User talk:Orange Tuesday

List of countries

The project you made in July in [a page of your user space that I discovered but won't name] is very interesting and adding a historical perspective would be quite useful for the readers. The history is often explained on the countries' individual pages, though, but just the number of lines affected to a country can provide a (often sad) hint about the stability of the place.

You've seen that our 'usual suspects' (a almost relevant reference for the area) have hardly stopped their noisy quarrel, despite our try to move the discussion to a higher and more fundamental level. Do you think it would be appropriate and even allowed to open a new discussion page in a user space, invite there a selection of people (the moderate ones on the main talk page + international law specialists who would be ready to help) and continue the serious discussion without noise? The page being in a user space, its owner would have the right to clean the discussion page if its existence were to be found out by the extremists and be cluttered on its turn like the main discussion page. What do you think? Clpda (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've put this page on my watchlist; you're welcome to reply there, I'll be notified. Clpda (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As nice as it would be to get away from the constant noise on the talk page, it would be a bit of a logistical nightmare to set up and it would probably generate some ill-will. It may be allowed, but it may also violate some arcane content forking rule or something. I'm not that well versed in Wikipedia bureaucracy, and I don't really want to take the time to find out.

I definitely agree that the list of countries talk page needs to be free of ranting before any serious work can be done on it, though. I'm going to post a proposal on the talk page shortly and see if I can encourage more concrete discussion. But if that doesn't cut through the white noise, maybe we should leave a message on the administrator's noticeboard (or whatever that thing is called) and ask them to help us deal with the more extreme people. I don't know. The current situation is pretty frustrating.

Oh, and thanks for the comment on that project. I've been meaning to finish it, but there's a lot of information to fit in there and it's difficult to format. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Logistics per se wouldn't be such a problem but I share in principle your ethical concerns and don't know WP bureaucracy very much either - I was just trying to be pragmatic. Your proposal looks fine to me. BTW, about the 8 territories you don't know what to do with, I can say that French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion are all French departments with the same political status and rights as the 'metropolitan' (as they call the traditional / main land ones) departments. The only differences may concern the integration level into the European Union and details such as the dates for summer time etc. So, they need even less an entry than Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where devolution quite changed their status towards Westminster - but this is another story.

As you say, if your proposal doesn't cut out the rant, the Administors' noticeboard would be an option - maybe there is a specific noticeboard for recurrent lack of NPOV, I'll have a look and tell you.

Finally, about formatting, I'm ready to try to help. There are only 3 months that I'm on WP but I already had to deal with tables and templates and learned a little bit about them (and I'll be happy not to forget them too quickly). Clpda (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanked

Hope you didn't blank your page because it seemed there was a lot of nit-picking comments on it. (I asked a question about the Saudi flag). 'Appreciate the work you've put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanstaple (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing like that. I just wanted to clean out the clutter. There were a lot of bot comments, a welcome message for my old username, and so on. I could have archived it, I suppose, but I didn't think there was anything on there that was particularly worth saving for the ages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Myanmar (2007 proposal).svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag of Myanmar (2007 proposal).svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

List of flags by country & List of countries

Hiya Orange Tuesday. All I want is for those 2 articles to be in sync (which they're currently not). There's gotta be a compromise between inclusionist & exclusionist. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't view myself as being "exclusionist". I'm just trying to make sure that the list has a clear purpose and that it has inclusion criteria that are consistently applied. I also don't think that there's any problem with the two lists being out of sync. One is a list of flags and one is a list of political entities. (And I say this as a big fan of both of those things) Point is, the two lists are in different contexts, so we don't have to have a single rigid definition of "country" for both. Honestly, I'd prefer if neither of those lists used the word country at all. But whatever. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It's time this 'accused' troublemaker (me) moves on, from those articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think you were a troublemaker. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks OT. I only wish others shared your view. It's a risk of being labeled, one takes when trying to improve (as one sees fit), these types of articles. PS- it's not the first time I've been accused of it. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Old Flag of Zambia.svg

File:Old Flag of Zambia.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Flag of Zambia (1964-1996).svg. 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:Flag of Zambia (1964-1996).svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:State Flag of Iran (1964).svg is now available as Commons:File:State Flag of Iran (1964).svg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:18th Century Flag of Sulu.svg

Hello. I am wondering how you got this image? Is it from http://www.webalice.it/paopadd/?

