Welcome!
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Satu
Suro 12:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So what makes rulers.org a reliable source? Take care you arent inundated with messages claiming you are appropriating unused or not conventional name issues.
Good idea to have a look at WP:RS and WP:V Satu Suro 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of state leaders in 1986. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dusti SPEAK!! 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dusti! The reason I removed content from the List of state leaders in 1986 page (and from the list of state leaders pages 1990-1984) is because the government-in-exile of Estonia has been included, which is totally inconsistent and illogical because a) no other governments-in-exile are included in the state leaders lists and b) it wouldn't even make sense to include any, since those pages list the actual leaders of states regardless whether they gained their power by constitutional means or not. And the very existence of a government-in-exile is merely a political act, and has no bearing on who actually runs the state. Any thoughts? ZBukov ( talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Because his title was President of the National Council for Democracy and Development for only two days, 22 December and 24 December, when he became President. The all extra titles are superfluous. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
We have a page about them at List of elected or appointed female heads of government and List of elected or appointed female heads of state. I'll add them to the see also section now. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly have you removed notes about Estonia before regaining independence? It was occupied by the USSR and HAD a government in exile. Now I am going to have to re-add them into the article. Stop pushing your POW in these articles. H2ppyme ( talk.) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Again about the "idiot" statement. Sorry if I insulted you, but what I said was "you are the idiot in this argument", which doesn't neccessarily mean you are AN IDIOT, only that an argument USUALLY has two sides - the one that is right and the other that isn't. In this issue it is still not clear of course, but the way I see it, you acted AS an idiot, because you deleted information about A COUNTRY for 50 years and only wrote it in the comments for each year, and then edited each and every article several times (which is a good job of course), making it hard for anyone to undo anything if you happened to make a major mistake (which humans tend to do from time to time). And when re-adding the articles you deleted them without any further arguments to me or to the articles.
You still haven't explained me one thing. If you are planning to leave for example the prime minister of norway in exile (because WWII is an "exception"), are you leaving the leaders of Estonia at least the end of world war II? About East Timor - a tragic history of course, but the state wasn't really recognised internationally, wasn't it? (correct me if I am wrong here). Estonia however was - see this list and existed for 20 years prior to Soviet occupation. And the Serbia example. Serbia's successor state was the kingdom of yugoslavia, or the kingdom of serbs, croats and Slovenes, wasn't it? Its successor state after breakup was Serbia and Montenegro, turning back to Serbia recently. All those are successor states of one another, like Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. The Republic of Estonia however has always been the same state, occupied by the USSR 1940-1941; by Germany 1941-1944 and again by USSR 1944-1991.
And it's mostly just Estonia that I want to add here, since Latvia and Lithuania didn't have a government in exile - they were represented by their embassies abroad. If anyone wishes to add some info about them, I would not object, but Latvians or Lithuanians should contribute this, if they want to.
Your example for African countries doesn't really apply, because their governments don't consider those historical "royal families as you said" as legal "leaders" anyway - Estonia however does consider the "leaders of the government in exile" as their "legal leaders". Saying that they shouldn't be included because they weren't de facto in control of their country is clearly POV, among the duties of leaders isn't only "controlling", but also "representing", which they were clearly doing.
With best wishes - H2ppyme ( talk) 15:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment"de jure and recognized are two VERY different things" That's where you ZBukov got it all wrong. Anybody recognizing anybody de jure, means simply legally recognized by this somebody. Saying "So if something is recognized it doesn't make it legal and vice versa" has gone completely wrong. That's what de jure, de facto in the context is all about, it's about recognizing any country's existence either de jure (legally) or de facto (fatually). For example Estonia was recognized by many countries as de facto part of the Soviet Union, but only de jure as pat of the Soviet union by Soviet satellite states and some others. Th US , Vatican etc didn't recognize Estonia as part of USSR either de jure nor de facto (meaning, the for the officials of thse countries it was forbidden to visit the territory of Estonia because it was considered ilegally occupied by the USSR) . On the Estonian government in Exile, the only official and recognized representations of the Republic of Estonia during the era (1940-1991) were the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad. For example the Estonian embassy/consulate in the US remained open and fully accredited during the entire period. That is how for example you can find Estonia among other nations sending Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to the moon in 1969. So Estonia was clearly recognized as an independent state during the time. Should Estonian government in Exile be part of the list, that's what's under the dispute over here? I personally don't really care if t is or not. But at the same time the fact is, the government in Exile wasn't recognized by anybody at the time unlike the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad that remained open in many countries during the entire period of the Soviet occupation.-- Termer ( talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing that Estonia still functioned as an independent state. For example the territories of lets say Consulates/Embassies are considered also the territory of the country and those officially accredited diplomatic missions were functional institutions representing the Republic of Estonia in the Western block. The only thing neither the government in Exile nor lets say the Estonian embassy to the US had control over the territory in Estonia, and that's another story. So yeah, they were not leading Estonia, they were leading the Republic of Estonia in exile.--
Termer (
talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
PS. regarding the dispute here than it obviously originates from the fact that Estonians even today consider the government in Exile to be their state leader during the years of Soviet occupation.--
Termer (
talk) 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what has "day to day realities for the inhabitants of Estonia" and "who was in control of the territory of people of Estonia" to do with anything here? There were "people of Estonia", the citizens of Estonia carrying Estonian passport that were recognized in the Western world during the entire period of the Soviet occupation. And the passports were issued continiusly by the Estonian embassies abroad. Regarding the Appollo messages than all embassies to the US were contacted to get an input and Estonia was just one among others. Does the nonrecognition of the Soviet occupation have symbolic value like you suggest? No, it's a practical fact that the continuity of the Estonian state has been kept consistant from 1918-1920 until now.-- Termer ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear friend ZBukov, we are at it again...The Estonian SSR NEVER declared its independence, it is factually INCORRECT. Its name was changed in 1990, as said behind the name. And PLEASE understand that this is YOUR POW, because officially Savisaar and Vähi were acting prime ministers, their office was named Vahevalitsuse peaminister translating to "Prime Minister of the Interim Government". Please, can't we leave it as it is?? H2ppyme ( talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the warning came in after I reverted your latest edits, I definitely wouldn't have done it after seeing tha warning. Therefore it could have been me, who broke the 3-revert limit, if so I am sorry..Still I quite agree that someone stepped into this madness...
Why are you "completely opposed" to mentioning the Estonian SSR as the predecessor of Estonia? I am not, if you would see what my reverts were for in the first place, you would notice that I did wrote something about ESSR there. I just find it illogical to link ESSR there, since it was the Republic of Estonia that declared its independence, not ESSR anymore. Therefore I don't see the reason why you insist on linking the Republic of Estonia to ESSR.
"An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article." - That's somewhat a good point. You said you have previously written "Interim Prime Minister"? To be even more consistent, why not use "acting Prime Minister" in these cases? Therefore (though you already agreed) writin that Rüütel was president would be consistent, yes, but consistently wrong doesn't mean it's good, I hope you get what I mean..To be consistent in this particular matter would be just "Head of State"
The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1940 and ceased to exist (as an independent state) in august 1940. The fact that a place was called Estonia, doesn't make it a state. You could also say the Governorate of Estonia or the Swedish Estonia was a state, because of its name. USSR wasn't unitary, but the fact that Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR had their own UN seats, doesn't mean they were independent or noteworthy entities. The Republic of Estonia isn't the successor state of ESSR, it is the same Republic of Estonia that has never changed its name. To make it clearer, at one point during perestroika, Estonians in the ESSR decided to move for independence again, therefore they gradually started making changes - declared self rule, re-adopted the flag, changed the name (basically having two governments ahead of Republic of Estonia in the world, note the exile government) and so on...Linking two obviously different things is not correct.
Ok, I don't mind about the 1992 "note", although for 1991 article it would be sort of like repeating it, since there is written when it re-declared independence.
I am just so sad that this discussion got so out of hand, by one contributor, who obviously is on a large-scale project and wants to stay as clear as possible, and another who wants to stay as officially correct in these matters as possible. I do agree that demanding correctness everywhere is not always a good characteristic, but it is good if we are talking about editing an encyclopaedia (so is staying clear, of course)...-- H2ppyme ( talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Uhh... wow. So I see that someone requested a third opinion here. Problem is that this discussion has literally been going on for a month now, and there's an absurd amount of backlog to read. Can someone summarize, very briefly, the issue here, as well as what pages you two have been battling over? Maybe we can get some contributors from Wikiprojects to give their input. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Both yourself and User:H2ppyme are edit warring on List of state leaders in 1991 and List of state leaders in 1992. You should stop doing this and instead continue discussing the issue and I urge either of you to take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion and get an (or some) outside opinions on the dispute. As I commented on a closely related issue on Talk:List of state leaders by year I do not want to get involved myself but if the edit war continues I shall report you both to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Davewild ( talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Zoltan, regarding the changes in the lists State_leaders_by_year: you are right about the words de facto not being part of the official title held by the de facto Presidents of Argentina. But, in fact, they were neither de iure Presidents (as stated in the Argentine Constitution). So, should we state that they were de facto Presidents, or should we leave their illegitimate titles on display? As an Argentine, I feel as the second option is just not right. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Zoltan, please do not mass-revert well-summarized improvements to these articles with summaries that cover only few of your edits and are moreover incorrect: I did not split Asia, but rather detected a consistent split of Asia and Africa through the inclusion of a fictitious continent (Middle East). Feel free to ask me *any* questions on my edits! Regards, gidonb ( talk) 02:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, its been a week. What is the fine line drawn to decide who should stay and who shouldn't. Devolution is well known (and much stronger in Scotland), its not a stretch to add the nations as opposed to counties/lander/states (in the usa). they'll be partition in a couple of years along with Belgium anyway ;) Lihaas ( talk) 12:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I checked other sources, and they say he was sworn in as president (not acting president) after Umaru Yar'Adua's death. Searcher_1990 ( talk)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, could you please check the talk page for discussion on this point? Thanks! -- Pete ( talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. About our coverage of Mount Athos, I'm afraid it has been seriously distorted in a months-long agenda campaign by one editor, Peeperman ( talk · contribs), who has been pushing for the OR notion that Mount Athos is a "state". The statement you cited from the Mount Athos article, and the statements reflecting it in the "state leaders" series, all go back to unsourced and undiscussed assertions by that editor. In reality, Mount Athos is defined in the Greek constitution as "a self-governed part of the Greek State, whose sovereignty thereon shall remain intact" [1]. Nothing about a status as a "state", and, most importantly, nothing about any separate "leader" or "head of state" (other than the leadership of the Greek Republic). The whole idea about the Patriarch and the foreign minister is purely Peeperman's imagination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This diff? The article referred to on the talk page demonstrates the position. Your unilateral view, through some very shakey reasoning, can hardly be taken as in any way official or definitive.-- Pete ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's already indicated in the "Prime ministers of Vanuatu" article, of course. I see your point, both in terms of length and consistency. I do still think it would be a useful distinction to make, but if it isn't made in other, fairly similar cases, I wouldn't want to break the trend. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but all right, we'll leave it at that. Aridd ( talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Astonishingly dedicated work to the "List of state leaders in XXXX" articles - you've done considerably more than ten thousand edits to them now. And yet I don't see any awards - you're clearly an editor that edits for the joy of editing and improving Wikipedia, and in some ways this makes this even more overdue. Bravo! Egg Centric 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited List of current dependent territory leaders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McManus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I must admit to being a bit confused as to who is the current foreign minister of Somalia. Different sources name different people.
