User talk:LibStar/Archive 3

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

Greetings

I must say, you're one of the most active participants in this bilateral relations row (and one of the editors with whom I disagree most often!). I think those barnstars are well deserved. It's good to see the recognition. I saw your edit to Nigeria–Pakistan relations- maybe it was a little POV but it wasn't meant to be. I was in a bit of a rush since I had to turn it form three unreferenced sentences into an article and the AfD didn't have long to run! I've seen a lot of these and I know that a lot of them are just ridiculous, I just worry that we might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've come across a small number that actually do have notable relations- Nigeria/ Pakistan is a good example. It would be good to see a concerted effort to root out the (few and far between) that actually have relations and save them where possible. Would you be willing to help? After all, it's a lot easier if we have a number of editors willing to work on it than just one or two individuals. What do you say? HJMitchell You rang? 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion review

You are quite right to bring the closure of Estonia–Luxembourg relations to deletion review. Much as I think these articles ought to be kept, I think a closure such as this is not recognizing the reality of where the current consensus lies. We don't have to follow the numbers exactly, but this is not using good judgment. For the time being, I support what Ikip and others are doing to combine the articles. There's a related question I need to ask you, if you'll email me. DGG (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the matter that I want to discuss, I shall not be able to say it here. Pity. You could have helped me decide about something. I(remind you that email, unlike almost everything else here, is confidential. DGG (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Amusing

The only thing even slightly amusing in all of this is that I looked at Docu's talk page history and I see you had practically the same conversation with him a couple of days ago. I would describe it as a deliberate opacity which is not in the spirit of cooperation. Drawn Some (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#User:Docu's%20signature

which I found when trying to determine whether or not User:Docu is actually an admin or not, it was Dec 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins&oldid=2386415#Docu

Apparently the signature issue has been raised many times. Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

To save time and simplify things, did you have time to review your position on the AfD? -- User:Docu

Can you look into to this? Saves time for everybody. Thanks. -- User:Docu
I've looked at it and have nothing to change for the moment. Please do not ask again about it. I am busy with other projects on Wikipedia at the moment. thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. -- User:Docu

Re: Ethiopia-Qatar relations

Thanks for fixing this article -- & not rubbing my nose in my numerous mistakes. :) BTW, I did not go looking to create this article, but once I stumbled on the CPJ source, the more I thought about it the more I could not believe I found a notable subject. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tidy up

Oz Indo art http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia%E2%80%93Indonesia_relations&diff=next&oldid=292599285 does this mean you do not agree with the info in the lead paras (is it repeated elsewhere?) or do you think the material is redundant or what? Tidy up is a little too easy to put just like i put ce (copy edit) on some of my edits - I know many Indonesians actually make an issue of the points made, so from where I am looking at this article I would consider it relevant - not necessarily in that form - but 'tidy up' is just not good enough as a summary - if you dont like it I think you need to state why - as the disctinction is one which is of specific relevance in cultural differences - if it is elsewhere in the article fine - if it isnt well SatuSuro 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I had interrupted a general edit - but the issue is that many Indonesians in spoken and written record make issue of the cultural differences as a means of setting boundaries and parameters in negotiating issues (perhaps more than chinese do say where they assume that the negotiators have to learn their way) - so to have excised that is to remove a vital point SatuSuro 04:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was I agree and you are doing a great job - dont get me wrong - I might disagree over a lot of stuff you get into but you do a good article - so well done! vive la difference and thank henry we live in a democracy mate SatuSuro 05:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting civility warnings is pissing in the wind by the way - if someone takes issue with you over your style on wikipedia - however right you might feel (heheh Liberal Students groups rarely ever admit they might be wrong yes?) the diff is there and if you ever end up at a RFC or any RF whatever yourself (one good reason never to get too carried away in there) someone sooner or later will always find the diff and take issue with it - circumspection and holding your tongue will save you a lot of trouble later on - regardless of what you might aspire to SatuSuro 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough I see your point of view as well - but when you venture into some of the territory you get into you gotta take the stuff from em understanding you gonna get what you give :) - hey take care and have a good one - no offence meant from me - but hey keep at it - in the long run it is suprising how many eds in some aspects you will see drop off - if you last long enough - some seem to have no stamina in their enthusiasms - cheers SatuSuro 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah well that sounds ok - at least you dont have newbies big one of I'm gonna tello Jimbo Wales on youse! - but if you wanna really see how intractible it gets if you take your line to its logical absurdity look at User:Casliber's talk page and the list of the issues up there in the clouds - worse than the Australian High Court mate - try mediation before you get to that I would suggest :) SatuSuro 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I was looking at this Estonia–Luxembourg relations which now purports to be a disambiguation page but which isn't really a disambiguation page at all. Do you think I should propose it for deletion and if so maybe you could help me with the reason. It doesn't seem right but other than what I said here I can't explain why. Drawn Some (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a disambiguation page, it's not disambiguating anything. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated:sorry about that revert. I meant to get the edit next to it on my list.Synchronism (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See here. I have to admit I am LOLing, an unforeseen outcome. Drawn Some (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia-Luxembourg again!

you'll even notice a not so subtle attempt to restore the original article today here [1]. so from clear consensus in original AfD, to very strong consensus to deletion review to this?! LibStar (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already !voted to delete in the discussion and am going to warn Richard Arthur Norton about his edit. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I've restored the article to the way it was again and plan to continue to improve it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral Relations Afds

Hi. I've noticed that on a number of these articles which you've nominated for deletion, significant relations do in fact exist, which, though not included in the article, can be revealed by a cursory google search. Your criteria for deletion appears to me to be whether the countries have embassies located in each other's territory. I must point out that such criteria will lead to systematic bias against countries that cannot afford a large number of embassies and is not an inherent quality of the notability of their relations. I would appreciate it if in the future, you could do a google search on the two countries before nominating their bilateral relations for deletion so as to avoid the unintentional loss of worthy pages. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania-Portugal

