User talk:LibStar/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Relations of Norway
Hi. I have partitipated in many deletion discussions about useless bilateral relations articles, mostly opining to delete, last seen here. However Norway is for me another case. What can I do to assure you that the country combinations I added are not frivolous, they are legitimate articles which should definitely exist? (you even removed Soviet, a neighboring country of Norway.) Having them as redlinks in the template facilitates the articles' creation by someone. I'll even create a few myself in the near future. Geschichte (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Shortage of bilateral relations articles
I have finally finished the more mechanical part of cleaning up "Foreign" relations of articles. I am not going look at any more stubs, although there are still quite a lot to be cleaned out. For some reason, Bulgaria escaped my merging frenzy, among others. Next step for me is to add more articles on bilateral relations. Don't worry, Costa Rica-Mongolia relations is not on my list. Nor are any of the developed countries - they have plenty of editors to improve their content. My biased list of countries that really could use articles on relations with their neighbors is:
Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros , Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Oman, Panama, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia.
All help welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
---
Romania Beats Norway 1-0 in Soccer Match (Jun 13, 1955) is surely enough to establish notability on its own - and you cut it out! Seriously, this kind of mundane article should be very low priority. Easy to expand, but there are lots of editors working on European subjects. Ethiopia–People's Republic of China relations is far more significant in my view. It could use a lot more content. Maybe someone who knows something about it will pick it up.
Different topic, I found an easier way to do the maps than I had been using.
- Go to http://www.inkscape.org/ and download the software - a free open source vector graphics editor
- Download http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6.svg and open using Inkscape
- Click on the first country, then select a color from the palette at the bottom
- Click on the second country, ditto
- File ... Export bitmap to "A B Locator.png"
- Close without saving
- Open "A B Locator.png" in an image editor and crop to focus on the two countries, save
- Upload to wikimedia as a derivative of File:BlankMap-World6.svg
For accessibility, I prefer to use basic Blue and Red as colors. I think people with impaired color vision will find them easier than the default green and orange/brown. Hope this is useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't yank this one - let it run its course. I don't expect to contribute more, but will watch it. It is hard to see how the relations with any country other then neighbors can be significant for a 3-year-old country with 600,000 people. But are they notable? Let's see if there are any original arguments for or against. The final decision does not matter much to me. Egypt–Libya relations, which needs a lot more work, is just slightly more important... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations intro
I see you are insisting on retaining the user:Groubani formula for the introduction to these articles: "X-Y relations are foreign relations between X and Y." This formula is used only in the stubs created by this rogue editor, and I greatly dislike it for two reasons:
- It is poor English, a school-boy definition.
- It imposes a narrow scope on the article that is not warranted by the title, which may be taken to also include historical, economic, cultural etc. relations. There is no reason for such a restriction.
See more mature pre-Groubani articles for better leads, e.g. Canada – United States relations, and note the breadth of these articles. I do not want to get into an edit war, but strongly disagree with using this naive and limiting formula. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- An article on the relations between two countries should give balanced coverage of all aspects of the relationship. Formal diplomatic relations may or may not be the most important topic - they may not even exist as with Cuba – United States relations. Or they may be exist but be less important than economic relations as with Ethiopia–People's Republic of China relations Do you have any objection if I remove the Groubani formula from Egypt–Mongolia relations? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this was important enough to message you on the talk page. right now I see that I am completely finished with the redirects, per your request, I did not redirect any countries that were next to each other.
- I keep having this nagging suspision that if I was just a little more patient with you, most of this drama could have been avoided. First the only problem with the redirect was that it was redirected to the wrong page, and now this view that bordering countries are your only big condition, along with a shared history. For this I am sorry.
- Because of all of this drama, I hope, if we do cross paths again, I will be more patient. \
Thanks. Ikip (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it state the it is inappropriate to use the long form for states in bilateral relations articles?--TM 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you cannot make consensus simply by editing a lot. "We" refers to more than one person.--TM 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe I used different search parameters than did you... and came up with 27 g-news hits since 2002. It is not much, certainly... but sometimes it is strangly difficult to source stuff from Australia. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Helsinki slang
I have resolved your request for citations by changing wording "uses Finnish grammar" -> "uses grammar of Spoken Finnish" --hydrox (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You betcha.
I honestly don't know why people do the things they do...and then they wonder why they get blocked! :) Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Pleasure to be of help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Flags
Are you confirming with your grace of being the one to tell others what is right and wrong that flag are permitted in the nationality sections? Please find relevance where it says NO for the nationality section. Watchover (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why? Is there a problem?