- United Nations protocol list ( http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) says Abdullahi Haji Hassan
- www.rulers.org names Mohamed Mohamud Ibrahim
- CIA World Leaders list ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-s/somalia.html) says Mohamed Mohamud Ibrahim
- the webpage of the President of Somalia ( http://www.president.somaligov.net/The%20Ministers.html) says Ali Jama Ahmed Jengeli
- the Somali government webpage ( http://www.opm.somaligov.net/The%20Ministershtml.html): I don't know because I don't speak Somali
- the Somali Foreign Ministry webbite ( http://www.mfa.somaligov.net/The%20Minister%20&%20Staff.html): I don't know again, but it appears to name Abdullahi Haji Hassan (Cabullaahi Xaaji Xasan Maxamed Nuur)
Do you have some authoritative source?
ZBukov ( talk) 19:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.87 ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited List of state leaders in 1921, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government Junta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1920, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government Junta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hetman of Ukraine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone undid your move which you had a source for and then dint explain [3]( Lihaas ( talk) 12:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund Lawrence ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting that you have decided in your edit without the approval of the Parliament of Ghana that Hanna Tetteh has been confirmed in her new post. Hopefully you are aware that the President of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama has asked all ministers to carry on in their jobs prior to the elections until the new ministers are confirmed. This means she is still the Minister for Trade and Industry until cleared by Parliament. Do you want to review your edit or should we do it for you. Check your references before you mislead everybody. As you can see from this link, the vetting is only just about starting. Ghanaweb-- Natsubee ( talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right concerning the name of state functions in different states. On the other hand, in Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Cuba it is a special situation at this moment the head of state is also heads of government. See http://www.ediplomat.com/dc/foreign_ministries.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree your position. In the cases you exemplified are different functions temporarily fulfilled by the same person. So I consider it is necessary to mentioned the title of Prime minister (or Chairman of Council of Minister in the case of Cuba) where it is such a situation. Bogdan Uleia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Bejnar ( talk) 05:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Egypt, I was not right. But I had information about the dismissal of the whole government so, including the foreign minister or I misinterpreted information About Palau, nor the site of Palau government ( http://www.palaugov.net/PalauGov/Executive/Ministries/MOS/MOS.htm) nor CIA in World Leaders site ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-p/palau.html) indicates a State minister so this position is vacant. More, in accordance with http://www.oceaniatv.net/2013/07/10/palau-compact-chief-negotiator-nominated-as-state-minister-video/, the president nominate a Sate minister who must be approved by the Senate. Finally I must express to you my appreciation for your attitude concerning the correctness of information. Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Farolif ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: ). Thank you. Farolif ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the omissions I've done on the yearly lists (fixing the years of the Andorra archbishop, the Captain on the Fiji PM in the early 80s), as well as a thanks again for so quickly agreeing on the compromise. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1942 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1941 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This may not be the most appropriate place to discuss this, but I have created a section specifically for discussing the edit warring in List of current heads of state and government at User talk:Everyking#"Dead people can't hold office". WikiWinters ( talk) 17:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of foreign ministers in 2010 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the decree relieving Sylvie Hubac from her position as personal representative of the French co-prince is dated 31 December 2014 (see here). Gugganij ( talk) 08:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For Bosnia and Herzegovina, why is High Representative Valentin Inzko listed above the rest? -- WikiWinters ( talk) 13:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Léon Blum was not a French Co-Prince of Andorra by any source I have seen, accordingly I've undone your revert at List of state leaders in 1947#Europe.
Your edit summary reverting my change states:
The part where you said "see rulers.org" is ironic, as if you go to that source, in particular to www.rulers.org/rula2.html#andorra you will see that Blum is not listed there. Furthermore, if you look at the edit summary previous to yours you will see that I cited rulers.org already, before you did.
As to the rest of your edit summary, that's just not how WP works: claims must be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you cannot form syllogisms about laws concerning heads of state, and the fact that Blum was French head of state to conclude that therefore, Blum must have been Co-prince of Andorra because that claim is WP:SYNTH. There could be any number of reasons Blum is not listed in references as Co-prince of Andorra:
As a purely speculative matter, and I'm no expert on French law, one possible reason might be that Blum was temporarily installed in 1946 as Chairman of Provisional Government of the French Republic between the Third and Fourth Republic and didn't actually hold the title President of the Republic of France. But in the end, it really doesn't matter what the reason is that Blum was omitted from the list in reliable sources, it only matters that he's not there. If we cannot find a reliable source to back up the claim that Blum was Co-Prince of Andorra, we cannot include him in the list, pure and simple. If you can find a reliable source listing Blum as Co-prince of Andorra, please provide it and I will happily revert my change. Mathglot ( talk) 22:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zoltan, you're invited to participate in the DRN I filed concerning the dispute about whether Léon Blum held the title of French Co-Prince of Andorra, as claimed at List of state leaders in 1947#Europe, Léon Blum, and elsewhere. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 20:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Zoltan. The DRN was closed pro forma since we haven't discussed this enough, so nothing to see there. I'm following recommendations at WP:DISCFAIL, accordingly, would you kindly respond to the issue you initiated at Talk:List of state leaders in 1947 so we can further the discussion? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Repetative linkage is discourage WP:OVERLINK. Please look before you revert. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Very well. If there's going to be that much fuss? then go ahead & revert. GoodDay ( talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As a follower of international politics, there is most certainly something unclear about co-equal diarchial rule, of which I specifically have sceptism with. As both the captains regent are elected via the legislature, surely the co-partner belonging to the majority party of that legislature must hold some further sway in legislation than that of the other—from the party of the opposition. I would note that the other partner is highlighted in blue, indicating that he does have executive authority, but without the administrative clout of his co-partner. Neve-selbert ( talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @ Neve-selbert:, I understand that you find this arrangement unlikely or unusual (even 'unclear'). My question was if there is anything to back up this presumed imbalance between the two members of this collective body, where they mutually possess veto power. By the way, my understanding was that this newly introduced colour scheme indicates the balance of power between the offices of the head of state and head of government, not referencing the legislative branch. ZBukov ( talk) 20:23, 8 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The designations of Head of Government in List of current heads of state and government I am near you in yours fight against these stubborn Therequiembellishere who beleves he detaines the absolute true. I had also problems with he concerning Palestine. (of legal point of view they are two States of Palestine, a state proclaimed by PLO which are only putative but ineffective, and the Palestinian National Authority which changed his name in State of Palestina without accord of Israel). I intend to open a discusion on talk about these designations. I hoppe you will support my intervention. On the other hand, i want to warn you about the fact that www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol and Liaison Service/hspmfm.pdf is not a too reliable source. Congo Brazzaville has not prime minister from 2009 but the site still indicates a prime minister. On the other hand, this site indicates Sartaj Azizi as foreign minister of Pakistan wile http://www.mofa.gov.pk/ indicates him as a simple adviser of Prime minister who is titular foreign minister. In accordance with my experience, Worlds leaders of CIA is more reliable. I felt obliged to inform you about these problems because I always appreciated the accuracy of your interventions. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hi, Zoltan. I am currently having troubling researching whether or not Leslie Jacques, the Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands, is or is not still in office. According to → [1] and [2], he stepped down in March 2010, although according to [3], [4] and [5], it would seem to me that he remains in charge. Additionally, it appears dubious at to what his actual title is: either Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands or Commissioner for the Pitcairn Islands, plus the spelling of his surname, with or without the "c" in Jacques [6]. What do you happen to make of this? Thanks. Neve- selbert · 10:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This dispute is unfinished. Neve- selbert 12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Chip123456. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chip 123456 18:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the points of others is not fair debate. Neve- selbert 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
, or would this result in total apocalypse? This matter will not be solved via
personal attacks either, so I suggest you stop while ahead. We must come to an agreement sooner or later. You must stop infuriating the editor you are in dispute with: it is not funny at all, and can seriously distract from solving a proper issue. Your hardline stance does nothing to temper mine—rather the absolute opposite.
Neve-
selbert 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)One passing observation: you never offer solutions. If "Viceroy" is deemed unsuitable (unlikely), then I am sure we would come to some compromise agreement. The status quo is grossly unsustainable, the discussion proved it. Neve- selbert 12:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Never a simple solution? :)
The other editors beg to differ. MIESIANIACAL wrote that Monarch's representative "doesn't seem to be problematic in any way", "eliminates redundancies", and "maintains consistency", while Happy Squirrel wrote after careful consideration that with "Monarch's representative" "we get some consistency".
And they also offered their reasoned rebuttals as to why they do not support "viceroy".
And when the debate is not going your way, you suddenly realize that they aren't competent enough
Would you have considered them more of an expert had they supported "viceroy"?
Please, I ask of you to answer these three questions and then perhaps we will be getting somewhere. Otherwise, we remain stuck in an endless, pointless loop between right and wrong. Neve- selbert 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
only makes my steadfast commitment to it stronger than ever. This is perhaps bad diplomacy on your part. "Zero inconsistency and zero gender-bias"? Nonsense, this statement is beyond parody. "Monarch's Representative" simply makes things worse and more complicated; what of the UN representatives? Should they be designated as UN Secretary General's Representative –
? Absolutely not, as the UN S-G is not and never will be a state leader: if we were to go with this option, we would wreck the article(s) completely and thus tragedy will result. "My unexplained insistence"? Your attention span must be quite slow, I am with zero doubt passionate on this great issue—yet you fail to wonder why. Surely, for someone of your ability and apparent expertise, you can use your brain to work this one out. And lastly—of all the other editors involved in this dispute—none have expressed certain expertise in this arena specifically. Unlike yourself, they have not declared their ironclad opposition in the exact same merciless, unjust way that you have done. Until they do so (without hesitation): another moot point.There you go again, and here I go again too.
Do you feel that the phrase "Monarch's representative" is gender-biased to ANY extent?
Monarch's Representative –
we would have opened a dreadful
can of worms, and things would start getting overly messy and complicated. We would be stuck inside a painful dilemma, a spiralling loop. Easy question: what for the
Governor of Sint Maarten? Easy answer: Yes, I would believe you suggest changing this too. But yet, here we are, outside the safety net of The Queen and into the realm of another, different type of monarch. Sure, no problem, we can easily change this too. But then, this indicates a bias. Not only monarchs have representatives in their differing territories; why on Earth should we put monarchs on a pedastool? Surely, the
W&T administrator is a President's Representative –
? Absolutely, you will reply, we shall have to change this too. But then, we realise something icky:Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.
Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.
