User talk:Alinor

• User talk:Alinor/Archive 1, 2

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For wonderful way of editing, with cold head and great peace. Thank you for your wast help in articles regarding Kosovo, and other questionable "hot" subjects. Keep up the great work! WhiteWriter speaks 11:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

About Image

Hello, Alinor Could you please modify this image

• Countries that have no diplomatic relation mark them red (particularly areas which are Grey/or no color.
• And also mark Disputed areas. Thanks--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's on the commons. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you edit commons images? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have account there. Alinor (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should just be able to set this account to global and have it linked to commons in the My Preferences page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization

This "article" is a rehash of Foreign relations of Palestine, albeit modified to portray your own POV. I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for your own political agenda. If you continue to misappropriate facts through the creation of your own versions of the same article, I shall have to report it at AE. Nightw 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Palestine is a redirect. I assume you mean Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. And it doesn't push any POV - what is POVed in it? As explained at "Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority/Archive_2 13:45, 31 December 2010, etc. comments" (this is the edit-line description of the edit that created Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization) - since a few editors oppose moving FR of PNA then a separate article FR of PLO should be created - to deal with the PLO relations. I opened a discussion on the problem of content duplication between the two here. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestine recognitions only.png

Hello Alinor. Have reversed several times my edits on the map every time you want to add to Uruguay. You could add to Uruguay on the map? I await your reply, thanks. Regards. MauriManya (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already a version with Uruguay - [1] and there is also another map with it - File:State of Palestine recognition.png. The problem is with not with Uruguay, but with other states that Night w wants colored in a way that isn't supported by sources. I don't agree with this WP:V breach, but he still reverts the map. We are discussing the issue and my latest proposal is this.

I don't object if you want to revert the map (again) to [2]. Alinor (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Commonwealth of Nations interested states.png

I saw you are the creator of this image, would you mind adding Somaliland as 'orange' per the sources on the page since it has applied for observer status. Outback the koala (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Outback the koala (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alerts

They're contributors to past discussions. The first set is from this pages archives, the second is from those that contributed to the [[State of Palestine]] → [[Palestine]] discussion. I normally just post to the community pages, which I did, but it wasn't garnering enough of a response. Do you have an objection? Nightw 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On the RM discussion I don't see notifications about notified "community pages" (Wikiprojects? have you notified these?) - only about specific users. And there are not in "first set" and "second set" - the first set as you say is from the previous RM I linked. Then you added Harlan. Then I asked why. Then you added additional editors. Alinor (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notification on WikiProject Palestine. Harlan was first notified because his contributions came up on my watchlist and I recalled that he had contributed to previous move discussions. When you asked me to find the contribution, I initially couldn't, but then I found the RM I'd been thinking of in the State of Palestine archives, and then promptly contacted all those involved there. What are you accusing me of? Nightw 09:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject:Palestine notification isn't mentioned in the RM discussion. So, you notified the other editors only after I asked why Harlan is individually notified? Anyway, I don't want to accuse you of anything, just to see what your motives are. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop! AE requirements

Since you so often blindly cite it, I'm sure you haven't forgotten the arbitration enforcement requirements imposed on you (as well as myself) —that is, to discuss changes before making them on the articles. You're attempting to move entries in the list at Foreign relations of Palestine —an undiscussed change without consensus, and against reliable sources.

The "noticeboard discussion" you've cited as justification pertains only to the use of a particular source (Doebbler) to substantiate a particular claim. It did not address the issue of the placement of entries. Other sources have been provided in the talk page, which you're aware of and continue to ignore. If you continue to block the use of these sources, fine, but don't expect to get a consensus to move the entries they pertain to. Nightw 11:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the only source in the article that supports the placement of Syria and Turkmenistan in the "conflicting/inconclusive sources" section. What I did is to remove the source per the noticeboard discussion - and since it's not longer used, there is nothing else in the article to support such placement, that's why the two got moved out of this section.