Why? Is there a problem? Please feel free to point me to any policies that would refrain me from doing just that. Thanks. Cortez2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Article rescue
FYI: the page User:Ohms_law/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, an article which you contributed to, has recently been userfied. I planned on changing it to an article more generally about the Swedish Naming Laws eventually, so and assistance you can give in this respect would be more than welcome. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Dimitar Kondovski
When you see a weak article such as Dimitar Kondovski, please check whether there is a corresponding article in other Wikipedias. In the case of Dimitar Kondovski, information on some of the awards he won and on the print encylopedia that has an article on him can be found in the Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian Wikipedias. I have added this information to the English-language article as well. You can use http://translate.google.com to get a good sense of articles in the most common foreign languages. The fact that the article now incorporates information from other Wikipedias is noted at the end of the article using the template {{iw-ref}}. - Eastmain (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Belmont, Sutton article
RE: article Belmont, Sutton. I saw you made wholesale changes to this article and to my contributions to this article. I do not consider them all to be improvements. I am disappointed you did not raise any of these in the talk page of the article first. I have not restored my work or undone anything, however I have made various edit to help improve this article. If you wish to make any further changes to the history section of the article, please can you discuss this first in the article's talk page; otherwise I shall treat any edits I deem significant which are made to the article itself on your part to be vandalism and harassment and I shall report it. Thank you. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- please stop editing my work only ONE MINUTE after I make an edit, whilst still making other edits to same article. Patience. Are you sure you are not trolling? --Roland Sparkes (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) e.g. Carl Warburg article
Warburg's Tincture article
RE: sections on reference/footnotes/notes/further reading Please can I refer you also to WP guidelines about references/footnoters etc at [1]. I believe what I have done to be perfectly consistent with this. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion sorting
Just a reminder that when you add the {{delsort}} template to an AfD to highlight you've listed it on this page, you need to list them on the pages. For example: this is listed on neither deletion sorting page. (Emperor (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
Susanna Petrosyan
I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia requesting assistance with Susanna Petrosyan. It is often better to ask for help with an article before nominating it for AfD. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Debate going on
Hi LibStar - it has been a while. I hope everything is going well with you. You may be interested checking / contributing to a massive debate going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, if you have not seen it yet. I think I am one of the two editors in the entire Wikipedia community that does not have strong feelings on either keeping or deleting these generally harmless but unsourced articles on obscure people. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Pakistan relations
Seeing how the usual crowd has not yet descended on this AfD (at least as of 7:45 Feb 3, and assuming my removal of Aymatth's comment is not reverted) I was thinking of pro-actively reaching out to those usual suspects and saying "In the interest of getting some outside opinions on the topic and forestalling the usual mayhem the accompanies these AfDs, as an experiment why don't we all refrain from participating in this particular AfD for a few days. Let some new people consider an X-Y relations AfD without all of our chatter, and see if they can do any better at achieving consensus. And then after 3 or 4 days, we can all jump in, and express our opinions. The idea here is not exclude us from participating but rather to try to create a little space for fresh opinions." You think this would be useful for this or a future AfD? Yilloslime TC 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Notability tagging of Armenia–Japan relations
I am very puzzled by this edit of yours to Armenia–Japan relations.
In it, you add "{{notability}}" to the top, despite the assertion (whose veracity you do not question) within the article that an entire book is devoted to the subject, and despite the article's easy success in an earlier AfD -- an AfD that failed to attract a single "delete" vote ("!vote").
Further, although the addition of a "{{notability}}" flag seems a particularly noteworthy edit, you failed to provide an edit summary.
I invite you to remove the "{{notability}}" flag, to explain yourself more fully on the article's talk page, or of course to take the article to a second AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please hold off adding more amateur radio AfDs
Until there is some decision on the basic issue of how to handle national member societies of a notable international organization, please hold off adding any more individual AfDs, it is simply multiplying discussion, with the same arguments needing repetition over and over. AfD is not the place to make this decision, probably. Once the decision is made, then, if it is decided that stubs are not appropriate, many individual AfDs for organizations with minimal independent coverage could be handled with a single AfD. However, Merge is probably a more appropriate response in that case, allowing less cumbersome editorial control, and we could merge many articles quickly. Merges, as well, do not lose the work that may have been done on individual articles.
Please stop for now, and negotiate consensus on this. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WP talk:Notability (organizations and companies) to gather views on the basic issue the use of stubs in a case like this. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it and commenting. --Abd (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. Based on some discussion at Talk for WP:ORG, I have a suggestion for you that could save some aggravation. Request a speedy close of the AfDs you have filed, pending the formation of consensus on the issue of a proposed intrinsic notability of a (1) national organization that is (2) recognized as a national member of a notable international organization, allowing use of stubs if needed. Under those conditions, the national society meets the literal criteria stated at WP:ORG: national scope and independent source. The basic "independent source" is the international organization, which is independent of the national one, the subject of the stub. If this turns out to be accepted, then debate over notability of these stubs is moot. If not, then you could request that the closing admin, accepting the speedy request from you, re-open, which I would support. I will also, if you desire, make these speedy requests myself, but I would not do that without your permission. Thanks for considering this. The reason for the speedy close would be something like "pending consensus on this class of article, please close without prejudice, allowing re-opening if the discussion doesn't turn out to be moot." --Abd (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Manuelargentina
Since the report, he hadn't edited in almost an hour. Also, I wasn't sure how the talk page edits were vandalism. It wasn't obvious. It is an AIV requirement that the vandalism be recent, ongoing and obvious. Since he has stopped, we need not take action at the moment to protect the encyclopedia. If he resumes this editing, report again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerning your comments about deleting the article if there are no keep !votes as expired prods. I've proposed that twice. The proposal was rejected both times. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuba-Namibia relations
Just out of curiosity, why did you tag Cuba-Namibia relations with a notability tag in November 2009?--TM 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Citing sources
Sorry, but citing stuff is not something I generally do unless i'm creating an article myself. I don't have the time or the inclination to do so. Besides, adding the sources is enough to establish notability. They don't have to be used as references in order to have their notability be recognized. SilverserenC 08:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your move of this article as your stated rationale for the move "we don't use nicknames in WP article names" is quite clearly incorrect and contradicts official Wikipedia policy. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, especially the following "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." This clearly applies in the case of Farrelly.
If you still wish to rename this article, I suggest seeking consensus at WP:Requested Moves as I consider any move to be controversial. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)