Monarch's Representative –
. In fact, it just seems about perfect. I mean, why not—to match Elizabeth's designation—simply replace the word Queen with Monarch? Voilà. Job done.Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term? Ah, sugar.
Monarch's Representative –
simply would not do. Even you would not dispute this. So quickly, to avoid casualty, we change the designations of not only monarchs but of the other heads of state too, such as those under the French President with President's Representative –
.President's Representative –
, then what of puppet leaders? If we are to go all the way back to
World War II, was
Philippe Pétain not a representative of
Adolf Hitler? Was he or not? In favour of him being so, Hitler did actually personally select him—would it be a bit of a stretch to call and label him as Fuhrer's Representative? And, there. We have sunk.Simply put, this is why I believe your "Monarch's Representative" solution simply would not work. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt.
The DRN has failed. There were no winners or losers. We either have three choices.
Viceroy –
.I can indeed quote her response to your most recent argument (of which you seemed to be conceding, somewhat):
While I agree that changes should be consistent, I can think of a few arguments: 1. Governor Generals form a large body with consistant descriptors, thus their descriptors should not be changed. 2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Only change those with obvious issues. 3. Standard descriptors do not account for the diversity of these positions. Hence we should give up on consistency and just abreviate titles. I don't want to get into a huge debate here as I don't think it is allowed :) but I just wanted to point out why question #2 is worth discussing. These are in fact the arguments I thought of when writing the list of starting suggestions for #2.
semester has started and I just don't have as much time anymore. I will be logging off for at least a week so don't wait for responses from me. I hope this gets sorted out. All the best to all of you.)
Monarch's representative –
. Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you? Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position, and return to your 23:39, 7 January 2016 state of mind, when you expressed your acceptance of and support for "Monarch's representative" as the solution.Stop making this
personal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Viceroy –
. Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January. You may revert the edit, and then I will have to resort to alternative measures. Although I would really hope you would seek the courage not to do so—as my arguments have already outweighed yours and I have practically debunked every single one of your opposing arguments given so-far. I have no idea why on earth Miesianiacal is involved in this discussion, he should just
mind his own business. Specifically:
How about this for the third option: You accept that due to my arguments (and
Happysquirrel and
Miesianiacal) that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Monarch's representative –
.
I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour.
Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you?
Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position,
In your above message you wrote that you are willing for a compromise. Which of your points are you ready to give up? What is your offer?
Viceroy –
and that is that for now.Imagine what it would feel like if someone addressed you in the same manner. I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour.and
And as it turns out he had had another run-in a few days earlier (while the Cook Islands debate was already underway), where his conduct was subsequently characterized by two editors as profoundly silly, very poor and uncooperative
This is getting us nowhere. Why are you so unable to just accept Viceroy –
? It is the finest option. List every single one of your concerns below, and I will try and debunk each and everyone of them. How exactly would you (personally) or the article suffer once the changes are implemented? Specify.
Neve-
selbert 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So you provoked an edit war
Broke a compromise
Monarch's Representative –
? I have already given my reasons why.Then lost the debate
Wrecked the DRN
Lied about my position behind my back
Viceroy –
would prove unlikely.When none of this helped, you declare than you will implement your suggestion anyway?
So far I haven't been aware of what Wikipedia mechanism are available to put a stop to aggressive and antisocial conduct, but the current situation seems to be calling for it.
Monarch's Representative –
? A straight answer, please.
Neve-
selbert 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Monarch's representative –
. "Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January." "It is the finest option." "although I will wait until the end of this month to see whether or not we can agree on something on civil terms." :)
ZBukov (
talk) 09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Monarch's Representative –
as legitimate? A Yes or No answer will suffice. Thank-you.
Neve-
selbert 22:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy
...?
ZBukov (
talk) 00:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
. There, I have answered your question. In return, answer my question—we both need to (at least)
agree to disagree. Now, if I may ask again. Do you or do you not acknowledge the legitimacy of my arguments against the Monarch's Representative –
alternative? Yes or No. If you take this dispute seriously enough to refrain from playing games, you would answer this question, and perhaps we would be getting somewhere (eventually) after all.
Neve-
selbert 01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be a No, then. So, there you have proved yourself an engager in
ownership of content; this is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you refuse to compromise on your position on Monarch's Representative –
by 31 January, I will
boldly make the edits anyway. You do not own the article, stop acting as if you have a copyright over it. You do not. If you immediately resort to
reverting like a petulant child, I will seek administrative help. You were speechless when I gave my complete denunciation of your alternative on 17 January. You did not respond. I have responded to every single one of your concerns against mine. Therefore, your arguments against struggle to hold water. You are the one refusing to cooperate, engaging in hostility, etc. You should
reflect on your own views for once. Stop
intimidating me against making the edits.
Don't call a spade a spade.
Refrain from bringing up any of my past disputes to make a point—purely for the benefit of yourself.
Do not underestimate the power of community guidelines. This is not considered as "hot air", I will have you know. Understand that. Neve- selbert 11:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
is the right answer. All three editors failed to clearly rebuff my arguments, yes: that does include you. You have simply dismissed my arguments for Viceroy in a seemingly sadistic and non-cooperative (without consulting other editors upon your own request) manner. Did you not once write that Even if we settled on "viceroy", or decided to keep "Queen's representative" [...]? "Even if"? Please, just drop the stick, refrain from reverting the edits, and move on. This issue means a lot more to me than it does to you. How big a sacrifice would it be, for you personally?
Head of State –
without disrepute. Why should the Cook Islands
Queen's Representative be any exception?Monarchical Representative –
, which was originally my preferred option. This remains a critical issue to sort, and I nave evolved my position in trying to help doing so. I apologise for the tension between our talking points. We should indeed act like Gandhi, a man who fought for his cause and died from the division fallen from it. Take care, and I mean this sincerely. I have been grateful for many of your edits elsewhere, and I do not want sustained animosity between us—the oven has turned itself off. This remains a minor issue undetected and misunderstood by many other editors other than both of us. If we can come to a mutual understanding, I would be extremely grateful. Please, just accept and acknowledge
the hours of effort I have made in my arguments, and hold your head up and eventually move on.
Neve-
selbert 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only hope that you will gather the courage to stop forcing your suggestion through, let it go, ”hold your head up and eventually move on”.
The opposite would be equivalent to saying: "I will only not hate you if you agree with me" - and that would say a lot about the person who tries to buy concurrence with such desperate measures.
Viceroy –
. Recently,
GoodDay came out in support of Viceroy –
. He said, and I quote: Use Viceroy, it's short & neatly compact & as I understand it, can also be gender-neutral.My alternative is finally gaining traction—thus strengthening my resolve even further. Warm regards. Neve- selbert 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the implication was not
sweet (as in a
doughnut-type of sweet), but rather
sour (in a
lemon-sort of way). In other words, I am still gritting my teeth over this. "We did not subscribe to your "disaster scenario" idea? We? Erm (excuse me) but when did the two other editors get the chance to respond to this "idea"—FWIW: it is not an "idea" as such but rather the complete opposite of one. It is not an "unfounded fear". How can it be so? Have I not laid the grounds adequately enough? If that is so, would you even care to specify or would this be too much time and haste for you? Secondly, the point against Viceroy –
being included due to chances of misunderstandings if used as a generic description
as it has been used previously as an official title remains totally irrelevant; e.g. the Moroccan prime minister has been officially titled since 2011 as
Head of Government, yet we use the designation Prime Minister –
because of the fact that we know he serves the duties of your typical PM—same thing applies to the Queen's Representative, serving the typical duties of a viceroy. And yet—all in all—if manage to lose the resolve and courage and resort to a pitiful
Falklands-style editing battle on 31 January, then shame on both of us—it would be quite a matter of who blinks first would it not? I have self-reflected—make of this what you will—and I have indeed determined that I am losing patience (after almost a month). How long would you be prepared for having this dispute go on and on and on? If your answer replies
how long is a piece of string, then there we have it. And, therefore, both of us are equally damned as petulant as each other.
Neve-
selbert 11:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
and I remain equally (and if not, more) steadfast against Monarch's Representative –
. There most certainly is a
chicken game going on between the two of us. The first editor (Miesianical) has not commented directly on this matter for almost weeks—I very much doubt he really cares either way, and the second (Happysquirrel) seems to be going on a personal break from Wikipedia. It really is about time you became more considerate for somebody else's feelings for once. I could indeed "explain" why I feel a strong personal attachment to this topic, although I am practically certain you will dismiss it as meaningless. Again, you should at least consider Viceroy –
as something to think about—compared to Monarch's Representative, it is harmless and will not breach
WP:NPOV. Why exactly is
this news article meaningless to you? Your dismissive attitude towards this issue (and me personally) is something I find overwhelmingly intimidating and alienating. You are trying to divide this issue between us and them; with us being you within the Gang of Three and them being me and
GoodDay. The further you antagonise equals the further you anger, and your provocation and sarcasm is equivalent to winding me up for your own amusement, e.g. That's it, and how you notably try to keep this case as enclosed as possible. The merits of Viceroy outweigh the merits of Monarch's Representative, this is my opinion and I realise the fact that yours is quite different. Only you feel as fanatical as I do on this issue. Either way, this probably won't result in the end of the world. Sincerely. Neve- selbert 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you regard the Queen being officially referred to in her own right as Lord of Mann and Duke of Normandy as sexist? Neve- selbert 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it be sexist or politically incorrect to refer to a lioness as a lion? I find it hard to swallow believing that The Lion King is an inherently sexist and prejudiced film. Neve- selbert 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you accept Governor-General as the descriptor for the CIQR? A simple Yes or No, please. Neve- selbert 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No. ZBukov ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Once the reign of Elizabeth II ends, Queen's/King's Representative –
should be used.
It is time for us to end this dispute and keep the status quo.
