subregion metadata for each country. I use it quiet often. It is why I notice that most of academic work refer this geographic categorization/classification scheme as "UN geoscheme". Try Google BOOK search and you will find at least the following:
I also agree that many UN agencies, and in fact, many other reports, consultancies, etc. have different "statistical divisions" (in the general sense of categorization schemes) for research. This is exactly why I believe the term "UN geoscheme" is better. Although it is NOT official term or a technical term (UN M.49), I have not yet found an ambigous use of the term. Correct me if I am wrong on this, so far every online and academic citations that I have found when the term "UN geoscheme" is used, it refers to exactly the regions and subregions as defined in UN M.49 [12].
Moving forwards, since you don't have the time nor will to take it to RM, and if you do not have any further couter-evidence or -arguments with the evidence and claims that I layed out above, I can help by making the necessary editing without going to RM. Of course, if you still have lingering concerns, please summarize your current arguments (preferrably after considering the evidence that I have already presented) and new evidence/citations here, before I bring it to RM. --( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ontario Blues logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Danlaycock, I have 2 questions. I hope you could explain them to me:
Thanks in advance. MaronitePride ( talk) 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the newspaper mentions Croatia because it is a publication targeted at Croatians. But what Davor Gjenero actually says is that "In these conditions, the question is whether there will be an expansion of the Schengen regime, if the Schengen system survives at all". What this says is that the migrant crisis is an obstacle to Schengen enlargement in general, not to Croatian enlargement specifically. It has nothing to do specifically with Croatia, or the policies of the Croatian government. The table lists country-specific obstacles. General obstacles, which impact all countries, should be discussed in general above the table.
With regards to the WP:COPYVIOs, I suggest you carefully read the message I left you, including all the links. WP:NFC can only be used in very specific situations and in very limited quantities. Citing the source does not mean you can copy the source word-for-word. It would be like selling a book written by someone else but claiming you did nothing wrong since you left their name on it. Copyright holders have legal rights, and you are violating those rights.
At this point I strongly advise you stop adding content to articles until you understand Wikipedia's WP:NFC policies. You have already created a big problem that is going to take a lot of work for others to clean up. TDL ( talk) 17:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
...but what you are doing by archiving discussions in Talk:International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic just because you want to is, well vandalism. I am assuming good faith mistake for a third time and therefore I am only reverting your unjustified edit. If you insist on the mistake and unilateral closing of discussions (something that is not up to you), I think we'd better ask for outside opinion and official moderation, don`t you agree? All the best, Allemnisch ( talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's been confirmed that I do not know what Vhaslhv is nor do I have any connections to him/her whatsoever, I think you owe me an apology :) Allemnisch ( talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of neutral site Canadian Football League games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North American Football League. Since you had some involvement with the North American Football League redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cra sh Underride 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I must admit that your revert is at least partially correct. State recognition (or not) is a part of this equation however. The UN bit bothers me. The UN does not recognize states as sovereign or not. On the other part of the question; Other sovereign states have no way of interfering with the internal status of territories or associated states of other countries. This is a complicated situation but and apart from the UN situation we should not suggest that other states have anything to do with the internal workings of New Zealand in it's relations with its associated states. That is an internal matter. The notion that many states mentioned in the tables recognize these two countries as entirely sovereign bothers me as well. It's not explicitly supported by the sources given and I believe that that is a problem. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No, my argument is not about those words. It is about the fact that China does not explicitly state that it awards state recognition to the Cook Islands, and that the editors on Wikipedia should therefore not assume that it does. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. I think that would be more appropriate. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)