Whether there are some unknown other sources is a separate issue. You are free to propose such on the talk page. When you did it last time there was no agreement to use the source you gave (for this purpose), because it didn't even mention Syria or Turkmenistan (and also has other flaws).

So, please stop violating the noticeboard result, restore [3], and use the talk page if you want something changed. Alinor (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

? I'm not making any changes... That would be you making changes, and I've been reverting. You're free to remove any sources that were deemed unreliable by the noticeboard discussion. You do not, however, have a consensus to move things around, and that's quite clear from the talk page. Even the noticeboard discussion wasn't very conclusive since it only got a response from one editor, see WP:CONLIMITED. Nightw 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the source is unreliable the arrangement that depends on that unreliable source is removed along with the source. If you want to add another source that results in a different arrangement - you are free to propose such on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Just because a user unilaterally blocks the adding of reliable sources without the consensus of the community (nor any attempt to get one) because of a POINT he or she wishes to make, doesn't mean that the information is then changed because of it. You'll need to get a consensus before you can change information. Any discussion on the topic so far has failed to achieve one, and you were well aware of that—hence my criticism of your behaviour. But before any of that, the source currently used may or may not be unreliable (your thread didn't achieve any significant level of response from editors). Nightw 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. My disagreement about some sources that you want to add (because they don't show what you want to use them for) is not related to the removal of another source that is unreliable. And yes, the noticeboard did reach consensus - and you were informed about both the start and the end of the discussion, and you were also informed about the result long ago. So, your current "not significant discussion" comments are misplaced - you had all chances to object and to give meaningful opposite reasons (if there are any). You also didn't say "not significant discussion" when you were informed about the results. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus to move entries and that your attempts to gain one have failed. Your changes were reverted, and per WP:EP, you should now go about trying to gain a consensus to repeat them. End of discussion. Nightw 15:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Consensus reached is that the source is not used regardless of your unreasonable objections. End of discussion. Alinor (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy as an informal mediator

Hello Alinor. Please see my suggestion at User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo

I have replied to your Talk:Constitution_of_Kosovo#UNMIK_framework_de_jure_still_in_force.3F. I have come to the conclusion, per my reply, that all acts of the government have to be promulgated by the SRSG to have effect. So, for the Constitution to be law, the SRSG should have promulgated it, correct? Where is this promulgation? (UNMIK haven't published regulations since 2008, around the time of the Constitution.) Int21h (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I commented there. Alinor (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Favour

Do you have anything that states that the UN considers the status of Kosovo to be unresolved? Or like a "Question of Kosovo" or something? Nightw 10:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is UNSCR1244 - it's still in force and not superseded.

Also, we have sources showing that the UNSG takes into account the 'recognition as State by the international community'[4] when deciding on who can become a State party to an international treaty deposited with him. The result can be checked at [5] and examples such as [6]. The RoK, SoP, ROC, SADR aren't such states - they aren't recognized as State by the international community and they aren't State party to any UNSG deposited treaty.

Also they aren't displayed on the UN map of the world.[7]

All these sources show that the real world distinction is "other10 vs. the rest". Of course some of the other10 have "substantial" recognition by other states, but this doesn't mean that they are "generally recognized" or "mainstream regular states". Alinor (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent. Many thanks. Nightw 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I opened a thread on the State of Palestine talk page that you might be interested in. I've also some reading material for you to look at [8][9][10]. And I voted to support your proposal on that mediation debate. Nightw 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the section on SoP talk and at the links you put here. I'm glad we aren't opposing each other suggestions "by default" because our unrelated disagreements on other topics - so, thanks for that. Alinor (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Nightw 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be interested to hear what you think of this...? Nightw 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other issue, is there a way that you could perhaps simplify your proposal or at least the language used in it? It might be better received that way. I consider it to be a more NPOV setup, since you're not relying purely on voluntary subscription to a hand-picked group of organisations. Nightw 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I won't be quick to answer (if at all) for the next few days. Alinor (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