Neve-
selbert 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert you wrote: “The Cook Islands has never had a female QR—when this happens, if ever, we may have to reopen this case.”. If this is indeed your opinion than we don’t need to deal with the original issue at all, because for the time being the description “Queen’s representative” is apt, since the current monarch is female.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Neve- selbert 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very good with re-creating optical examples. I think it would help clarify things for outsiders, if you added optical examples to the 3 options at the top of the Rfc. It's highly likely, that many are confusing description with title. BTW, you should get an archive bot, for your talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
To me, Queen's Representative seems to be the choice. It's represented by fact, and should the queen die this year, one could say King/Queen's Representative. Clunky? Yes. Correct? Yes. Somewhat unlikely she dies this year? Yes. In 2015 Marsters was the Queen's Representative, not Viceroy or Monarch's representative. People will have to mess with the royal cypher when the queen dies, but we don't argue about its usage in those cases.Neve- selbert 18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In view of the interesting discussion above about Estonia (2009), perhaps you have already taken into account that the constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, " most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator ( talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
+ Perhaps you have also taken into account that this is not the same as in Canada. While all lands are subject to the Crown, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim (Aboriginal title), which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. "This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared Terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title." Qexigator ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 15:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason I'm fixing your indent there, is because your question is for another editor, not me. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Compared to Traian Băsescu, this perhaps is a situation slightly more complicated and tangled. For one, I really find it hard to understand why exactly the Acting presidents are necessary for inclusion. Despite his incapacity, Ramos-Horta remained both the active and unsuspended executive president despite his incapacity—as with Bush in 2002 and 2007 (and perhaps even Reagan in 1981 or Hugo Chávez in 2012–13). If Cheney should continue to be excluded, why should these Acting presidents be included? FWIW, the article 2008 in East Timor contains zero mention towards the Acting presidents. I do wonder why that is.-- Neve – selbert 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not certain as to how it's done in the other countries. But in the United States, when the vice president assumes the presidential powers & duties during the president's being too ill? the president continues on as being president & the vice president continues on as vice president. Therefore GHW Bush would not be added to List of state leaders in 1985 & Cheney would not be added to List of state leaders in 2002, List of state leaders in 2007. Note that in the USA (unlike many other republics), when the president dies, resigns or is removed from office via impeachment conviction, the vice president automatically become president. GoodDay ( talk) 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Having had a look (searching for the word acting) through Rulers, I have found quite a few missing acting state leaders from the SLBY articles. I am willing to include those acting for suspended presidents— bulleted on par with other state leaders—although I still do not see the fundamental purpose of not including those acting for incapacitated presidents inside a footnote. I certainly hope, as a compromise option (since my preferred option would be the get rid of all acting state leaders serving concurrently), that we can come to an agreement on this matter sooner rather than later.-- Neve – selbert 00:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Because he isn't Liechtenstein's head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 13:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been around those disputes in quite some time. If my memory serves me right, those who opposed using Soviet Union had provided sources that said the USSR taking over the Baltic states was illegal. On that basis, they argued against & opposed any changes to Soviet Union. GoodDay ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Spirit Ethanol has succeeded in convincing editors that Palestine was displayed as a "substate of" Israel. I am unsure whether or not you would like to contest this result or not, or whether you agree with it retrospectively. I myself have tried to contest it although a topic ban could be heading my way if I get involved with the situation any further. Since you were the editor that originally included the Palestinian Authority entry underneath Israel, I am keen to hear your opinion as to whether or not the current rendition of the article is apt. Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And hello again, Zoltan. Would you be OK with this rectification for the Palestine entry, below?
-- Neve – selbert 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I made this —although this soon reverted and reported by Spirit Ethanol and TracyMcClark respectively, out of pure antagonism. I reverted the edit soon after.-- Neve – selbert 00:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You may want to see Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Palestine re-instated as a subentry for other year pages!.-- Neve – selbert 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: Spirit Ethanol and Baking Soda are both the same user, he changed his username earlier on this month.-- Neve – selbert 20:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Lack of independence can be expressed via text as opposed to an ambiguous visual layout. I would like to ask you Zoltan, as a primary editor of this list series to take initiative and rid page of subentry format for all the list pages, all states. Baking Soda ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Best solution for those articles concerning anything to do with Palestine, is to DELETE the PNA from all those articles (1994 to 2012), while leaving the State of Palestine where it is (2013 to present). GoodDay ( talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears you broke 3RR on 28 March on this article. To avoid a block, you might promise to abstain from all editing of these lists of state leaders and their talk pages for two weeks. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- Neve – selbert 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, as to whether the pope is both the Vatican City's head of state & government. If the pope is both? then we shouldn't be listing the Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City and the Vatican Secretaries of State :) GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I've removed List of state leaders in 2016 from my watchlist. Fatigue factor, I reckon. GoodDay ( talk) 02:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We are requesting you comment on the DRN page on a dispute you are involved in. At first opportunity, please comment of the dispute about the List of state leaders in 2006 Joel.Miles925 ( talk) 13:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. ZBukov ( talk) 10:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Zoltan Bukovszky. The thee island territories may not be part of the UK proper, but they are certainly under the sovereignty of the Crown in right of the UK and not the Crown as an institution of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. That means that for purposes of International law, they are not independent countries but basically under the sovereignty of the UK Crown, which is a constituent part of the UK Parliament. The fact that they do not belong to the UK proper (that also goes for the other UK dependencies) or that Parliament's power in these territories may have it's limitations, is of no concern to the international community. That at least should be acknowledged when discussing these territories. Perhaps "Crown" could be described as "Crown of the UK".... Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The difference with Palau, the Marshall Islands and Monaco is that these territories are sovereign states and subjects of international law.
Hi again, Zoltan. I notice that you have reverted the new color scheme at List of current heads of state and government due to the apparent disruptive nature of it. I would note that the color scheme was originally changed on 05:50, 26 May 2016 by 89.139.227.212 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) due to the previous format being "unreadable in high-brightness monitors". Considering the IP's reasoning, I believe we should consider restoring his color scheme, don't you?-- Neve – selbert 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I found the information on a site in French http://www.comores-actualites.com/actualites-comores/le-premier-gouvernement-du-colonel-azali-selon-lhebdo-hari-hari/. Excuse me to be so late with the answer. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
I found the information on http://www.worldstatesmen.org. On the other side, usually, when a French Prefect (High Administrator, High Commissioner) leaves his function, the General Secretary of the Prefecture (of the High Administrator, of the High Commissioner) became Acting Prefect ((High Administrator, High Commissioner). As I found on http://www.dnc.nc/2014-2016-les-annees-bouvier/, Vincent Bouvier leaved his post in the middle of the week, between 8 June and 11 June 2016. On 7 June he gave a farewell reception in Nouméa ( http://www.nouvelle-caledonie.gouv.fr/Actualites/7-juin-Le-Haut-commissaire-et-son-epouse-donnaient-une-reception-a-leur-residence) and on 13 June he met the Minister of Overseas in Paris ( http://www.outre-mer.gouv.fr/?agenda-de-george-pau-langevin-ministre-des-outre-mer-du-13-au-17-juin.html) Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: @ TracyMcClark: @ JzG: @ Blackmane: @ OpenFuture: @ JamesBWatson: @ Ohnoitsjamie: @ Baking Soda: Contrary to his effusive promises made while begging his way out [7] of a block in April, Neve-selbert not only hasn’t refrained from editing the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, but has just reverted my edit twice on List of state leaders in 2004. So? ZBukov ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
...and has just deleted this very message from his talkpage, and then proceeded to revert his own revert. ZBukov ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the edit for crying out loud. Can we please just talk about this rationally? I realised I made an error of judgment and I reverted myself. And again, I don't want anything to spark up again. Please realise this.-- Neve – selbert 22:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, ZB. Neve-selbert made a mistake, admitted it & reverted the mistake. Case closed, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 23:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather allow the fellow to work through his mistakes & not throw him to the wolves. If you wish to take your concerns over Neve-selbert's recent behaviour to AN, ANI, etc; then that's your choice. GoodDay ( talk) 15:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Now look, there was honestly no need for this. If you could care to explain why exactly you reverted my edits, I would certainly take the time to sort out some sort of compromise or other. Again, all I ask is for consistency. Take a look at the other List of state of leaders articles from the 21st century (those that I have been able to fix up so far) and search for the word "superseded". I was only trying to be consistent with these articles. And if I may ask one last question: why did you revert this edit? What was wrong with it precisely? There is no need for this kind of hostility. You should have assumed good faith, a fundamental pinnacle of philosophy round here.-- Neve – selbert 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I profusely apologise. I made a serious mistake. I can promise not to make it again. Can you please just hear me out?-- Neve – selbert 22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey guy, you reverted my edits yesterday, but in fact the Beiyang government of the Republic of China is the legal and only Chinese government that has international recognition at that time, and there' s no Nationalist government until 1925. Your reverts has no sense. Cirolchou ( talk) 3:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On 4 January Tahc redirected List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2017 to List of state leaders in the 21st century without any reason. Neither I, nor you, nor other contributors of these articles expressed the accord to these action which I consider abusive. Please sustain me in the action for annulment of this action,express your protest to TAHC and ask the reversion of redirections. Thank you
Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Are you responding to me? or the other fellow? If the other fellow, then your indenting is wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 18:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
As I found on https://www.rulers.org/2017-01.html “On January 20 it is reported that Jammeh dissolved his cabinet, declaring he would oversee all ministries himself”. To present, the site www.rulers.org was a very reliable source so I used the information Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. tahc chat 15:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for to response to late but I wished and I succeeded that, first of all, I finish my work. I have nothing to talk with Tahc. This “clever” guy believed to be the only owner of absolute truth and has absolute rights in the Wikipedia, to destroy the work of other contributors. The sad fact is that there is a group that supports him, although his articles are usually unnecessary and weaker than they destroyed. I retreated to the Romanian Wiki where discussions are constructive and where there is no, at least so far, such individuals "smart" did not appear. Wikipedia English Because on English Wikipedia are also serious people like you and here we received many useful and accurate information, I feel compelled to continue to have contributions but only at the items which are not deformed the guy. Regarding administrator of Tokelau there is a problem. David Nicholson, was only appointed in November 2016. On http://www.tokelau.org.nz/Administrators+Corner/Administrators+of+Tokelau.html his mandate is presented as beginning in 2017. I wrote to New Zeeland Foreign Ministry in order to obtain more data but, as usually, the Ministry did not answer. For me the problem it is yet unclear Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Another guy who consider he I the only detainer of the truth and he is clever as List of Heads of State of UN, www.rulers.org and www,WorldStatesmen.org. And otherwise very stubborn and insistent. I think it would be good you should start a discussion about this problem. I will support you as strong as I can. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a great pleasure to send all good wishes to a colleague archonologist Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
It's so very kind of you, @ Bogdan Uleia! I wish you a 2018 that shall be memorable for all the best reasons! :) ZBukov ( talk) 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was curious and I visited the “productions” of Tahc List of state leaders in the 21st century and List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. Firstly the both are enough out of date. It is explicable because it is very hard for a single contributor to keep an article up to date. In the same time, are a very little number of other authors who contributed to this article. Generally they are not the contributors who write for the articles which we update and, very interesting, it is none of those who supported Tahc for to destroy List of governors of dependent territories by years. In the term of content, in List of state leaders in the 21st century it is a very sophisticated division of continents by regions which, in my opinion it is very useless. It is simpler to search a country by the continent and by alphabetical order. On the other hand, the articles are very useless. If someone wants to see the leaders of a country in chronological order he can find special articles about these or can use www.rules.org or www.worldstatesmen.org. Talking about forking, in fact the articles of Tahc are forking, because he wrote them in the moment when articles with the same subjects already existed. I have nothing against that Tahc writing his own articles however these are “forking”. It is his time and his work. But I don’t understand why he must destroy the work of others. Only to prove he is the only detainer of the truth and smarter as all the others? I don’t know what to believe. It is a “brotherhood” who acts in favour of some contributors and against others? Although I renounced to the fight because the cleverer give up first, I am very unhappy and think to initialise again a List of current dependent territory leaders by year even I am sure “the gang” will destroy it again. Can you help me to obtain the victory and to insert a useful List of current dependent territory leaders by year? I wait for a response. Thank you!
On the other hand, it is my pleasure to wish you to have a very Happy and beautiful new year in 2020!
Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Satu
Suro 12:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So what makes rulers.org a reliable source? Take care you arent inundated with messages claiming you are appropriating unused or not conventional name issues.
Good idea to have a look at WP:RS and WP:V Satu Suro 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of state leaders in 1986. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dusti SPEAK!! 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dusti! The reason I removed content from the List of state leaders in 1986 page (and from the list of state leaders pages 1990-1984) is because the government-in-exile of Estonia has been included, which is totally inconsistent and illogical because a) no other governments-in-exile are included in the state leaders lists and b) it wouldn't even make sense to include any, since those pages list the actual leaders of states regardless whether they gained their power by constitutional means or not. And the very existence of a government-in-exile is merely a political act, and has no bearing on who actually runs the state. Any thoughts? ZBukov ( talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Because his title was President of the National Council for Democracy and Development for only two days, 22 December and 24 December, when he became President. The all extra titles are superfluous. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
We have a page about them at List of elected or appointed female heads of government and List of elected or appointed female heads of state. I'll add them to the see also section now. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly have you removed notes about Estonia before regaining independence? It was occupied by the USSR and HAD a government in exile. Now I am going to have to re-add them into the article. Stop pushing your POW in these articles. H2ppyme ( talk.) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Again about the "idiot" statement. Sorry if I insulted you, but what I said was "you are the idiot in this argument", which doesn't neccessarily mean you are AN IDIOT, only that an argument USUALLY has two sides - the one that is right and the other that isn't. In this issue it is still not clear of course, but the way I see it, you acted AS an idiot, because you deleted information about A COUNTRY for 50 years and only wrote it in the comments for each year, and then edited each and every article several times (which is a good job of course), making it hard for anyone to undo anything if you happened to make a major mistake (which humans tend to do from time to time). And when re-adding the articles you deleted them without any further arguments to me or to the articles.
You still haven't explained me one thing. If you are planning to leave for example the prime minister of norway in exile (because WWII is an "exception"), are you leaving the leaders of Estonia at least the end of world war II? About East Timor - a tragic history of course, but the state wasn't really recognised internationally, wasn't it? (correct me if I am wrong here). Estonia however was - see this list and existed for 20 years prior to Soviet occupation. And the Serbia example. Serbia's successor state was the kingdom of yugoslavia, or the kingdom of serbs, croats and Slovenes, wasn't it? Its successor state after breakup was Serbia and Montenegro, turning back to Serbia recently. All those are successor states of one another, like Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. The Republic of Estonia however has always been the same state, occupied by the USSR 1940-1941; by Germany 1941-1944 and again by USSR 1944-1991.
And it's mostly just Estonia that I want to add here, since Latvia and Lithuania didn't have a government in exile - they were represented by their embassies abroad. If anyone wishes to add some info about them, I would not object, but Latvians or Lithuanians should contribute this, if they want to.
Your example for African countries doesn't really apply, because their governments don't consider those historical "royal families as you said" as legal "leaders" anyway - Estonia however does consider the "leaders of the government in exile" as their "legal leaders". Saying that they shouldn't be included because they weren't de facto in control of their country is clearly POV, among the duties of leaders isn't only "controlling", but also "representing", which they were clearly doing.
With best wishes - H2ppyme ( talk) 15:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment"de jure and recognized are two VERY different things" That's where you ZBukov got it all wrong. Anybody recognizing anybody de jure, means simply legally recognized by this somebody. Saying "So if something is recognized it doesn't make it legal and vice versa" has gone completely wrong. That's what de jure, de facto in the context is all about, it's about recognizing any country's existence either de jure (legally) or de facto (fatually). For example Estonia was recognized by many countries as de facto part of the Soviet Union, but only de jure as pat of the Soviet union by Soviet satellite states and some others. Th US , Vatican etc didn't recognize Estonia as part of USSR either de jure nor de facto (meaning, the for the officials of thse countries it was forbidden to visit the territory of Estonia because it was considered ilegally occupied by the USSR) . On the Estonian government in Exile, the only official and recognized representations of the Republic of Estonia during the era (1940-1991) were the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad. For example the Estonian embassy/consulate in the US remained open and fully accredited during the entire period. That is how for example you can find Estonia among other nations sending Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to the moon in 1969. So Estonia was clearly recognized as an independent state during the time. Should Estonian government in Exile be part of the list, that's what's under the dispute over here? I personally don't really care if t is or not. But at the same time the fact is, the government in Exile wasn't recognized by anybody at the time unlike the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad that remained open in many countries during the entire period of the Soviet occupation.-- Termer ( talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing that Estonia still functioned as an independent state. For example the territories of lets say Consulates/Embassies are considered also the territory of the country and those officially accredited diplomatic missions were functional institutions representing the Republic of Estonia in the Western block. The only thing neither the government in Exile nor lets say the Estonian embassy to the US had control over the territory in Estonia, and that's another story. So yeah, they were not leading Estonia, they were leading the Republic of Estonia in exile.--
Termer (
talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
PS. regarding the dispute here than it obviously originates from the fact that Estonians even today consider the government in Exile to be their state leader during the years of Soviet occupation.--
Termer (
talk) 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what has "day to day realities for the inhabitants of Estonia" and "who was in control of the territory of people of Estonia" to do with anything here? There were "people of Estonia", the citizens of Estonia carrying Estonian passport that were recognized in the Western world during the entire period of the Soviet occupation. And the passports were issued continiusly by the Estonian embassies abroad. Regarding the Appollo messages than all embassies to the US were contacted to get an input and Estonia was just one among others. Does the nonrecognition of the Soviet occupation have symbolic value like you suggest? No, it's a practical fact that the continuity of the Estonian state has been kept consistant from 1918-1920 until now.-- Termer ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear friend ZBukov, we are at it again...The Estonian SSR NEVER declared its independence, it is factually INCORRECT. Its name was changed in 1990, as said behind the name. And PLEASE understand that this is YOUR POW, because officially Savisaar and Vähi were acting prime ministers, their office was named Vahevalitsuse peaminister translating to "Prime Minister of the Interim Government". Please, can't we leave it as it is?? H2ppyme ( talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the warning came in after I reverted your latest edits, I definitely wouldn't have done it after seeing tha warning. Therefore it could have been me, who broke the 3-revert limit, if so I am sorry..Still I quite agree that someone stepped into this madness...
Why are you "completely opposed" to mentioning the Estonian SSR as the predecessor of Estonia? I am not, if you would see what my reverts were for in the first place, you would notice that I did wrote something about ESSR there. I just find it illogical to link ESSR there, since it was the Republic of Estonia that declared its independence, not ESSR anymore. Therefore I don't see the reason why you insist on linking the Republic of Estonia to ESSR.
"An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article." - That's somewhat a good point. You said you have previously written "Interim Prime Minister"? To be even more consistent, why not use "acting Prime Minister" in these cases? Therefore (though you already agreed) writin that Rüütel was president would be consistent, yes, but consistently wrong doesn't mean it's good, I hope you get what I mean..To be consistent in this particular matter would be just "Head of State"
The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1940 and ceased to exist (as an independent state) in august 1940. The fact that a place was called Estonia, doesn't make it a state. You could also say the Governorate of Estonia or the Swedish Estonia was a state, because of its name. USSR wasn't unitary, but the fact that Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR had their own UN seats, doesn't mean they were independent or noteworthy entities. The Republic of Estonia isn't the successor state of ESSR, it is the same Republic of Estonia that has never changed its name. To make it clearer, at one point during perestroika, Estonians in the ESSR decided to move for independence again, therefore they gradually started making changes - declared self rule, re-adopted the flag, changed the name (basically having two governments ahead of Republic of Estonia in the world, note the exile government) and so on...Linking two obviously different things is not correct.
Ok, I don't mind about the 1992 "note", although for 1991 article it would be sort of like repeating it, since there is written when it re-declared independence.
I am just so sad that this discussion got so out of hand, by one contributor, who obviously is on a large-scale project and wants to stay as clear as possible, and another who wants to stay as officially correct in these matters as possible. I do agree that demanding correctness everywhere is not always a good characteristic, but it is good if we are talking about editing an encyclopaedia (so is staying clear, of course)...-- H2ppyme ( talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Uhh... wow. So I see that someone requested a third opinion here. Problem is that this discussion has literally been going on for a month now, and there's an absurd amount of backlog to read. Can someone summarize, very briefly, the issue here, as well as what pages you two have been battling over? Maybe we can get some contributors from Wikiprojects to give their input. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Both yourself and User:H2ppyme are edit warring on List of state leaders in 1991 and List of state leaders in 1992. You should stop doing this and instead continue discussing the issue and I urge either of you to take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion and get an (or some) outside opinions on the dispute. As I commented on a closely related issue on Talk:List of state leaders by year I do not want to get involved myself but if the edit war continues I shall report you both to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Davewild ( talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Zoltan, regarding the changes in the lists State_leaders_by_year: you are right about the words de facto not being part of the official title held by the de facto Presidents of Argentina. But, in fact, they were neither de iure Presidents (as stated in the Argentine Constitution). So, should we state that they were de facto Presidents, or should we leave their illegitimate titles on display? As an Argentine, I feel as the second option is just not right. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Zoltan, please do not mass-revert well-summarized improvements to these articles with summaries that cover only few of your edits and are moreover incorrect: I did not split Asia, but rather detected a consistent split of Asia and Africa through the inclusion of a fictitious continent (Middle East). Feel free to ask me *any* questions on my edits! Regards, gidonb ( talk) 02:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, its been a week. What is the fine line drawn to decide who should stay and who shouldn't. Devolution is well known (and much stronger in Scotland), its not a stretch to add the nations as opposed to counties/lander/states (in the usa). they'll be partition in a couple of years along with Belgium anyway ;) Lihaas ( talk) 12:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I checked other sources, and they say he was sworn in as president (not acting president) after Umaru Yar'Adua's death. Searcher_1990 ( talk)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, could you please check the talk page for discussion on this point? Thanks! -- Pete ( talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. About our coverage of Mount Athos, I'm afraid it has been seriously distorted in a months-long agenda campaign by one editor, Peeperman ( talk · contribs), who has been pushing for the OR notion that Mount Athos is a "state". The statement you cited from the Mount Athos article, and the statements reflecting it in the "state leaders" series, all go back to unsourced and undiscussed assertions by that editor. In reality, Mount Athos is defined in the Greek constitution as "a self-governed part of the Greek State, whose sovereignty thereon shall remain intact" [1]. Nothing about a status as a "state", and, most importantly, nothing about any separate "leader" or "head of state" (other than the leadership of the Greek Republic). The whole idea about the Patriarch and the foreign minister is purely Peeperman's imagination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This diff? The article referred to on the talk page demonstrates the position. Your unilateral view, through some very shakey reasoning, can hardly be taken as in any way official or definitive.-- Pete ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's already indicated in the "Prime ministers of Vanuatu" article, of course. I see your point, both in terms of length and consistency. I do still think it would be a useful distinction to make, but if it isn't made in other, fairly similar cases, I wouldn't want to break the trend. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but all right, we'll leave it at that. Aridd ( talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Astonishingly dedicated work to the "List of state leaders in XXXX" articles - you've done considerably more than ten thousand edits to them now. And yet I don't see any awards - you're clearly an editor that edits for the joy of editing and improving Wikipedia, and in some ways this makes this even more overdue. Bravo! Egg Centric 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited List of current dependent territory leaders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McManus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I must admit to being a bit confused as to who is the current foreign minister of Somalia. Different sources name different people.
