User talk:RJFF

/Archive

Belizean general and local elections, 2012

We can try nom this for GA whenit settles down? Looks really good now. Up for it?Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Weve got prose and all in the other bit. Though i guess analysis should come in the next few days/weekLihaas (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

once off ITN,think wed be ready to pursue GA. but should go to peer review first.Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvadoran legislative and local elections, 2012

Can you keep an eye on it...50% more to come through then can mark ready on ITN. I may pop back in a couple of hours.Lihaas (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For keeping an eye on the 2011-2012 Egyptian Election Wikis, spotting errors and scrutinizing citations and contributions. Hous21 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Nationalist Republican Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Slovak_parliamentary_election,_2010_complete_results 85.237.227.40 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, It's friggin obvious what their political leaning is. Just look at their webpage: http://www.naseslovensko.org/ Notice that they stole their symbol from this party. And they are even led by Kotleba! 85.237.227.55 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia has principles like Verifiability and no original research. Arguments that are usual in "real life" like "It's friggin obvious" or "just look at their webpage" are not valid on Wikipedia. Everything on here must be verified with independent, neutral, reliable sources. Interpreting logos or drawing conclusions from how you perceive politicians is considered "original research" and is deprecated here. I hope that you can understand and accept this. --RJFF (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So... When the part 1.Uses Nationalist symbols, 2.Preaches Nationalist Ideology, 3.Fills it's homepage with Nationalist symbols, articles, slogans, It's not enough for you to conclude that they are Nationalists? 85.237.227.55 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. WTF do you mean "Original research"?! I posted a link TO THEIR PARTY'S HOMEPAGE. What more proof do you need? 85.237.227.55 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough for me. Not enough for Wikipedia. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What you do is called original research and contradicts Wikipedia's principle of verifiability. I am 100% convinced that it is a nationalist party, maybe even ultra-nationalistic, but you cannot write it on Wikipedia, unless you have a reliable source to verify it. Interpreting symbols, analysing ideologies, slogans, publications of the party is original research and does not substitute citing independent sources. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw: The party's homepage is a first-party primary source, while Wikipedia relies on independent, secondary sources. --RJFF (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, according to the link you posted, primary sources are allowed as long as we use them with care. Nobody whined back in 2010 when we described them as Nationalists. I think it's time for you to read this policy fundamental principle. 85.237.227.54 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

mark tyrant

if you mean why i delete abhisit because i found in his birth certificates from toad face in parliament to discuss (attack mark from two nationality), he show mark's birth certificates don't have abhisit just mark vejjajiva only--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 01:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Swiss referenda, 2012

Nice work (got some good team work going here (are you following by contribs? ;))

Just a q. is there any issue on the gambling initiative like the others have/? i dont speak german so dont know.(Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

Can we add the unopposed part with a source to the issues section?

btw- el salvador is ready for itn...can ou mark it? We can also add a list of MPs later when known (42 each?). THen now we can get Belize/Salvador/Swiss for GA?(Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

are you sure? the 09 election page says the other way(Lihaas (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

Generally, yeah, but elections are really on there. it has to be complete, and if there isnt information then it cant be filled for the sake of it. Ive seen short ones before (Serbian Radical Party), no length requirement. Just needs to be complete and good qualit.(Lihaas (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

No no m , i meant the other party names. (as in the ones youve superscripted) any source?

Should add to the party section f the article with the source ;)

TGo do tomorrow?

Im starting work on mayoral table..will take a few days to do

Kudos on the addition, but need some clarification.

Also if you read spanish...is this complete? it says 691/709, not sure what it is but it hasnt changed in over 24 hours.(Lihaas (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

How do you collapse the municipal results table on the salvador page? any idea?Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

bahrani people

when will you clean the bahrani people page from all that chaldean and pheonician origins nonsense ashrf1979 put (it even says the phoenicians are originally from tylos (bahrain), not the other way around) + (he claims that the baharna spoke chaldean in the 4th century but the source he put says its in SOUTH QATAR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.1.216 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Love it! Danrolo (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrani people

Ashrf1979 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Do you read Arabic This historical study of Christianity in the historical region of Bahrain Your problem you are trying to limit the history of Bahrain and its people within the small state created by the British