List of states mediation

Alinor - I didn't mean that to be a show-stopper. I'm simply trying to push this past the "we're completely stuck" phase to some kind of forward progress. trust me, everyone is going to have to compromise here, I'm just starting with you because you're in the minority position. once you give in on something, that will be leverage to encourage other people to give in on other things, and then we can start drawing it together. see what I'm aiming for? --Ludwigs2 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to look at the discussion. I'm in the middle of a period without much internet access, so excuse me if I'm late with responses. Alinor (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was jsut worried that I was being too brusque (been having an un-fun time with things lately). --Ludwigs2 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Seabed Arms Control.png

Dear Alinor, could you upload File:Seabed Arms Control.png to Commons as I'd like to integrate the map with the German version of the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. Thanks in advance! Teddychen81 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have such account. But if you have you can do it - you either put a template 'image proposed for move to commons' or do it yourself and leave a link in the description to the original file/uploader - for edit history/author acknowledgement/licensing information. Alinor (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and done Teddychen81 (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. I took the liberty of lodging your old proposal on your behalf. Night w2 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Biometric passports.

I don't know, where did you find out, that Ukraine issues biometric passports, but believe me it doesn't! I can't wait for the day, when they'll start, but the only thing they do is talk. Not a single biometric passport of any type has ever been issued to Ukrainian citizen. Please, correct the map on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biometric_passports.png

User:Igor alexandrov has added Ukraine - I don't know his source about it, please contact him. Alinor (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I am asking for Arbitration Enforcement for your recent conduct on List of sovereign states. This is just the standard procedure. Will provide you with a link as soon as the page is created. Ladril (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC) It is live now: [11]. Ladril (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions for Balkans-related articles

By the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions, administrators are authorised to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing a Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue to conduct yourself inappropriately at List of sovereign states, or edit disruptively at any other related article, you will be sanctioned, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article or topic ban. I would encourage you to engage more readily in the ongoing dispute-resolution proceedings concerning this article. If you were going to continue to revert-war instead of discussing and compromising, then I'm not sure why you agreed to mediation in the first place. If you need assistance at any point, please contact me or any other uninvolved administrator. Regards, AGK [•] 14:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your questions about Kosovo

In answer to your questions, UNMIK cooperates with the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo "at arm's length". UNMIK does not recognize Kosovo's institutions as independent, but recognizes them as if PISG, because they were elected members chosen through democratic elections, in a sort of sense giving legitimacy to it'. Think of it the same as the international recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Republic of Kosovo enjoys international recognition as the body of internal self-government on the territory of Kosovo excluding North Kosovo and the two Serbian municipalities south, however with no recognition for its external representation on the capacity of foreign relations as a whole, i.e. no international recognition of its independence.

It's the same as with the Serb institutions e.g. in North Kosovo, effectively de facto in that manner run by the Republic of Serbia. While there is absolutely no recognition of the division of North Kosovo, or the two southern Serb municipalities from the remainder of Kosovo, which legally and internationally remains an indivisible whole UN-governed Serbian territory (but with the temporary suspension of the sovereignty of the latter).

There was no legal transfer between PISG and RoK, but UNMIK has found a solution in the manner of such a jurisdiction hole by mainly cooperating through EULEX, who is actually the main arm of cooperation between the two. You see, although UNMIK and EULEX function under the auspices of UNSCR 1244 (1999), and are in effect neutral to the status by "ignoring" the RoK's claims on independence (which they effectively do, EULEX has in a number of moments been signing treaties which surpass the sovereignty levels of Kosovo with other parties, such as the Treaty of Cooperation with the Serbian Police signed with the Serbian Ministry of Interior Affairs, despite the opposition of RoK, which was effectively meaningless because EULEX draws its authority from the UNMIK as per endorsed officially by the UN SC in late 2008), there is one big difference - UNMIK was created in 1999, meaning it functions under the capacities of such a period, pre-UDI of the RoK. However, the EULEX was officially approved in November of 2008, after the declaration, in another reality - in which there is no such thing as PISG, and only RoK. This field of functioning poses the EULEX as within its framework to cooperate with RoK in the same way as international parties cooperate with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and the State of Palestine shares significant similarities with Kosovo, in the manner that both enjoy a significant level of foreign recognition), whereas the UNMIK, created within the realities in which there is no RoK, is thus free of implication in activities which would make it seem as if it is de facto or de jure recognizing Kosovo's UDI.

