User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



NI may have courts but it has nothing to do with the Four Courts, as per WP:IRE-IRL use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] in the lead and info box. There are a few discussions in IMOS about it. Murry1975 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Here are the last couple of discussions at IMOS, [1], [2]. And yes I am at the crux of it. The guideline gets overlooked in the scheme of things. Some for polical reasons others just an oversight or misreading. An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland"). Politics or governance in this case. In others its simply from the fact that it is a place within the state. I hope this clears it up. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is ambiguity. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland" - is not ambiguous. Similarly "Ireland has been a member state of the European Union since 1973." This is what is meant by the state forming a "major component" of the article. It's when we're referring to the state as a legal person and set of institutions rather than as a place.
When we're referring to the state as a place it's different. "Cork is a city in Ireland" is not ambiguous but "Cork is the second biggest city in Ireland" - is, and for obvious reasons. Your edit at Four Courts is of the second biggest city variety. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The rule of thumb? No it is a guideline. There is no ambiguaty, there is no mention of the island in the lead and it clearly concerns the governance of state, an area you mainly edit it (legal stuff). If you wish to discuss this futher it should be done in the relative MOS. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
PS thanks for your quick response. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

sovereign state[edit]

Hei Blue-Haired Lawyer,

I just looked up who wrote the most basic definition of a state in the article of the sovereign state, looks like that was you. I think it's a pretty good definition so I wondered if you have any source on that?

Yours sincerely Elisabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's basically just a compilation of different sources. Those that I have are cited in the footnotes in the article. Most of it is a repetition of the Montevideo convention. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian identity documents[edit]

Hi, I altered Template:Canadian Identity Documents, so that the two items to altered now link to their generic pages. If pages show up describing the Canadian refugee doc or Canadian provincial health cards Id be happy to have them direct there, but I would the template direct to something than nothing. ie Old Age Security Card directs to a page describing Old Age Security Benefits, because the card really isn't notable enough to have its own page. However, it is one of the accepted federal government produced ID documents. Dowew (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with red links. If you want to write an article on Canadian identity documents I'd suggest you do so. But pointing a reader interested in finding out about a certain identity document to a page on social welfare benefits is a misdirect. If a topic isn't notable enough to be listed in a template, it shouldn't be there at all: see Wikipedia:Red link. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox treaty[edit]

Sorry about that; I thought I'd tested it properly. I'm sandboxing now. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's exactly the kind of thing I'd do myself. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Leigh Francis[edit]

FYI, Leigh Francis currently has articles in cy:, et:, es:, ga:, id:, it:, ms:, oc:, pt:, simple:, tl:, and tr:. Is it appropriate to restore the interwikis, or do you think that they should stay out for now? Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I had noticed. As far as I could see only simple Wikipedia had any substance and the rest were much the same as those created and then deleted from other wikis. (All of them say he's an actor, some that he's from the US!?) I suppose you can put them back. With the interwiki bots banned they won't be removed if the articles they point to are deleted but that hardly the end of the world.
We should really delete the whole thing after a few days anyway. Hopefully this guy will get bored. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area Map Update (per Schengen Area Talk page)[edit]

Hello, we have a debate on Talk:Schengen_Area , you are kindly invited to join the conversation. You have the necessary skills to make the necessary edits on svg file :) I hope you exclude Ro, Bg and Cy from the map by the conclusion of the debate. Thank you.--Camoka4 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the reference that you questioned. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talkcontribs) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Children's rights referendum, 2012, Blue-Haired Lawyer!

Wikipedia editor Titodutta just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The article has a good start, some parts need to be Wikified, and add more inline citations!

To reply, leave a comment on Titodutta's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Irish constitutional referendum, November 2012[edit]

Please be aware that the standard naming format for referendum articles on Wikipedia is "Fooian type referendum, XXXX". See Category:2012 referendums for examples. Cheers, Number 57 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial move and you should have a formal move request rather than just forcing the issue. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 09:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly not a controversial move as it's moving something to the standard naming format. If you want to break from the system, then you need to justify it. Number 57 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You clearly shouldn't have edit warred over the name of the article. There are no article on a single Irish referendum which follows your supposed naming convention. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic[edit]

Hi, Blue-Haired Lawyer.