It's one of those in-between ones: not totally absurd, but probably not expandable into a full article either. The countries were allies in WWI (though in totally different theatres) and neutral Portugal had a greater affinity with Axis Romania than with the Allies in WWII. Relations were then cut off, and Romania became the first Eastern European country to re-establish relations after the Carnation Revolution in 1974. In 1938-39, Lucian Blaga was ambassador at Lisbon, and Mircea Eliade (who wrote a diary on his time in Portugal) was cultural attaché in the late WWII years. And there are a number of Romanian workers in Portugal today. But we generally handle this material elsewhere, and in terms of in-depth independent coverage of the relationship, that's as lacking in Romanian as in English. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability tags

Hey. I noticed you added notability tags to a few bilateral relations articles. Care to expand on your opinions on the talk pages? (Otherwise I'll be removing the tags). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. I suggest you say that on the articles' talk pages then, where people reading the articles will be able to see your perspective (that the articles are in imminent danger of being deleted). Otherwise, I'll be removing the tags. Without information to back up your claim that the articles lack notability, the tags are only vague accusations. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you choose to put tags on an article, you should be expected to explain your reasons for doing so on the talkpage. Otherwise you clog the article with mysterious tags. Plus, I disagree with you on your ideas about notability. I deserve an open debate where people interested in the topic will notice.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Ownership of articles

I'm not "assuming ownership". Editors have contributed to a number of the articles I've started, and I value their useful contributions. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. I have never said, implied or considered that any article I've started was my "property", and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You, on the other hand, are acting with significant bad faith, making groundless assumptions and accusations against me. This isn't the first; you also implied, on no basis whatsoever, that I was trying to glorify a dictator. I don't even know why you're saying that I'm "assuming ownership". Your tone is accusatory, inflammatory, and derives from unsubstantiated and incorrect impressions. Stop flinging out absurd, bad faith accusations. Aridd (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please hold indefinitely, your nomination is important to us...

  • I came in late on the discussion on my own talk page. Most of my answer is over there. Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fijian mercenaries

I haven't got time for detailed work on it now, but these are sources I've kept on files over recent years:

  • 5 Fijian soldiers arrested in Bougainville, and expected to be charged with illegal entry in the country. Described as "mercenaries", "highly trained and armed". Three of them were apparently wounded by "freedom fighters". The Fijian High Commissioner flew to Bougainville to try and obtain their release.
  • "The Fijian soldiers were among a group of eight men who entered the Rebel no go zone area last year as missionaries, but later went on to train Noah Musingku's guards. Three of the men left Papua New Guinea and went back to Fiji. Noah Musingku is wanted by PNG authorities to face fraud charges." (At the time of the article, Musingku had just been shot by "freedom fighters who were fed up with roadblocks put up by Musingku's rebels", and was "fighting for his life".)
  • "Four ex- Fijian soldiers, who had been hired by a Noah Musingku to train his army and provide security at his camp in Tonu, in Siwai, Bougainville, have abandoned him and surrendered to police in Buka. The four have apparently abandoned hopes of ever receiving one million dollars each promised by Musingku." They were waiting to be charged, at the time of the article, and would likely be charged with "breaching immigration laws". One Fijian still had not surrendered.
  • The four who had surrendered were: Jolame Gukirewa, Manasa Dumuloto, Kalivati M Dau and Aliki Moroch.

That's all I seem to have. There are inconsistencies, notably in relation to dates (EWC reporting that they were waiting to be charged 11 days after RNZI had reported that charges had been dropped). Aridd (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia-Tonga

That would certainly be interesting... There should be a fair bit of information on various Australian government websites. Be sure to mention their shared membership and cooperation in regional organisations, as well as the amount and forms of Australian aid to Tonga. The Rudd government set about rethinking Australian aid to the Pacific not very long ago; that should all be available on government websites. It includes temporary immigration rights for Pacific Islander seasonal workers; I think that scheme is open to Tongans, but I'd have to check. Any article on relations between Australia and a Pacific Island country should of course note that Australia considers the Pacific to be its "sphere of influence" (shared with New Zealand). Politically, Australia has been quietly supportive of Tonga's roadmap to democracy, and hasn't put any (public) pressure on the kingdom. If Australia is Tonga's main trading partner and aid provider, it should be noted (the CIA website may give indications on that); if not, it's probably among the top few. Some prominent Tongans may have received higher education in Australia, which might also be worth a mention... Aridd (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Australia-Tonga relations: [2]. Aridd (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And: "Australia commits AUD$21million aid for Tonga". Aridd (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu sig

You might be interested in this: User:Docu has been confronted about his signature constantly since 2003. He actually has provided an explanation, more than once, just not recently: [3] I had found that when investigating him originally over the question as to whether or not he was an administrator and how he became one when he did that goofy closure on the AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello, LibStar. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talkcontribs) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Trade relations

Sorry to bother you. I noticed that you said here that you do not nominate international relations articles for deletion if the countries have a trade agreement in place. Yet you seem so have nominated a number of articles fitting that description for deletion (and been successful in deleting them). Did you just change your mind or should I do a general review?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusation

Hello! Are you sure that it's not the user in question logged out? I have seen that multiple times now in AfDs by various editors. It might be best to ask the user? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE

I agree that this should not be used against a clear consensus. But I saw no such consensus that Estonia–Luxembourg relations should have been a disambig page. That appeared to be based only on an Admin's capricious decision to restore the article as a disambig.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

re RfC

I am aware it was closed as archived, yes. A WP:RFC/USER/WP:RFC/ADMIN would be the next step to address the various issues of late, however one has not been started yet. Cirt (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)