Ashrf1979 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Discuss patiently!!! You do not read Arabic and Can not read my sources And want to discuss the article with patience !!! Such as the blind man who gives his opinion on the paintings Picasso

the historical region of bahrain (qatar, bahrain, qatif, etc)

the source you gave says its in south qatar a place which is not and wasnt inhabited by the baharna

just because it was apart of the historical region of bahrain doesnt mean the inhabitants are bahrani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.24.150 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC) the name of Hasaitic Derived from the name of Al-ahsa Oasis Oasis in the southern region of Bahrain Some Arab geographers called this name on the entire coastal plains stretching between Qatar and Kuwait Even today there is a part of the Bahrani people called by that name al-Ahsá'í

ashrf1979

please remove all the nonsense he posted in the bahrani people article

the "sources" that he now posted say that the chaldeans are originally from east arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.78 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

remove all the chaldean nonsense please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.24.15 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Joachim Gauck

I have restored my edits, and I insist that this is how the article (concerning those edits) must remain until you clarify exactly what the factual error was. I contend that I did not amend any content and that the article states exactly what it has done previously only without POV language. As you've only edited just over a year I need to explain a few things to you. First of all, when an editor makes several changes whether it be from a single edit or several, the custom is - as we cannot always be right all of the time - to go back and amend those "errors" and even so, explain it in the summary. By blanking the full raft of contributions over several edits, it instantly spells bad faith, and by simply declaring "errors" in the summary without explaining which, is even non-constructive.

Because there were many sections of text I edited, I cannot explain why I did what I did unless I go through each scenario one by one. Be aware also that my edits included copy-edits. I now await a reply from you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply and its content RJFF. Your words made sense so it's only fair I explain why I edited in the manner I did: you are 100% correct. As you'll guess, my knowledge of East Germany is basic, and whilst editing I did no immediate research and for some stupid reason, I confused the German communists with something different and incorrectly produced the year 1922. The article states 1918 though in fairness to User:Josh Gorand who declared the year as 1949 (closer), the body itself which would control East Germany was formed in 1946 by these existing Communists (pre-Moscow) and the then-farther left SDP who were aided into a new coalition, the SED. The point is simple, my facts were wrong. I only wanted to mention them because I didn't want to sell the impression to readers which many anti-Communist propaganda outlets have been doing down the years that Moscow "invented" the client authority. Even puppet governments have a history! The Communists as you know existed a long time and their members suffered persecution and worse during the post-1933 period but one way or another, they were there in a capacity; likewise they joined in the fight against the Nazis albeit still in the name of Germany. As for the "not returned" part, it is only because the word "disappeared" [sic] appeared in quotes. I wanted to clean it slightly. The rest of it was tackling the word "regime" and aiming to replace it with the more encyclopaedic terms government, structure, system, administration or whichever suited the text. That said, at the moment I am avoiding the article. I read it a lot because it is interesting and as such, I find things that I can edit - but too much tidying can lead to obvious content amendment even if not intended and to that end, I will only now make genuine clean-up edits (grammar and the like), even if editors restore "regime". Trying to change that word everywhere is an endless task and too often it appears on protected articles and I somehow doubt an admin will switch it just for my sake!!! Anyhow, thanks again. Best wishes. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia

is there a source for this resulT? im trying to find Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No probs...i asked before, but the table is of dubious verifiability.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion in the Template article

Please dicuss before you revert...--Poarps (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's still no answer coming from you. If there's no consensus, how about making one? What should be the threshold if 1 percent is "false"?--Poarps (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

bahrani people

could you please remove the sealanders section in the bahrani people article? for some reason it gives me an error when i try to edit it

strabo retracted his statement of gerrha being inhabited by chaldeans when he said "because of their trade, the gerrhans became the richest of the arabs"

also petroglyphs were found in greece that were found out to be sent by a man from gerrha called taym al lat, which is undoubtedly an arab name

+ that section is also WAY off topic. at first it talks about the sealanders then talks about the phoenicians

source: 1. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam, Robert G. Hoyland p25 2. Strabon, Geography (strabos OWN book) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.53.8 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1-It makes sense to ask me about the sources of the Bahrani population in each country And their percentage of the total population of those States,But it is not logical that you delete the countries in which they live as long as you do not know their number,Especially if these countries were part of the historical region of Bahrain Such as Qatar and Kuwait Or part of the population is descended from Bahrani's ancestors Such as Iran, Iraq, Zanzibar.