About my contributions to the voice "Democratic Republic", by writing a section about Italy, I was trying to challenge the simplistic idea that democratic republics are usually not free. In my opinion, the article cannot simply include those states which have "democratic republic" in their names. Those states which consider themselves democratic republic, as Italy does in article 1 of the constitution, should be mentioned as well. In this way, the article shows an example in which democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

I hope you will consider my request to leave my contributions as they were. Thank you very much, best wishes. ItaMatt (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In English the phrase "democratic republic" is a euphemism for a dictatorship. Including an section on Italy in the article gives the appearance of mockery and implies that Italy is not a democracy. In any event there are a great many examples of countries which are both democracies and republics. I can't see why Italy is particularly special. I'd strongly suggest finding a better place for your contributions such as Constitution of Italy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Italy was particularly special for me because, being italian, it constitutes the best example I can describe without speculating. It was not in any way meant to be a mockery... I would have considered it a start to elevate the term "democratic republic" from a simple "euphemism", and to improve the page. Anyway, fair enough, if you think it is better to do so, I'll find another place for my contributions, but I would suggest you to change the article in order to underline the fact that many democratic republics are in fact free. Thank you for your time, best wishes. ItaMatt (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I fear you are missing my point. The actual meaning of expressions don't always follow the literal meaning of the words. We're not here to try and change the English language. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you help me deal with a vandal?[edit]

I discovered a user who has been self-referencing himself on tons of articles, using multiple user names. I'm contacting you because you reverted one of his edits earlier this month: [3]. I'm not an experience user but I was wondering if you could help me deal address the issue.

I already opened a sock puppet investigation, which you can find here: [4], but I don't know how to appropriately notify the user of his abuse and how to proceed from there. I've removed some of his vandalism already, but maybe there's a faster way to do it than going page by page.


Higgyrun3 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I went through and deleted all the "citations" I could find, so I'm good on that end. But I would still like help with how to address the user going forward. Higgyrun3 (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
A year ago, you did a great copyedit in Italian nationality law and I do appreciate it. Italick (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, agree with revert. But it shouldn't need a WP:RM to revert this by WP:BRD. You can use WP:RM {subst:RMassist|old page name, without brackets ([[]])|requested name, without brackets ([[]])|reason for move} instead. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't realised. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:EU evolvement timeline.png missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Shareholder Ownership[edit]

We had it out on this topic years ago and you lost. Now here you are again, like you've forgotten your beating. Go ahead and undo my change, then prepare to be embarrassed. I have multiple cites from peer reviewed law journals waiting for you. LET'S DO THIS!!!...again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talkcontribs) 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure if you understand what Wikipedia is meant to be about! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess you'll find out. Make the undo and let's have it out in TALK. Don't be scared, homie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talkcontribs) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC) \

Yo, Holmes. I put that same thing on the finance shares page like you wanted. Let's do this!!! I'm waiting for you now!!Sigiheri (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In the corporation article, you removed part of the term's formal meaning in American English (aside from its possibly more inclusive vernacular acceptances). This is the fact that shares of a US corporation are generally transferable without the need of consent of other shareholders. This transferability differentiates corporations from other limited liability business structures in the US. Italick (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the closely-held / loosely-held distinction with the meaning of the word corporation in US English. In the US companies which in the Ireland and the UK would either have "Ltd" or "plc" after their names, tend to have "Corp." See [5] or from Wikipedia Types of business entity#United States: "Corp., Inc. (Corporation, Incorporated): used to denote corporations (public or otherwise)." — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
All I mean to mention here is that the ability of shareholders to convey their shares is a meaningful part of describing what "corporation" means in the US. If a US corporation is "closely held", this tends to mean that it has a small number of shares issued, and of shareholders. The shareholders may still transfer their shares to other individuals without securing permission from the other shareholders. The shares of closely held US corporations may be ineligible for listing in stock exchanges, but shareholders might still transfer their shares to relatives, donees, creditors, and willing buyers. Joint business owners in the US who do not desire interests in the business to be so movable to new parties can start LLCs and partnerships. Italick (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "An Bord Pleanála". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála article dispute[edit]

Hi, it's pointless me reverting your edits ad infinitum so I've put in a request for help at the Dispute resolution noticeboardSun Ladder (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just spotted the previous section announcing the same point.Sun Ladder (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cameron11598 a volunteer at DRN I have opened the case for discussion feel free to join in if you are interested in participating --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. --TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On the same topic, the disruptive editor just got blocked for a week. I already reverted his edits twice, so I'm not going to 3 times, but maybe you would like to put the Corporation article back together correctly. I see you have a good grasp of the problem. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For fine work on neglected topics. bobrayner (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 (Ireland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Criminal Court (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) 10:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Swaziland and Zanzibar: BPP status[edit]

BHL thanks for comments, but surely even had Swaziland and Zanzibar reverted to Protected States, (something I am not sure happened), shortly before independence then there would still have been a few BPPs. That is why I included them in the list of BPPs.