Philippine Commonwealth

There is a source there that explains the complex status of the Philippines at that time. It may not have been independent but it was still treated as a sovereign state. I bet it is just the U.S. trying to save face by insisting a 1946 independence.--23prootie (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the term "Commonwealth" is used instead of "Republic" to specific it's dependency status with the U.S.--23prootie (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the source. It is an excerpt from the work on an expert on international law. The source clearly states: "The Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippine is a Sovereign State". --23prootie (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problems lies on the one-of-a-kind status the Philippines had at that time. Depending on opinion, it could be treated as sovereign, non-sovereign, or even both. So that's where the problem starts. But the thing is it's not a dependency so putting it there would be wrong. Maybe it should be compared with Australia, it didn't became fully sovereign until the mid-80's--23prootie (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you just said that it had a dependency status with the U.S. like half an hour ago. Regardless, the Philippine Commonwealth was not one-of-a-kind. There have been many similar arrangements of self-government without independence during the decolonization era. Look to the Cook Islands and Niue for a modern example. They're even eligible to join the UN like the Philippine Commonwealth was. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Or better still, let's compare the Philippines to the modern US Commonwealths. Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands are both listed as dependencies of the United States. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you reverted because I'm going to clarify something. I found this at the treaty of Manila (1946) page. [1]. It basically states that the U.S. recognizes Philippine independence, that it relinquishes sovereignty over the islands, and that it pledges to establish diplomatic relations. It does not, however, state when the Philippines became a sovereign state, in accordance to the Montevideo Convention, nor does it specify whether or not the Philippines was sovereign beforehand.--23prootie (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem on the 1936 list, there's no section for Other states, that's weird.--23prootie (talk) 22

49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback...

Hello, Orange Tuesday. You have new messages at Talk:List of sovereign states.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayron32 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign states

Hey, I didn't really "notice" Ostland there until now. As long as the Baltics are mentioned there "somehow", I don't mind. Some extra notes as you offered, wouldn't hurt though. thanks.--H2ppyme (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Commonwealth

I have two sources that describe the Philippines' situation as semi-independent. So please don't revert it when I fix the sovereign states list.[2]--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Second Flag of Bhutan

Hi -- your image of the Second Flag of Bhutan appears to have the two background colors reversed -- evidiently there was some question about the translation of the original description, see the discussion at Talk:Flag of Bhutan. Would you be interested in updating the image? Elphion (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pop Sandbox Logo small.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pop Sandbox Logo small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orange Tuesday. You have new messages at Template talk:Country data Afghanistan.
Message added 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay to merge?

Hey Orange! As you were the only editor to comment on my earlier merge proposal, I was wondering if you could give me the go-ahead to make the change. I've done 6/11 decades for the 1900-2009 period. As an example of what would happen, the List of sovereign states in 20XX page would be blanked and redirected to the newly created List of sovereign states in 2000-2009 page. I haven't yet attempted to condense the 1940s or any earlier into decades; I will try, and if it becomes too cumbersome to do for more volatile periods, I'll keep them as they are.

As a side note, the List of sovereign states in 2010 page should (until 31 December) redirect to the current List of sovereign states page. As it is, it's a duplicate article. After the new year, the page would then be fine to reintroduce. Night w (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Woah! You've definitely been busy! That's perfect! Okay, so I'll move my pages to mainspace as temp versions, until we get around to changing their layouts. I'll leave the 2000s and 1990s as they are, so you can merge them once you're satisfied with your drafts (although the 2000s looks fine to me). I've also redirected the 2010 page to the current list. Cheers! Night w (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to fix this template, so that it will work for decades as well as single years? I've removed it from the newly merged pages for now. Night w (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To commend your efforts...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. I hereby award this to you for your brilliant formatting, your diligent attention to detail, and your tireless efforts on the lists of sovereign states by year. Great work, mate!!! Night w (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

non-self-governing territory becomes a trust territory under United Nations Trusteeship Council

Hi Orange Tuesday, Sabah and Sarawak until now still under non-self-governing territory becomes a trust territory under United Nations Trusteeship Council United Nations and Decolonization and please see also UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and please remember this issue being on politics is not just a legal problem, best regards Her631 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting that website. The list of all current non-self governing territories is here: [3]. As you can see, no Sarawak or Sabah. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

this similar To protectorate colony, please see Constitution of Malaysia, with regards Saleomen (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, this article is not about non-self governing territories but Dependent territory Her631 (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't the one who brought up up non-self governing territories. But it doesn't matter either way. If a territory is an integral part of a state then it cannot, by definition, be a dependent territory. Saint Pierre and Miquelon is a dependent territory of France and Guadeloupe is not. Guam is a dependent territory of the United States and Alaska is not. Sabah and Sarawak, being parts of Malaysia, cannot be dependent territories. This is not a matter of dispute. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Similar except for the fact that they are integral parts of Malaysia, which means they cannot be dependent territories. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

whether UN entities in the document which determines with that ?, maybe you can help me, thank you Her631 (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also please try and stick to one account. Sock puppetry is against wikipedia rules and it makes communication difficult. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

accordance with General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), 4 Principle 9 of the Annex before any other documents please respect my contribution, thank you Her631 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry how does that support your claim that Sabah and Sarawak are dependencies of Malaysia? No offense intended here but your English isn't very good and I don't think you're correctly interpreting the sources you keep linking. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I'm sorry my English isn't very good, renewal I add some references how your opinion Her631 (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See this is the problem, not a single one of those sources actually backs up your claim that Sabah and Sarawak are dependencies. All you're doing is adding sources that describe non-self governing territories in general, and we've already established that Sabah and Sarawak aren't non-self governing territories. I don't know if you just don't understand what those sources are saying or if you're trying to inject some weird nationalist POV or what but please trust me when I say that Sabah and Sarawak, as states of Malaysia, are not dependent territories. They just do not fit the definition. Plain and simple. There is no source in the world that would justify including them on that list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bhutan