2-Hasaitic language I did not say it is spoken in Germany or the Antarctic it was the first Arabic language Of the population of Eastern Arabia And i Had previously told you that so far there are more than a million Bahrani call themselves Hasaitic (People of the Al-Ahsa province)

3-It makes sense to most of the Semitic Semitic peoples Pre-Christian religion is Ancient Semitic religion,Do you have any idea about. Spartacus Marat —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

t ​​the ancient Semitic religions.

4-Why Bahranis only required them to give proof about their links with the ethnic groups involved with them in the language, history and religion I did not write that Bahrainis have links with Inuit or Maasai people

Ashrf1979 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)What about this The Bahrani (plural Baharna, Arabic: بحراني ، بحارنة‎) are the indigenous Shi'a inhabitants of the archipelago of Bahrain and the oasis of Qatif on the Persian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia (see historical region of Bahrain). The term is sometimes also extended to the Shi'a inhabitants of the al-Hasa oasis. They are all Arabic speaking, and some claim descent from Arab tribes.

and this

Rabi`ah

Rabi`ah (Arabic: ربيعة‎) purported patriarch of one of the two main branches of the so-called "North Arabian" (Adnanite) tribes, the other branch being known as Mudhar.

Like the rest of the Adnanite Arabs, legend has it that Rabi`ah's original homelands were in the Hejaz region of western Arabia, from which Rabi`ah migrated northwards and eastwards. Abdul Qays, Bakr ibn Wa'il, Taghlib ibn Wa'il were inhabitants of the region of Bahrain in eastern Arabia, including the modern-day islands of Bahrain, and were mostly sedentary.

Abdul Qays, Taghlib And Bakr ibn Wa'il were mostly Christian before Islam, with Taghlib remaining a Christian tribe for some time afterwards as well.

So what? I don't get your point. --RJFF (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

thai people

interesting, Thank you to claim Thai people only 75% but in my country thai also mean siamese (in central and southern-thai), western laos, lanna people.

i think you should open more article, spread central thai, lanna people and write thai-laotian into laotian article

so you mean uncle therd in my conutry they call offically uncle น้าเทิด because now he play at Chonburi F.C. --โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 13:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have answered you at Talk:Thai people, so that other interested users can read and contribute, as well. --RJFF (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuff

could you chck Gmbia at the ITNC nominations? and also need your input on the election title. at Abkhazias election(Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)).

Startign work on Mauritania election for toda. Can you help when youre on? Not happeningLihaas (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Per this WP: See also "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body..." and possible Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking_to_articles_that_are_related_to_the_topic. Can we discuss it first on talk? Thats why it was hidden not removed.Lihaas (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You changedyour mind on th emove request in less than a month after consensus was reached on the current move.? should get some time before opening a new discussionLihaas (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are discussions about the Jihad flag and the further reading on the Mlian insurgency page. Please partake in any or all issues that you feel you want/need toLihaas (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The intro of the Fascism article is a necessary size

It has taken a very, very long time to achieve an NPOV intro on fascism, the current intro is well-sourced, detailed and very precise. Many arguments and debates over it have occurred, reducing the size will reduce the content - it will open a Pandora's Box because people will begin questioning what fascism means again. This intro took years to develop and it has been one of the most stable intros I've seen on Wikipedia, there are rarely any disputes about it now. The intro is a necessary size commensurate with the necessary information about the topic it is describing.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong?