Freedom1968 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

European Convention on Human Rights[edit]

Hello, I read your contributions in this article.

As of January 2010, fifteen protocols to the Convention have been opened for signature. These can be divided into two main groups: those amending the framework of the convention system, and those expanding the rights that can be protected. The former require unanimous ratification by member states before coming into force, while the latter require a certain number of states to sign before coming into force.

Do you have any source that could confirm this? If you have anything on the web it would be ideal.

Regarding the second type of protocols is there a minimum number of states that need to ratify for the additional protocol to enter into force? Can the states set any number of ratifications for entry into force when they create the protocol?

Thank you for your cooperation. --Yoavd (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

hello again, I see that you are active, could you please answer me? --Yoavd (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for not getting back to you earlier. The ratification requirements for each protocol are set out in each protocol's text and consequently vary. Although I haven't yet found a source to say why amending protocols require unanimity, I do know that it is the case. The following sources go some way to explain the situation:
  • "As (draft) Protocol No.15 is an amending protocol, it must be ratified by all the High Contracting Parties to the Convention for it to enter in to force." [6]
  • "Concerning the nature of the draft Protocol – additional or amending – an amending Protocol only enters into force when all signatories to the Convention have acceded to it, while an additional Protocol only needs a minimum number of ratifications – in this case, ten." [7]
Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

List of unaccredited institutions of higher education: Revision history[edit]

There is a problem with this article because it lists universities from all over the world as being "unaccredited" but many of these universities are in countries other than the USA. Many degrees from USA universities are not accepted in other countries. This article needs to specify that it refers to universities that are not "accredited" by some organizations in the USA. (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of property laws[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Blue-Haired Lawyer. I've just seen your note over at this article's talk page and, as the editor who removed the prod, would like to get some more feedback on it from you, with a view to either restoring the prod or taking some other action.
Your comments ("This article isn't encyclopedic at all. It's just puff designed to sound good without really saying anything. It uses lots of Latin phrases without really explaining what they mean. It's just a poorly written essay on xxx!) could arguably be made of a great number of WP articles, if not most of them, and I'd like to know if it really is a case for deletion or if it is actually an encyclopedic topic that just needs major work (as do so many other articles...), including, but not limited to, references being added. The reason I ask is that the IP who prodded it is going around doing the same to a whole load of law-related articles created by the same user – admittedly some (I haven't check all) of them don't have any references (as so many other articles...) and might therefore arguably be classed as original research, but I'm concerned that there are other things at stake here. Sorry to hassle you on this, but I'd appreciate your considered opinion. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


...a medal?

If I got just one solid source in support of the term, I'd be happy to see it added. The problem is no-one seems to be able to produce one.

This is one of those episodes I may despair.

--Tóraí (talk) (formerly RA) 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Military medals are serious business. It shows official use on a par with the name of a state on a coin or a stamp. A perfectly solid source without a hint of irony. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Including CSS[edit]

FYI - You can include CSS automatically in your scripts. Create User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer/Wide_Skin.css, then add the following line to your .js page:

  • importStylesheet('User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer/Wide_Skin.css');

It'll simplify the installation, so people only need the importScript line. PS. {{subst:iusc}} is a shortcut for adding an importScript line. equazcion 22:14, 2 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult but from a bit of experimenting this produces a flicker effect where the sidebar is visible for a fraction of a second before it's hidden. The problem occurred when MediaWiki was changed to load user scripts at the end of the page rather than in the head. The only way around it is to place the required css in the user css page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You're not being difficult, don't worry :) I was just offering a tip in case you wanted to use it, not telling you what to do. Thanks for letting me know about the js loading issue -- I noticed the load delay when trying out the original sidebar hider script and didn't realize this could possibly be dealt with. I wonder if anyone's ever filed a bug to get the loading behavior switched back. equazcion 00:03, 3 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Article 8- case of Jamaican Drug dealer allowed to stay in UK because of family links.[edit]

The source was The Daily Telegraph (and not the Mail). My contribution was written in a neutral style and was based on fact. Is it that you are so sensitive to criticism of the ECHR that any reference to a case that might make it unpopular is one you have to delete from the ECHR page? Cuthbert Pullar (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very impartial to me which is why I said it read like the Daily Mail. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 01:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I beg to differ. But I will not prolong the debate because if I change the text again you will just undo it! Cuthbert Pullar (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Francis Ciarán Tobin[edit]

Hello, I'm reaching out to you because you already reverted my edits twice. Although I see the point of using WP's COMMONNAME guideline for naming article titles, I cannot see why we can't even mention once the full legal name of Francis Ciarán Tobin, a person who was the focal point of Hungarian-Irish diplomatic relationships for no less then 14 years.

