User talk:Orange Tuesday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] File:18th Century Flag of Sulu.svg

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

18th Century Flag of Sulu.svg

[edit] 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)

[edit] Talkback...

You have new messages
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orange_Tuesday"