What was wrong with my edits on the talk page? They clearly stated my opinion on the vote, and I tried to help with closing and possibly making the title better. I don't see what was wrong. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I figured out that it was my edit rearranged the page. but I don't know why. I have been having problems with when I type in something on Wikipedia, it messes up something else elswhere im the article, do you have any ideas why? Jacob102699 (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your revert on Islamophobia

You say that the source uses the word "anxiety"[1], but you know Wikipedia is not Wikisource or Wikiquote, and does not copy word by word. Social phobia is the same thing as social anxiety, so much so that social phobia links to a disambiguation page of social anxiety disorder, social anxiety, and specific social phobia, and specific social anxiety disorder redirects to specific social phobia. But saying "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety is confusing, because the article name is called Islamophobia, and "Islamophobia" connotes a social phobia would be much easier to understand. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You have reverted me yet again, I'm not trying to complain about that, but if you put all your replies in your edit summary when you forget to respond to what a say in a talk page... well I make this accident too occasionally, and I know it often starts edit wars. Please explain, where did you get the definitions that the two terms have different meanings? The redirects I explained above seems to suggest Wikipedia's styles treats the two terms as equal, so you can help if you provide some sources stating differences. Everything we know is learned from somewhere, and all I'm asking is to know where you learned a difference between social anxiety and social phobia, that would make our discussion much less subjectively fuzzy and more absolute. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. You told me where to look, and seeing is believing: you proved your point. Thanks for being clear. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawagh/Iullemmeden Basin

Further complicating the naming situation, it appears that Iullemmeden Basin and Azawagh are synonymous terms; check out the maps at both articles and the reference here [2] (p. 228). What I'd like to do is drop the proposed merge of Azawagh/Azawad now that the former has been moved from "Azaouad", and probably propose another merge, this time of Azawagh/Iullemmeden Basin. Thoughts? Thanks much for all your help with this. Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I got a pretty good answer to this one at Talk:Iullemmeden Basin. Essentially the argument is that one term describes the region geologically, and the other geographically. Khazar2 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

bahrani people

hi for some reason ashrf1979 put the oddysey as a reference that strabo said the baharna are chaldean

the reference is bk xvi

please remove this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.53.235 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if you could discuss on Talk:Bahrani people than always telling me what to do. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

my edit doesnt save for some reason

maybe because im using my iphone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.53.235 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I revert too often, I will get banned because of edit warring. --RJFF (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. When you recently edited Egyptian presidential election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Centre-right

"Right-wing means right-wing, not centre-right"

Well, yes, but centre-right means right-wing. According to the relevant article: "centre-right is a political term commonly used to describe or denote individuals, political parties, or organizations (such as think tanks) whose views stretch from the centre to the right on the left-right spectrum", therefore if a party is centre-right then "right-wing" is a tautology (since it exists in the centre and the right wing). Hence right-wing is informally used as a descriptor for any centre-right party (and typically only a very particular kind of political scientist will be technical about the use of the term "centre-right" anyway -- from the three sources given for the term, I can see two sociological studies and one newspaper article). I can guarantee that any party described as centre-right will also be described as right-wing in other sources, precisely because if it is centre-right then it is right-wing in comparison to other parties. Examples:

• Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - Described as "centre-right" in its infobox, I can easily find at least three different sources that cite it as "right-wing".
• Conservative Party (UK) - Described as "centre-right" in its infobox, here given as right-wing.
• Liberal Party (Australia) - The same source gives it as right-wing, despite the "centre-right" descriptor on its infobox.
• I don't think I need to go on a search for sources that describe the Republican Party (United States) as right-wing.

As far as my experience in political science can inform me, this division that you're drawing between right-wing and center-right (and have enforced elsewhere) seems quite artificial. If the centre-right article is to be followed, then the distinctive feature of a right-wing party should be that it has far-right tendencies (I don't buy the whole left-right style of analysis to begin with, but let's humour this definition) -- none of the given sources imply that that is the case for Saenuri. Hence I'm really not sure why Saenuri in particular merits having this tautology flaunted whereas every other centre-right party doesn't, unless you intend to apply the same standard to those parties? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It concerns you specifically because the matter is about your systematic questionable use of abstract descriptors and not about Saenuri. You made a similar misguided edit on the South Korean legislative election's page. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to dispute whether Stalin was far-left then bring it to a dispute resolution board