- United Nations protocol list ( http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) says Abdullahi Haji Hassan
- www.rulers.org names Mohamed Mohamud Ibrahim
- CIA World Leaders list ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-s/somalia.html) says Mohamed Mohamud Ibrahim
- the webpage of the President of Somalia ( http://www.president.somaligov.net/The%20Ministers.html) says Ali Jama Ahmed Jengeli
- the Somali government webpage ( http://www.opm.somaligov.net/The%20Ministershtml.html): I don't know because I don't speak Somali
- the Somali Foreign Ministry webbite ( http://www.mfa.somaligov.net/The%20Minister%20&%20Staff.html): I don't know again, but it appears to name Abdullahi Haji Hassan (Cabullaahi Xaaji Xasan Maxamed Nuur)
Do you have some authoritative source?
ZBukov ( talk) 19:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.87 ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited List of state leaders in 1921, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government Junta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1920, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government Junta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hetman of Ukraine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone undid your move which you had a source for and then dint explain [3]( Lihaas ( talk) 12:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund Lawrence ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting that you have decided in your edit without the approval of the Parliament of Ghana that Hanna Tetteh has been confirmed in her new post. Hopefully you are aware that the President of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama has asked all ministers to carry on in their jobs prior to the elections until the new ministers are confirmed. This means she is still the Minister for Trade and Industry until cleared by Parliament. Do you want to review your edit or should we do it for you. Check your references before you mislead everybody. As you can see from this link, the vetting is only just about starting. Ghanaweb-- Natsubee ( talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right concerning the name of state functions in different states. On the other hand, in Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Cuba it is a special situation at this moment the head of state is also heads of government. See http://www.ediplomat.com/dc/foreign_ministries.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree your position. In the cases you exemplified are different functions temporarily fulfilled by the same person. So I consider it is necessary to mentioned the title of Prime minister (or Chairman of Council of Minister in the case of Cuba) where it is such a situation. Bogdan Uleia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Bejnar ( talk) 05:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Egypt, I was not right. But I had information about the dismissal of the whole government so, including the foreign minister or I misinterpreted information About Palau, nor the site of Palau government ( http://www.palaugov.net/PalauGov/Executive/Ministries/MOS/MOS.htm) nor CIA in World Leaders site ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-p/palau.html) indicates a State minister so this position is vacant. More, in accordance with http://www.oceaniatv.net/2013/07/10/palau-compact-chief-negotiator-nominated-as-state-minister-video/, the president nominate a Sate minister who must be approved by the Senate. Finally I must express to you my appreciation for your attitude concerning the correctness of information. Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Farolif ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: ). Thank you. Farolif ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the omissions I've done on the yearly lists (fixing the years of the Andorra archbishop, the Captain on the Fiji PM in the early 80s), as well as a thanks again for so quickly agreeing on the compromise. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1942 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of state leaders in 1941 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This may not be the most appropriate place to discuss this, but I have created a section specifically for discussing the edit warring in List of current heads of state and government at User talk:Everyking#"Dead people can't hold office". WikiWinters ( talk) 17:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of foreign ministers in 2010 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the decree relieving Sylvie Hubac from her position as personal representative of the French co-prince is dated 31 December 2014 (see here). Gugganij ( talk) 08:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For Bosnia and Herzegovina, why is High Representative Valentin Inzko listed above the rest? -- WikiWinters ( talk) 13:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Léon Blum was not a French Co-Prince of Andorra by any source I have seen, accordingly I've undone your revert at List of state leaders in 1947#Europe.
Your edit summary reverting my change states:
The part where you said "see rulers.org" is ironic, as if you go to that source, in particular to www.rulers.org/rula2.html#andorra you will see that Blum is not listed there. Furthermore, if you look at the edit summary previous to yours you will see that I cited rulers.org already, before you did.
As to the rest of your edit summary, that's just not how WP works: claims must be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you cannot form syllogisms about laws concerning heads of state, and the fact that Blum was French head of state to conclude that therefore, Blum must have been Co-prince of Andorra because that claim is WP:SYNTH. There could be any number of reasons Blum is not listed in references as Co-prince of Andorra:
As a purely speculative matter, and I'm no expert on French law, one possible reason might be that Blum was temporarily installed in 1946 as Chairman of Provisional Government of the French Republic between the Third and Fourth Republic and didn't actually hold the title President of the Republic of France. But in the end, it really doesn't matter what the reason is that Blum was omitted from the list in reliable sources, it only matters that he's not there. If we cannot find a reliable source to back up the claim that Blum was Co-Prince of Andorra, we cannot include him in the list, pure and simple. If you can find a reliable source listing Blum as Co-prince of Andorra, please provide it and I will happily revert my change. Mathglot ( talk) 22:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zoltan, you're invited to participate in the DRN I filed concerning the dispute about whether Léon Blum held the title of French Co-Prince of Andorra, as claimed at List of state leaders in 1947#Europe, Léon Blum, and elsewhere. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 20:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Zoltan. The DRN was closed pro forma since we haven't discussed this enough, so nothing to see there. I'm following recommendations at WP:DISCFAIL, accordingly, would you kindly respond to the issue you initiated at Talk:List of state leaders in 1947 so we can further the discussion? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Repetative linkage is discourage WP:OVERLINK. Please look before you revert. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Very well. If there's going to be that much fuss? then go ahead & revert. GoodDay ( talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As a follower of international politics, there is most certainly something unclear about co-equal diarchial rule, of which I specifically have sceptism with. As both the captains regent are elected via the legislature, surely the co-partner belonging to the majority party of that legislature must hold some further sway in legislation than that of the other—from the party of the opposition. I would note that the other partner is highlighted in blue, indicating that he does have executive authority, but without the administrative clout of his co-partner. Neve-selbert ( talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @ Neve-selbert:, I understand that you find this arrangement unlikely or unusual (even 'unclear'). My question was if there is anything to back up this presumed imbalance between the two members of this collective body, where they mutually possess veto power. By the way, my understanding was that this newly introduced colour scheme indicates the balance of power between the offices of the head of state and head of government, not referencing the legislative branch. ZBukov ( talk) 20:23, 8 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The designations of Head of Government in List of current heads of state and government I am near you in yours fight against these stubborn Therequiembellishere who beleves he detaines the absolute true. I had also problems with he concerning Palestine. (of legal point of view they are two States of Palestine, a state proclaimed by PLO which are only putative but ineffective, and the Palestinian National Authority which changed his name in State of Palestina without accord of Israel). I intend to open a discusion on talk about these designations. I hoppe you will support my intervention. On the other hand, i want to warn you about the fact that www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol and Liaison Service/hspmfm.pdf is not a too reliable source. Congo Brazzaville has not prime minister from 2009 but the site still indicates a prime minister. On the other hand, this site indicates Sartaj Azizi as foreign minister of Pakistan wile http://www.mofa.gov.pk/ indicates him as a simple adviser of Prime minister who is titular foreign minister. In accordance with my experience, Worlds leaders of CIA is more reliable. I felt obliged to inform you about these problems because I always appreciated the accuracy of your interventions. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hi, Zoltan. I am currently having troubling researching whether or not Leslie Jacques, the Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands, is or is not still in office. According to → [1] and [2], he stepped down in March 2010, although according to [3], [4] and [5], it would seem to me that he remains in charge. Additionally, it appears dubious at to what his actual title is: either Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands or Commissioner for the Pitcairn Islands, plus the spelling of his surname, with or without the "c" in Jacques [6]. What do you happen to make of this? Thanks. Neve- selbert · 10:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This dispute is unfinished. Neve- selbert 12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Chip123456. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chip 123456 18:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the points of others is not fair debate. Neve- selbert 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
, or would this result in total apocalypse? This matter will not be solved via
personal attacks either, so I suggest you stop while ahead. We must come to an agreement sooner or later. You must stop infuriating the editor you are in dispute with: it is not funny at all, and can seriously distract from solving a proper issue. Your hardline stance does nothing to temper mine—rather the absolute opposite.
Neve-
selbert 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)One passing observation: you never offer solutions. If "Viceroy" is deemed unsuitable (unlikely), then I am sure we would come to some compromise agreement. The status quo is grossly unsustainable, the discussion proved it. Neve- selbert 12:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Never a simple solution? :)
The other editors beg to differ. MIESIANIACAL wrote that Monarch's representative "doesn't seem to be problematic in any way", "eliminates redundancies", and "maintains consistency", while Happy Squirrel wrote after careful consideration that with "Monarch's representative" "we get some consistency".
And they also offered their reasoned rebuttals as to why they do not support "viceroy".
And when the debate is not going your way, you suddenly realize that they aren't competent enough
Would you have considered them more of an expert had they supported "viceroy"?
Please, I ask of you to answer these three questions and then perhaps we will be getting somewhere. Otherwise, we remain stuck in an endless, pointless loop between right and wrong. Neve- selbert 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
only makes my steadfast commitment to it stronger than ever. This is perhaps bad diplomacy on your part. "Zero inconsistency and zero gender-bias"? Nonsense, this statement is beyond parody. "Monarch's Representative" simply makes things worse and more complicated; what of the UN representatives? Should they be designated as UN Secretary General's Representative –
? Absolutely not, as the UN S-G is not and never will be a state leader: if we were to go with this option, we would wreck the article(s) completely and thus tragedy will result. "My unexplained insistence"? Your attention span must be quite slow, I am with zero doubt passionate on this great issue—yet you fail to wonder why. Surely, for someone of your ability and apparent expertise, you can use your brain to work this one out. And lastly—of all the other editors involved in this dispute—none have expressed certain expertise in this arena specifically. Unlike yourself, they have not declared their ironclad opposition in the exact same merciless, unjust way that you have done. Until they do so (without hesitation): another moot point.There you go again, and here I go again too.
Do you feel that the phrase "Monarch's representative" is gender-biased to ANY extent?
Monarch's Representative –
we would have opened a dreadful
can of worms, and things would start getting overly messy and complicated. We would be stuck inside a painful dilemma, a spiralling loop. Easy question: what for the
Governor of Sint Maarten? Easy answer: Yes, I would believe you suggest changing this too. But yet, here we are, outside the safety net of The Queen and into the realm of another, different type of monarch. Sure, no problem, we can easily change this too. But then, this indicates a bias. Not only monarchs have representatives in their differing territories; why on Earth should we put monarchs on a pedastool? Surely, the
W&T administrator is a President's Representative –
? Absolutely, you will reply, we shall have to change this too. But then, we realise something icky:Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.
Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.
Monarch's Representative –
. In fact, it just seems about perfect. I mean, why not—to match Elizabeth's designation—simply replace the word Queen with Monarch? Voilà. Job done.Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term? Ah, sugar.
