User talk:Albert humbert

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral move of Foreign relations of the Libyan Republic
It was wholly improper of you to conduct a controversial move unilaterally without discussion. Why didn't you bring this up on the Talk page first? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I extensively discussed the issue of 'Libyan Republic' on the Libya talk page [] and also on the Mahmoud Jibril talk page []. Didn't think I need to bring it up on the Foreign relations talk page also.--albert_humbert 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You needed to bring it up on the relevant Talk page corresponding with that page, because it was an operation concerning that page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The page move I made is not controversial, why would it be? And the rules do not stipulate that a discussion prior to a move is mandatory. I know, however, that a discussion is helpful and I started two discussions on the subject as explained. I put a note on the Talk page corresponding with the moved page as well now so I guess all is good? Thanks for your comments though. albert humbert 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is controversial, because I strongly disagree with it and it cuts against established precedent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It does? Well the help page [] should than be changed to reflect this. As it stands now I did nothing wrong. As for your definition of what makes something controversial, well... albert humbert (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of controversial is that involved people disagree with it. I disagree with it, and I am quite involved with the Libya articles - and I have been for a lot longer than you have. As it not following established precedent, look at the foreign relations page for any other country and tell me whether the title refers to the foreign relations of that country or the foreign relations of the common name for the government of that country. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are so involved with the Libya articles and feel strongly about the subject of the 'Libyan Republic' how come you didn't respond to my questions and points raised on the subject on the Libya talk page 5 days ago? I think you want only to argue, not discuss. albert humbert (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the discussion because it wasn't on the proper page. Is it so hard for you to understand that? If you want editors on a certain page to discuss your proposed changes to that article, then discuss it on that article's Talk page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You made your point. Shall we leave it at that? albert humbert (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we shouldn't. I think the page should be moved back. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to your arguments on the page you said is appropriate for that discussion... albert humbert (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya dispute
Look, I get it. You don't like me, you don't agree with me, etc. But it is straight up against Wikipedia policy to make controversial edits knowing that there's no consensus for them. I'm sorry that frustrates you, and I want to work out a solution. I've offered ideas on the Talk:Libya page and I'd really like to get to a place where we can both be happy with the way the article is presented. I don't want to bring any administrative action into this unnecessarily, but it may be beneficial to request mediation instead of risking an edit war - which I have positively no interest in being involved in. For now, please discuss on the Talk page, address my citations and arguments instead of saying, "I've made my point, and I'm going to go edit it now and you're wrong if you revert me." That still qualifies as edit warring. I'm sure you're editing in good faith and this situation is as frustrating for you as it is for me, but you need to use the Talk page to debate rather than to issue ultimatums. Let's try to work together, please. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya infobox
Ok, about the Libyan infobox, what part of it do you feel is original research? I know you mentioned a lot of people are just ignoring your comments due to an anti-Gaddafi bias, but I think I am trying to address them as much as I can. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think my position is very simple: for the NTC to be considered Libyan government we need secondary sources. So I am just asking for evidence of secondary sources naming the NTC as 'Libya's government' or 'Libya's other government' or something along those lines. At the moment we only have primary sources information. The current Libya infobox is a result of Wikipedia editor(s) using those primary sources and interpreting them, in violation of WP:NOR. albert humbert (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia, but you are correct in saying they have to be used with strict caution and cannot be used to deduce stuff. I know the editing of the Libya article, even for me, was pretty hard since there are a lot of people who have an anti-Gaddafi bias. Many of the people I have seen on the social networks that I use are pretty much pro-NTC and are the kind of people who will edit Wikipedia. As you hinted at before, there is no "set guidelines" of what to do when an civil war article takes place. There are a lot of articles that are involved about territory disputes/independence movements and the closest thing I could think of coming close to what happened in Libya is maybe Georgia 7-8 years ago. Even if there are guidelines, those are usually thrown out. Myself, I worked on various country articles and some of them do involve disputes over the use of symbols and things like that (Belarus to name one).
 * Now, for the main issue; Libya is still the Jamahiriya in the terms of the UN and even though Gaddafi lost a lot of control of his country, he is still the state leader. In my view, he is still the state leader until he formally gives up power or arrested by some authority or killed. Until there is a formal constitutional change, Libya is still the Jamahiriya. I don't trust the UN on everything, but that is just me as a cynical politics student. I personally feel that the Jamahiriya is technically over, but what I feel isn't reality until it happens in the formal sessions of government. There are a lot of places that still call Gaddafi the leader, but consider the NTC as a governing force (see the Japanese here). But I feel I am in the minority on this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your points. However, what you said (at least in part) proves that Wikipedia has a serious problem dealing with current events, especially with conflicts and civil wars. My rule of thumb when it comes to editing Wikipedia is to look it from a point of a reader who knows nothing about a given subject, keeping in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so the information given has to adhere to those standards. It should be about quality rather than quantity and about being accurate rather than fast. Keeping up with by-the-minute-changing events on a war battlefield by digesting (often biased) media reports is not how Wikipedia should be edited. It looks to me that some (dare I say young/er) editors believe that Wikipedia is place where one should get the latest news - how wrong! albert humbert (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)