That is very historically revisionist to say that Stalin and Mao were not associated with the far left in general. Communism and Marxism-Leninism are far-left ideologies. That whole stuff of "left deviationists" and "right deviationists" refers to the internal discourse in their communist movements where they accused each other of either being too conservative or too radical, it is a narcissism of small differences. I'm in the social democratic New Democratic Party - I know people who accused leadership candidates of being "right-wing" - when they darn well know that they didn't join a social democratic party to be right-wing, such claims are the result the opinion of the person evaluating from their own perspective. A similar case is here, Stalin and Mao associated with a far-left movement - Marxist-Leninist communism. I don't buy the argument that Stalin and Mao were not far left, I see no evidence for it.--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer at Talk:Far-left politics --RJFF (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis on flags

A source on the AD fla. Further, in talk of synthesis how can we clain the MNLA flag as the cflag of the newly declared entity without a shred of source. Its as much synthesis here as the "flag of jihad" was removed for. And the source also indicated the MLNA has no writ left in most of the regionLihaas (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, the MLNA flag cant be cited as that of Azawad...expeciall when theire writ of the state is weak and they were the sole signatories to an independenct declaration. The whole state is more dubious now as its only 1 groups claim (who arguably are in the minority)Lihaas (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your revet edit at te declaration page seems to clearly indicate the flag is synthesis and not th e national flag as it the flag of a political entity not the state and not recognised, not flying over the major towns of the city either.Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Which of my edits? --RJFF (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding a much-needed citation at National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. Thanks for all your efforts to keep current events as well referenced as past ones. Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't block me

Please, don't block me, right?--Danrolo (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Democrat Party (Thailand)

Dear RJFF

My reasons of indicating Democrat Party as "conservative liberal" is that because it seems almost absurd putting "Liberalism" in one line and "Conservatism" in the next; they simply don't make sense unless you say they're the right wing faction of liberalism. This also fits perfectly with the fact that the party seems to be liberal but conservative at the same time. Most importantly, the source for "conservatism" cannot be accessed (only for Financial Times subscribers) so it doesn't really help. Therefore, I believe it should be "conservative liberalism" as original. Regards --125.24.37.243 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you agree with me answering your message at Talk:Democrat Party (Thailand). Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In The News/Recurring Items

I am posting here to ask for editors to look at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items and to comment at the talk page to discuss/vote on an amendment to the ITN/R list. I am posting this message on a number of editor's talk pages to encourage debate.

In connection to an ongoing debate on which items can appear on the front page under "In The News", "Recurring Items" are nominated events which require very little debate in the nomination process.

I propose the following amendment to the current ITN/R list. In addition I will put this on the talk page of as many editors as I can find who are contributors to ITN/C

At Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items, I propose the following amendment to section 3:

• At line 5, delete "and", and add after "territories" the words "and the world's twenty smallest nations".

Section 3, Line 5 would then read:

• Disputed states, dependent territories and the world's twenty smallest nations should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.

I look forward to the debate doktorb _words^deeds 07:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

National electoral calendar 2012

Yes, Puerto Rico isn't sovereign state but countries like Abkhasia are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.112.114.181 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia is de facto sovereign. Puerto Rico is neither de facto nor de jure sovereign. --RJFF (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abkazhia is de jure socvereign too...alakosovo. the barometreon the calendar seemsto be recognised by at least 1 UN state.Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian presidential election, 2012

No more election articles? I see youre not at East Timor. ANyhoo, you speak german so can you verify this persource?Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNR for elections

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bhumibol Adulyadej (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to His Majesty

Sirikit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Her Majesty

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.10 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why you revert?

Why did you revert and undo the pages that I do?

Why you revert?

Why did you revert and undo the pages that I do?--Danrolo (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Some curious diffs

My apologies for the disturbance, but I hope you won't mind taking a look at something interesting for me. This diff comes from a discussion I've been having.[3] This diff comes from that article [4]. I think I've spotted something important here and I was curious to know if you agreed. Dolescum (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Panagiotis Pikramenos

What still needs to be moved? I thought it was all there now. --82.35.251.109 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

German presidents

I feel that it would be helpful to include acting presidents in their chronological place in the main table of the List of German presidents. Please see talk page. BartBassist (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)