Monarch's Representative –
simply would not do. Even you would not dispute this. So quickly, to avoid casualty, we change the designations of not only monarchs but of the other heads of state too, such as those under the French President with President's Representative –
.President's Representative –
, then what of puppet leaders? If we are to go all the way back to
World War II, was
Philippe Pétain not a representative of
Adolf Hitler? Was he or not? In favour of him being so, Hitler did actually personally select him—would it be a bit of a stretch to call and label him as Fuhrer's Representative? And, there. We have sunk.Simply put, this is why I believe your "Monarch's Representative" solution simply would not work. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt.
The DRN has failed. There were no winners or losers. We either have three choices.
Viceroy –
.I can indeed quote her response to your most recent argument (of which you seemed to be conceding, somewhat):
While I agree that changes should be consistent, I can think of a few arguments: 1. Governor Generals form a large body with consistant descriptors, thus their descriptors should not be changed. 2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Only change those with obvious issues. 3. Standard descriptors do not account for the diversity of these positions. Hence we should give up on consistency and just abreviate titles. I don't want to get into a huge debate here as I don't think it is allowed :) but I just wanted to point out why question #2 is worth discussing. These are in fact the arguments I thought of when writing the list of starting suggestions for #2.
semester has started and I just don't have as much time anymore. I will be logging off for at least a week so don't wait for responses from me. I hope this gets sorted out. All the best to all of you.)
Monarch's representative –
. Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you? Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position, and return to your 23:39, 7 January 2016 state of mind, when you expressed your acceptance of and support for "Monarch's representative" as the solution.Stop making this
personal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Viceroy –
. Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January. You may revert the edit, and then I will have to resort to alternative measures. Although I would really hope you would seek the courage not to do so—as my arguments have already outweighed yours and I have practically debunked every single one of your opposing arguments given so-far. I have no idea why on earth Miesianiacal is involved in this discussion, he should just
mind his own business. Specifically:
How about this for the third option: You accept that due to my arguments (and
Happysquirrel and
Miesianiacal) that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Monarch's representative –
.
I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour.
Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you?
Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position,
In your above message you wrote that you are willing for a compromise. Which of your points are you ready to give up? What is your offer?
Viceroy –
and that is that for now.Imagine what it would feel like if someone addressed you in the same manner. I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour.and
And as it turns out he had had another run-in a few days earlier (while the Cook Islands debate was already underway), where his conduct was subsequently characterized by two editors as profoundly silly, very poor and uncooperative
This is getting us nowhere. Why are you so unable to just accept Viceroy –
? It is the finest option. List every single one of your concerns below, and I will try and debunk each and everyone of them. How exactly would you (personally) or the article suffer once the changes are implemented? Specify.
Neve-
selbert 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So you provoked an edit war
Broke a compromise
Monarch's Representative –
? I have already given my reasons why.Then lost the debate
Wrecked the DRN
Lied about my position behind my back
Viceroy –
would prove unlikely.When none of this helped, you declare than you will implement your suggestion anyway?
So far I haven't been aware of what Wikipedia mechanism are available to put a stop to aggressive and antisocial conduct, but the current situation seems to be calling for it.
Monarch's Representative –
? A straight answer, please.
Neve-
selbert 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Monarch's representative –
. "Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January." "It is the finest option." "although I will wait until the end of this month to see whether or not we can agree on something on civil terms." :)
ZBukov (
talk) 09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Monarch's Representative –
as legitimate? A Yes or No answer will suffice. Thank-you.
Neve-
selbert 22:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy
...?
ZBukov (
talk) 00:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
. There, I have answered your question. In return, answer my question—we both need to (at least)
agree to disagree. Now, if I may ask again. Do you or do you not acknowledge the legitimacy of my arguments against the Monarch's Representative –
alternative? Yes or No. If you take this dispute seriously enough to refrain from playing games, you would answer this question, and perhaps we would be getting somewhere (eventually) after all.
Neve-
selbert 01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be a No, then. So, there you have proved yourself an engager in
ownership of content; this is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you refuse to compromise on your position on Monarch's Representative –
by 31 January, I will
boldly make the edits anyway. You do not own the article, stop acting as if you have a copyright over it. You do not. If you immediately resort to
reverting like a petulant child, I will seek administrative help. You were speechless when I gave my complete denunciation of your alternative on 17 January. You did not respond. I have responded to every single one of your concerns against mine. Therefore, your arguments against struggle to hold water. You are the one refusing to cooperate, engaging in hostility, etc. You should
reflect on your own views for once. Stop
intimidating me against making the edits.
Don't call a spade a spade.
Refrain from bringing up any of my past disputes to make a point—purely for the benefit of yourself.
Do not underestimate the power of community guidelines. This is not considered as "hot air", I will have you know. Understand that. Neve- selbert 11:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
is the right answer. All three editors failed to clearly rebuff my arguments, yes: that does include you. You have simply dismissed my arguments for Viceroy in a seemingly sadistic and non-cooperative (without consulting other editors upon your own request) manner. Did you not once write that Even if we settled on "viceroy", or decided to keep "Queen's representative" [...]? "Even if"? Please, just drop the stick, refrain from reverting the edits, and move on. This issue means a lot more to me than it does to you. How big a sacrifice would it be, for you personally?
Head of State –
without disrepute. Why should the Cook Islands
Queen's Representative be any exception?Monarchical Representative –
, which was originally my preferred option. This remains a critical issue to sort, and I nave evolved my position in trying to help doing so. I apologise for the tension between our talking points. We should indeed act like Gandhi, a man who fought for his cause and died from the division fallen from it. Take care, and I mean this sincerely. I have been grateful for many of your edits elsewhere, and I do not want sustained animosity between us—the oven has turned itself off. This remains a minor issue undetected and misunderstood by many other editors other than both of us. If we can come to a mutual understanding, I would be extremely grateful. Please, just accept and acknowledge
the hours of effort I have made in my arguments, and hold your head up and eventually move on.
Neve-
selbert 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only hope that you will gather the courage to stop forcing your suggestion through, let it go, ”hold your head up and eventually move on”.
The opposite would be equivalent to saying: "I will only not hate you if you agree with me" - and that would say a lot about the person who tries to buy concurrence with such desperate measures.
Viceroy –
. Recently,
GoodDay came out in support of Viceroy –
. He said, and I quote: Use Viceroy, it's short & neatly compact & as I understand it, can also be gender-neutral.My alternative is finally gaining traction—thus strengthening my resolve even further. Warm regards. Neve- selbert 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the implication was not
sweet (as in a
doughnut-type of sweet), but rather
sour (in a
lemon-sort of way). In other words, I am still gritting my teeth over this. "We did not subscribe to your "disaster scenario" idea? We? Erm (excuse me) but when did the two other editors get the chance to respond to this "idea"—FWIW: it is not an "idea" as such but rather the complete opposite of one. It is not an "unfounded fear". How can it be so? Have I not laid the grounds adequately enough? If that is so, would you even care to specify or would this be too much time and haste for you? Secondly, the point against Viceroy –
being included due to chances of misunderstandings if used as a generic description
as it has been used previously as an official title remains totally irrelevant; e.g. the Moroccan prime minister has been officially titled since 2011 as
Head of Government, yet we use the designation Prime Minister –
because of the fact that we know he serves the duties of your typical PM—same thing applies to the Queen's Representative, serving the typical duties of a viceroy. And yet—all in all—if manage to lose the resolve and courage and resort to a pitiful
Falklands-style editing battle on 31 January, then shame on both of us—it would be quite a matter of who blinks first would it not? I have self-reflected—make of this what you will—and I have indeed determined that I am losing patience (after almost a month). How long would you be prepared for having this dispute go on and on and on? If your answer replies
how long is a piece of string, then there we have it. And, therefore, both of us are equally damned as petulant as each other.
Neve-
selbert 11:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy –
and I remain equally (and if not, more) steadfast against Monarch's Representative –
. There most certainly is a
chicken game going on between the two of us. The first editor (Miesianical) has not commented directly on this matter for almost weeks—I very much doubt he really cares either way, and the second (Happysquirrel) seems to be going on a personal break from Wikipedia. It really is about time you became more considerate for somebody else's feelings for once. I could indeed "explain" why I feel a strong personal attachment to this topic, although I am practically certain you will dismiss it as meaningless. Again, you should at least consider Viceroy –
as something to think about—compared to Monarch's Representative, it is harmless and will not breach
WP:NPOV. Why exactly is
this news article meaningless to you? Your dismissive attitude towards this issue (and me personally) is something I find overwhelmingly intimidating and alienating. You are trying to divide this issue between us and them; with us being you within the Gang of Three and them being me and
GoodDay. The further you antagonise equals the further you anger, and your provocation and sarcasm is equivalent to winding me up for your own amusement, e.g. That's it, and how you notably try to keep this case as enclosed as possible. The merits of Viceroy outweigh the merits of Monarch's Representative, this is my opinion and I realise the fact that yours is quite different. Only you feel as fanatical as I do on this issue. Either way, this probably won't result in the end of the world. Sincerely. Neve- selbert 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you regard the Queen being officially referred to in her own right as Lord of Mann and Duke of Normandy as sexist? Neve- selbert 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it be sexist or politically incorrect to refer to a lioness as a lion? I find it hard to swallow believing that The Lion King is an inherently sexist and prejudiced film. Neve- selbert 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you accept Governor-General as the descriptor for the CIQR? A simple Yes or No, please. Neve- selbert 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No. ZBukov ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Once the reign of Elizabeth II ends, Queen's/King's Representative –
should be used.
It is time for us to end this dispute and keep the status quo.