It doesn't violate any policy or guideline on WP. It is a citable fact. (It is not even undue weight, it would be silly to consider it as that.) It is common to state full legal names of people of all sorts. (For example full names of musicians, writers or politicians.) The Hungarian article (and Hungarian media in general) uses his full name by the way. The customs of Irish media outlets shouldn't limit our ability and right whatsoever to state his full name, which is, by definition, encyclopedic information about him, rightfully having a place in the article of his extradition case. All in all, it wouldn't hurt anything to have his full name in that article. Any sound reason why we can't even mention it? Best regards. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


When something has been in the article for months and months, removing it in one swipe is the only thing that can be called disruptive. I really don't understand how you could think that removing huge chunks of any article would go on without any reaction. Unless you are trying to provoke a flame war in which case you are doing great, please use the talk page to propose any such major edits no matter how much sense they make to you personally in order to see if there is a general consensus ie. if others also share your view. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


A discussion you recently participated in has resumed here:

Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States#Move/Rename compromise

Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New EU svg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you made the swanky new svg. I have an issue with it, which I was going to rv, but then I realised the old one had the same issues, so definitely an improvement. The problem is the map mixes two things. It mixes 1) the status various countries nationals have in their need to obtain visas etc. 2) implementation of Schengen by other states. It would be more useful if it showed what the visa requirements for the UK, Romania, etc. are with regards to Schengen. Regards, CMD (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you might take this up on the article's talk. I think it's important to distinguish between nationalities enjoying freedom of movement and those enjoying vis-free access. Romania is light blue because its legally obliged to use the same visa policy as the dark blue states. Ireland is orange because white its nationals are entitled to exercise free movement rights in blue and the other orange states, green nationalities are not necessarily entitled to enter Ireland visa free since Ireland has its own visa policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no visa requirement for UK and Romanian citizens in Schengen. EEA nationals exercise exercise freedom of movement rights in each others countries which are considerably in excess of the "rights" of nationals on the green list, which does not guarantee a right of admission to the EU at all. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that the visa requirements are non-existent for other EU states, but we shouldn't assume readers do, and the map doesn't convey this. The map doesn't convey that Orange nationals are entitled to enter Schengen. What the map should do it have the non-Schengen EU states in their own colour, showing their relationship to Schengen. The point is we shouldn't 1) highlight the application of various visa regimes while 2) highlight countries around the world based on just 1 visa regime. CMD (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Right sorry I see where you're coming from now. The catch is we don't have separate article and maps for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania, so colouring them light blue was meant to show that the the visa policy applied there too. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this:

Schengen Area visa lists.
That's definitely an improvement. We should wikilink to the relevant policies in the "operate independent visa policies" bit, whatever the link turns out to be. CMD (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Visa required for transit via some member states" is unfortunately incomplete. As you can see even in the article there are several member states with note "None of these countries has been registered with the EU" and there of course could be more. So that is why this info was removed, we simply can't be sure. Otherwise there would be no objections to including it in the map file but the way it is, that the member states are not obliged to notify the EU of their transit policy - we simply can't include it in the map as we'll never know if the information is actually up to date. Also there are some issues with this svg specifically, for an example it's not showing some countries like Barbados, also it doesn't show many passport issuing regions such as TRNC. Also could you please explain how is this file edited in text editor, I am not particularly good with SVG file editing. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As far as the visa required in at least one Schengen state is concerned I just copied the info from the article. If there's no way of knowing whether it's up to date it should be there.
  • Only recognised states can issued passports. The so-called Turkish Republic of North Cyprus is not recognised by any EU member state and consequently its passports are not recognised as valid travel documents by an EU member state. Its visa status is about as relevant as the Principality of Sealand.
  • Hopefully a circle around Barbados should be visible now. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Didn't get the first one, what should be there and why?
Wrong, at least two EU member states recognize TRNC passports (UK and France). Principality of Sealand is a gimmick. Entities with limited or no recognition that issue very real and used passports are Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Western Sahara, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Somaliland. Another option is not to show such entities at all but to describe the situation in the article. But you can't show just Palestine and Taiwan, either show them all or none, otherwise I don't see any constant we are following.
Yes but the map still has issues and missing countries (is it Micronesia, or Marshall Islands, for an example that is missing as well).
Can you please explain the editing process in text editor please.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding TRNC passports please see the section on "Unrecognised travel documents" in the "Visa policy of the Schengen Area". Only Turkey recognises the TRNC so only they recognise its passports. If you have better information please share it with the rest of us (and add it to the article).
  • The Palestinian Authority, Taiwan and Kosovo are listed in Annex I of the Visa regulation that's why they're highlighted. They are recognised by at least one EU member state. None of the others are listed on either Annex because they aren't recognised by any member state.
  • The transit visa countries are literally all of those listed in the "Additional nationalities that are subject to the airport transit visa requirement in some Schengen countries" table on the article.
  • I tried my best to reflect the circled countries from the old map in the new map. As far as I can tell neither the Marshall islands nor the Federated States of Micronesia were highlighted in the old map either.
  • The map is designed to be easy to edit. It should be possible to change the colour of countries and add circles to small countries by changing CSS headings at the beginning of the image. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but this is not about the recognition of the state but about the recognition (or not) of some passport as a travel document. For an example if I am not mistaken Estonia does not recognise Congo passports but it has no issue with the existence of Congo as a country. On the other hand Greece recognises passports issued by Kosovo but does not recognise it as a country. The source for the recognition of the Northern Cyprus passport that we have here on Wikipedia is a dead link, and I don't speak Turkish to find a replacing one, but I am sure it can be found. However it doesn't seem to be wrong, for an example the article lists the UK as recognising TRNC passports, and when you open the UK visa page it does indeed list Northern Cyprus among the countries whose citizens can obtain a visa : "What passport do you have? Cyprus (northern part of Cyrus)". It does not list everything out there like Sealand or Somaliland. It lists Taiwan and Kosovo but no Palestine.
"The transit visa countries are literally all of those listed" - I am not saying you missed some, I am saying that some of them have a note that says "None of these countries has been registered with the EU." - it says that next to Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania. My question is, what if for an example Latvia also has a non registered list? There is no way to know for sure.
I don't know what is the old map that you've used, but the PNG map has all countries highlighted.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The source for cyprus seems somewhat doubtful and the UK isn't part of the Schengen Area so it doesn't really matter (in the regulation the phrase "member state" exclude Ireland and the UK.). This discussion should be on the article talk page not here. I suggest that's where you should take it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Haha somewhat doubtful? The UK Government is a doubtful source on the British visa policy? You can't be serious?
Please address the issues above, even before we go into the grey area of passport issuing countries with limited or no recognition - your map doesn't even show all of the UN member states.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's just the output from a computer program. See page 41 of the this document from the UK's immigration guidance. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is absolutely not an output from a computer program. It's the official UK Government resource for foreigners wishing to visit the UK to check if they need a visa or not.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have just examined the .svg file and I've seen that it's very sloppy, missing punctuation causing more serious issues with incorrect information. Can I honestly trust you to investigate transit visa lists by missing countries such as Latvia considering your very superficial approach? Let me be honest here, if you are not interested in doing this the right way, why are you doing it anyway?--Twofortnights (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Name a country. The info on the svg just reflects the info from the article, wrong as that may be. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already named some and you haven't done a thing about it.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Common Travel Area[edit]

Hi, I have personal, frequent experience of flying to and from the UK to the Republic of Ireland without using a passport and the attitude of GNIB staff to that choice.

I made one edit, as I hope to inform the general public as to what is 'acceptable' in the real world to be let back in to the country.

As you have an interest in this area of law/this topic I hope you will allow my additional essential information to remain - that a birth certificate showing birth in the island of Ireland and photo ID IS enough to be allowed back into the country, well at least for Irish citizens born prior to 2005 at any rate.

The GNIB cops usually want a driving licence or a passport, but those other two, much cheaper to obtain, documents are entirely valid proof of nationality for CTA purposes as I can testify.

Thank You.

I've responded on the Common Travel Area talkpage. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous links on European Parliament election, 2014[edit]

Hello, Blue-Haired Lawyer. You recently recently changed so-called piped links on European Parliament election, 2014. In other words, you changed [[French language|French]] to [[French]]. The pages at 'French', 'German', and 'English' are not articles. They are disambiguation pages – basically, lists of the various articles whose subjects might be called by those names. French language, German language, and English language, on the other hand, are article dealing with languages, while France, Germany, and England are articles dealing with the states and the region.

I have changed the links back to the earlier version. If you change them again, please take care that you are linking to the article you have in mind and not to a disambiguation page. If, for some reason, you intend to link to the disambiguation page, use a piped link via a redirect such as [[French (disambiguation)|French]] so that other editors will understand that is was not an accident. Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it was another editor's edit I was reverting. I'm afraid your's got stuck in the crossfire. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Common face of one euro coin.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Common face of one euro coin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

det radikale venstre[edit]

if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification[edit]

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification[edit]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notification[edit]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 13:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).