AFAIK, this was all the most important reason for deploying EULEX in place of UNMIK - sure, a refreshment was needed and the mission was already deemed a partial failure in some fields, but the real motive behind deploying EULEX lies precisely in the difficulties created around the UDI of the group of representatives of the people of Kosovo. You see, between Kosovo's UDI in February and the November takeover on EULEX' part, there was quite a lot of chaos and jurisdiction problems in Kosovo, causing everyone to hurry up to deploy EULEX.

I hope this clears up things, regards --AVNOJist (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

P. S. And as for the Rep. of Kosovo, it recognizes only the ICO as the supreme holder of all powers (be it executive, judicial or legislative) over Kosovo (e.g. the ICO is the one that approved the Constitution of Kosovo). The international military mission it refers to is KFOR. The RoK objects EULEX and UNMIK and politically wants them out, but through a reciprocal approach from them, politically accepts them as an illegitimate reality that must be. RoS recognizes UNMIK and KFOR since 1999 and cooperates with them, while also having a limited form of cooperation withe the PISG prior to the break-off at the status talks. Since the UNSC's green light on EULEX, Serbia also recognizes it and cooperates with (having already signed a specific treaty I've mentioned to the above), but considers the RoK and ICO illegal institutions and boycotts them in every way. The Serbian parallel institutions in Kosovo are recognized by solely Serbia and enjoy no recognition from anyone else, but the UNMIK and EULEX intervene and treat them as legitimate representatives, the same way as e.g. PLO is being treated, as I've already mentioned. ICO though, despite its formal recognition of Kosovo's independence, maintains a form of informal but strong connections (duh, SR of the EU, its obvious) with the EULEX, and thus UNMIK too. NATO's military presence is strictly a militaristic mission and enjoys full recognition from all parties, being the sole body in Kosovo that actually enjoys that. I know, pretty chaotic. :D --AVNOJist (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WIPO logo 2010.gif

Thanks for uploading File:WIPO logo 2010.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:ACP EPA Groups.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ACP EPA Groups.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Smurfy 20:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Launch vehicles

Template:Launch vehicles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GW… 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Sandbox

Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Western Sahara lists of positions

Template:Western Sahara lists of positions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tachfin (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Energy Community.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Energy Community.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

XFD:Template:Political parties of Western Sahara

Hi,
As you contributed to Morocco and Western Sahara related articles, I think you might be interested in this discussion. Your input would be appreciated.

Regards --Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfC pertaining to List of sovereign states

Please join a preference survey on how to divide our List of sovereign states. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, Nightw 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion

Three files that you uploaded, File:SoP recognition and PLO relations.png, File:State of Palestine recognition.png and File:State of Palestine explicit recognition per official sources.png, have been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nightw 17:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Node Module

Hi Alinor, I made a new article, and from one the list of spaceflights article I wandered into the Template:ISS modules following your link, also looking at who is about, I see you are the one who knows what your up to, so I thought you may want to know of the existence of the new article. There are also two new articles I will create soon, for NEM-1 and 2. I'll need to think of a good name for them though. The node module won't go up on a Proton, it uses a smaller class of progress and modded soyuz like Pirs and Piosk did. Penyulap _talk 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Alinor! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Foreign relations of Macedonia map

Could you update the aforementioned map to show an independent South Sudan

Please add Libya as a coutry has an Independence-related National Day to File:National Days.png. Moreover, I think Egypt has no day like that, see List of national independence days.--Maher27777 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Update WCO map?

Could you please update the image to include the following countries?

• Saint Lucia
• Vanuatu
• Guinea-Bissau

I completed the list of countries, but the map needs to be updated to include the most recent members. Thanks. Questionkiddo (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)