Neve-
selbert 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert you wrote: “The Cook Islands has never had a female QR—when this happens, if ever, we may have to reopen this case.”. If this is indeed your opinion than we don’t need to deal with the original issue at all, because for the time being the description “Queen’s representative” is apt, since the current monarch is female.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Neve- selbert 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very good with re-creating optical examples. I think it would help clarify things for outsiders, if you added optical examples to the 3 options at the top of the Rfc. It's highly likely, that many are confusing description with title. BTW, you should get an archive bot, for your talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
To me, Queen's Representative seems to be the choice. It's represented by fact, and should the queen die this year, one could say King/Queen's Representative. Clunky? Yes. Correct? Yes. Somewhat unlikely she dies this year? Yes. In 2015 Marsters was the Queen's Representative, not Viceroy or Monarch's representative. People will have to mess with the royal cypher when the queen dies, but we don't argue about its usage in those cases.Neve- selbert 18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In view of the interesting discussion above about Estonia (2009), perhaps you have already taken into account that the constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, " most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator ( talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
+ Perhaps you have also taken into account that this is not the same as in Canada. While all lands are subject to the Crown, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim (Aboriginal title), which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. "This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared Terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title." Qexigator ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 15:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason I'm fixing your indent there, is because your question is for another editor, not me. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Compared to Traian Băsescu, this perhaps is a situation slightly more complicated and tangled. For one, I really find it hard to understand why exactly the Acting presidents are necessary for inclusion. Despite his incapacity, Ramos-Horta remained both the active and unsuspended executive president despite his incapacity—as with Bush in 2002 and 2007 (and perhaps even Reagan in 1981 or Hugo Chávez in 2012–13). If Cheney should continue to be excluded, why should these Acting presidents be included? FWIW, the article 2008 in East Timor contains zero mention towards the Acting presidents. I do wonder why that is.-- Neve – selbert 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not certain as to how it's done in the other countries. But in the United States, when the vice president assumes the presidential powers & duties during the president's being too ill? the president continues on as being president & the vice president continues on as vice president. Therefore GHW Bush would not be added to List of state leaders in 1985 & Cheney would not be added to List of state leaders in 2002, List of state leaders in 2007. Note that in the USA (unlike many other republics), when the president dies, resigns or is removed from office via impeachment conviction, the vice president automatically become president. GoodDay ( talk) 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Having had a look (searching for the word acting) through Rulers, I have found quite a few missing acting state leaders from the SLBY articles. I am willing to include those acting for suspended presidents— bulleted on par with other state leaders—although I still do not see the fundamental purpose of not including those acting for incapacitated presidents inside a footnote. I certainly hope, as a compromise option (since my preferred option would be the get rid of all acting state leaders serving concurrently), that we can come to an agreement on this matter sooner rather than later.-- Neve – selbert 00:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Because he isn't Liechtenstein's head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 13:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been around those disputes in quite some time. If my memory serves me right, those who opposed using Soviet Union had provided sources that said the USSR taking over the Baltic states was illegal. On that basis, they argued against & opposed any changes to Soviet Union. GoodDay ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Spirit Ethanol has succeeded in convincing editors that Palestine was displayed as a "substate of" Israel. I am unsure whether or not you would like to contest this result or not, or whether you agree with it retrospectively. I myself have tried to contest it although a topic ban could be heading my way if I get involved with the situation any further. Since you were the editor that originally included the Palestinian Authority entry underneath Israel, I am keen to hear your opinion as to whether or not the current rendition of the article is apt. Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And hello again, Zoltan. Would you be OK with this rectification for the Palestine entry, below?
-- Neve – selbert 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I made this —although this soon reverted and reported by Spirit Ethanol and TracyMcClark respectively, out of pure antagonism. I reverted the edit soon after.-- Neve – selbert 00:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You may want to see Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Palestine re-instated as a subentry for other year pages!.-- Neve – selbert 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: Spirit Ethanol and Baking Soda are both the same user, he changed his username earlier on this month.-- Neve – selbert 20:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Lack of independence can be expressed via text as opposed to an ambiguous visual layout. I would like to ask you Zoltan, as a primary editor of this list series to take initiative and rid page of subentry format for all the list pages, all states. Baking Soda ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Best solution for those articles concerning anything to do with Palestine, is to DELETE the PNA from all those articles (1994 to 2012), while leaving the State of Palestine where it is (2013 to present). GoodDay ( talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears you broke 3RR on 28 March on this article. To avoid a block, you might promise to abstain from all editing of these lists of state leaders and their talk pages for two weeks. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- Neve – selbert 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, as to whether the pope is both the Vatican City's head of state & government. If the pope is both? then we shouldn't be listing the Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City and the Vatican Secretaries of State :) GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I've removed List of state leaders in 2016 from my watchlist. Fatigue factor, I reckon. GoodDay ( talk) 02:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We are requesting you comment on the DRN page on a dispute you are involved in. At first opportunity, please comment of the dispute about the List of state leaders in 2006 Joel.Miles925 ( talk) 13:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. ZBukov ( talk) 10:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Zoltan Bukovszky. The thee island territories may not be part of the UK proper, but they are certainly under the sovereignty of the Crown in right of the UK and not the Crown as an institution of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. That means that for purposes of International law, they are not independent countries but basically under the sovereignty of the UK Crown, which is a constituent part of the UK Parliament. The fact that they do not belong to the UK proper (that also goes for the other UK dependencies) or that Parliament's power in these territories may have it's limitations, is of no concern to the international community. That at least should be acknowledged when discussing these territories. Perhaps "Crown" could be described as "Crown of the UK".... Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The difference with Palau, the Marshall Islands and Monaco is that these territories are sovereign states and subjects of international law.
Hi again, Zoltan. I notice that you have reverted the new color scheme at List of current heads of state and government due to the apparent disruptive nature of it. I would note that the color scheme was originally changed on 05:50, 26 May 2016 by 89.139.227.212 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) due to the previous format being "unreadable in high-brightness monitors". Considering the IP's reasoning, I believe we should consider restoring his color scheme, don't you?-- Neve – selbert 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I found the information on a site in French http://www.comores-actualites.com/actualites-comores/le-premier-gouvernement-du-colonel-azali-selon-lhebdo-hari-hari/. Excuse me to be so late with the answer. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
I found the information on http://www.worldstatesmen.org. On the other side, usually, when a French Prefect (High Administrator, High Commissioner) leaves his function, the General Secretary of the Prefecture (of the High Administrator, of the High Commissioner) became Acting Prefect ((High Administrator, High Commissioner). As I found on http://www.dnc.nc/2014-2016-les-annees-bouvier/, Vincent Bouvier leaved his post in the middle of the week, between 8 June and 11 June 2016. On 7 June he gave a farewell reception in Nouméa ( http://www.nouvelle-caledonie.gouv.fr/Actualites/7-juin-Le-Haut-commissaire-et-son-epouse-donnaient-une-reception-a-leur-residence) and on 13 June he met the Minister of Overseas in Paris ( http://www.outre-mer.gouv.fr/?agenda-de-george-pau-langevin-ministre-des-outre-mer-du-13-au-17-juin.html) Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: @ TracyMcClark: @ JzG: @ Blackmane: @ OpenFuture: @ JamesBWatson: @ Ohnoitsjamie: @ Baking Soda: Contrary to his effusive promises made while begging his way out [7] of a block in April, Neve-selbert not only hasn’t refrained from editing the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, but has just reverted my edit twice on List of state leaders in 2004. So? ZBukov ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
...and has just deleted this very message from his talkpage, and then proceeded to revert his own revert. ZBukov ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the edit for crying out loud. Can we please just talk about this rationally? I realised I made an error of judgment and I reverted myself. And again, I don't want anything to spark up again. Please realise this.-- Neve – selbert 22:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, ZB. Neve-selbert made a mistake, admitted it & reverted the mistake. Case closed, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 23:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather allow the fellow to work through his mistakes & not throw him to the wolves. If you wish to take your concerns over Neve-selbert's recent behaviour to AN, ANI, etc; then that's your choice. GoodDay ( talk) 15:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Now look, there was honestly no need for this. If you could care to explain why exactly you reverted my edits, I would certainly take the time to sort out some sort of compromise or other. Again, all I ask is for consistency. Take a look at the other List of state of leaders articles from the 21st century (those that I have been able to fix up so far) and search for the word "superseded". I was only trying to be consistent with these articles. And if I may ask one last question: why did you revert this edit? What was wrong with it precisely? There is no need for this kind of hostility. You should have assumed good faith, a fundamental pinnacle of philosophy round here.-- Neve – selbert 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I profusely apologise. I made a serious mistake. I can promise not to make it again. Can you please just hear me out?-- Neve – selbert 22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey guy, you reverted my edits yesterday, but in fact the Beiyang government of the Republic of China is the legal and only Chinese government that has international recognition at that time, and there' s no Nationalist government until 1925. Your reverts has no sense. Cirolchou ( talk) 3:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On 4 January Tahc redirected List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2017 to List of state leaders in the 21st century without any reason. Neither I, nor you, nor other contributors of these articles expressed the accord to these action which I consider abusive. Please sustain me in the action for annulment of this action,express your protest to TAHC and ask the reversion of redirections. Thank you
Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Are you responding to me? or the other fellow? If the other fellow, then your indenting is wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 18:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
As I found on https://www.rulers.org/2017-01.html “On January 20 it is reported that Jammeh dissolved his cabinet, declaring he would oversee all ministries himself”. To present, the site www.rulers.org was a very reliable source so I used the information Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. tahc chat 15:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for to response to late but I wished and I succeeded that, first of all, I finish my work. I have nothing to talk with Tahc. This “clever” guy believed to be the only owner of absolute truth and has absolute rights in the Wikipedia, to destroy the work of other contributors. The sad fact is that there is a group that supports him, although his articles are usually unnecessary and weaker than they destroyed. I retreated to the Romanian Wiki where discussions are constructive and where there is no, at least so far, such individuals "smart" did not appear. Wikipedia English Because on English Wikipedia are also serious people like you and here we received many useful and accurate information, I feel compelled to continue to have contributions but only at the items which are not deformed the guy. Regarding administrator of Tokelau there is a problem. David Nicholson, was only appointed in November 2016. On http://www.tokelau.org.nz/Administrators+Corner/Administrators+of+Tokelau.html his mandate is presented as beginning in 2017. I wrote to New Zeeland Foreign Ministry in order to obtain more data but, as usually, the Ministry did not answer. For me the problem it is yet unclear Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Another guy who consider he I the only detainer of the truth and he is clever as List of Heads of State of UN, www.rulers.org and www,WorldStatesmen.org. And otherwise very stubborn and insistent. I think it would be good you should start a discussion about this problem. I will support you as strong as I can. Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a great pleasure to send all good wishes to a colleague archonologist Bogdan Uleia ( talk)
It's so very kind of you, @ Bogdan Uleia! I wish you a 2018 that shall be memorable for all the best reasons! :) ZBukov ( talk) 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was curious and I visited the “productions” of Tahc List of state leaders in the 21st century and List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. Firstly the both are enough out of date. It is explicable because it is very hard for a single contributor to keep an article up to date. In the same time, are a very little number of other authors who contributed to this article. Generally they are not the contributors who write for the articles which we update and, very interesting, it is none of those who supported Tahc for to destroy List of governors of dependent territories by years. In the term of content, in List of state leaders in the 21st century it is a very sophisticated division of continents by regions which, in my opinion it is very useless. It is simpler to search a country by the continent and by alphabetical order. On the other hand, the articles are very useless. If someone wants to see the leaders of a country in chronological order he can find special articles about these or can use www.rules.org or www.worldstatesmen.org. Talking about forking, in fact the articles of Tahc are forking, because he wrote them in the moment when articles with the same subjects already existed. I have nothing against that Tahc writing his own articles however these are “forking”. It is his time and his work. But I don’t understand why he must destroy the work of others. Only to prove he is the only detainer of the truth and smarter as all the others? I don’t know what to believe. It is a “brotherhood” who acts in favour of some contributors and against others? Although I renounced to the fight because the cleverer give up first, I am very unhappy and think to initialise again a List of current dependent territory leaders by year even I am sure “the gang” will destroy it again. Can you help me to obtain the victory and to insert a useful List of current dependent territory leaders by year? I wait for a response. Thank you!
On the other hand, it is my pleasure to wish you to have a very Happy and beautiful new year in 2020!
Bogdan Uleia ( talk) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)