Hi Orange -- Given the heat building up in Bhutan, I just hope you're not reading any hostility into my remarks. I appreciate your dedication to getting this right, and since there is no obviously correct answer, finding a "least incorrect" answer will be tricky. I'm just tickled to have stumbled into a truly obscure point of history, something that the standard sources like FOTW seem not to have gotten quite right. None of them seem to be aware of the photos you turned up, which is just a bit scary. -- Elphion (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No I'm definitely not, and I hope you aren't either. This is just a very, uh, non-standard situation I guess you could say. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this very complicated history.

Interesting as hell, though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the first change to the article, rewriting "First National Flag" and switching in your new image. Feedback? (Still working on the "Second National Flag", which I will probably call "Later flags".) -- Elphion (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Second update complete. Resting for now ;-) -- Elphion (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Nice work. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Africa Award
		I just looked over your contributions. Thank you for working so hard on African history. --I dream of horses (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Hey mate! Are you going to implement the changes you proposed under this thread? If I recall, it received substantial support (notwithstanding the IP user). I've already added a number of the other suggestions you made. Night w (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

sovereign states sorting criteria

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Bhutan

Hi im from WikiProject Bhutan and i was looking to see if there are still any active people working with the Flag of Bhutan article. I checked the talk page and you seemed like you where actively participating in the article. Spongie555 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting development: see User talk:Zscout370#Michel Lupant -- Elphion (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Burma

hi there,

the flag you found has been sufficiently modified File:Flag of the State of Burma (Stylized version).svg to be in line with the money you found. If you are fine with it, let me know on the talk page and we can add it into the article. Gryffindor (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The eyes of the peacock feathers need to be a bit larger, the borders to it are still too thick. Can you change that? Gryffindor (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it looks good now. We can include it in the article with a small description in the text about when it was probably introduced. I would say towards the end of the war in 1945, the previous version was probably too difficult to draw by most people. Gryffindor (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenglon

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kenglon, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V15_206.gif.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of countries in 1707 for deletion

The article List of countries in 1707 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries in 1707 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 12:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry

sorry, i have calmed down now Dn9ahx (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria

You have participated actively in previous discussions of the subject, so maybe you will be interested to join the current MEDCAB discussion here. Alinor (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, but that is a very large discussion and it doesn't look much progress has been made since I tapped out of it. I hope things get resolved but I feel like I'm kind of past the point where it'll be worth my time or effort to contribute. Good luck. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Hey, you are doing good work on there. I just thought I would mention that, so few people say positive things to others, so, well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. And thank you for being such a consistent voice of reason on the talk page. This whole wikipedia thing works so much better when people are willing to discuss things rationally. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are too kind. Yeah it is so much easier when inflamed passion is met with rationality. I wish I could do that in my actual life...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hamitic

Hi Orange, I am not very excited about any racial term. However, many people still use terms such as; Celtic, Berber, Semitic, Cushitic & certain populations who don't fall under these groups have to be represented equally to avoid a cultural genocide. Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay but "Semitic" is still used in modern scholarship whereas "Hamitic" is not. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats true mainly because of its relevance to Arab & Israelis, but that doesn't mean we can ignore other ethnic groups that fit the Hamitic category. A tribe of Ancient Hamitic Ancient Lybians is just as important as the Akkadians or Phoenicians, its not our job to discount other people especially when we are talking about them in the historic sense. Cadenas2008 (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Two of the core wikipedia principles are WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research. If you want to mention a tribe of ancient Libyans that is fine but you need to describe them in a way which can be verified in a reliable source. The term "Hamitic" is not used the way you are using it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can refer to them as Hamitic speaking people. I used the word in the ancient sense mostly that is, feel free to edit it as long as you keep it within context. The case of modern Libyans who mostly self-identify as Arabs & some Libyan Berbers today the term Hamitic is less relevant, but in neolithic times there was a culturally Libyan population that was assimilated in later times into Berbers, Semites, Egyptians & Greeks who settled Libya. Cadenas2008 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot refer to them as Hamitic speaking people because the term is unused in modern scholarship. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I saw that you were collecting sources here. I don't suppose you'd mind if I dropped some in there? I've got a bunch, and it's probably best to keep them all in one place in a handy table like you've setup. TDL (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

By all means. That'd be very helpful. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sambas Flag.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sambas Flag.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. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"cool it"?

Can you please substantiate your claim that I'm not "civil" and who gives you right to decide when should editors "take a brake"? Tx. albert humbert (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft for RFC

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Really well done. Thanks so much. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Last one's up. Nightw 12:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)