User talk:Alinor/Archive 2


 * User talk:Alinor/Archive 1

Edit warring on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority
I'm sure you know by now that this page currently falls under Arbcom sanctions. The limit for reverts is 1 per 24 hours. You've just overstepped that limit. I request that you undo your last revert, and take your arguing to the talk page. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked for the second time in less than a month.  Night w   12:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the one pushing for undiscussed changes and refusing to explain why you do this - see here.
 * You are are often breaking 1RR on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (and once at State of Palestine) - see here comment from 10:17, 15 January 2011.
 * And now you make threats here. How uncivilized.
 * OK, I will restore to the last stable version - as explained here. Alinor (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It make no threats, as I haven't the authority to block you. I just requested that you adhere to the sanctions, and remarked that you may have perhaps wished to avoid another block for disruptive behaviour, in case an administrator sees fit to impose the rules. I won't respond to your unfounded accusations of incivility. I've never broken the IRR on the State of Palestine article. You should not claim that I have done so unless you have evidence.  Night w   13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what authority you have, it's still a threat.
 * About 1RR/24h on State of Palestine - (13:15, 14 January 2011) and  (07:37, 15 January 2011). They are not exactly the same only because of  (unrelated edit) and  (where I try to take into account your comments). Anyway, as I already said - I don't see a point in arguing about this. Alinor (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't mind, when you're trying to slander my username with accusations that are "not exactly" correct, I do see a point in arguing about it. Those are not reverts. I'm perfectly in my right to take exception to you claiming otherwise. Please, stop making up stories.  Night w   13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my user page, right? My opinion is that these two are reverts (WP:1RR - "A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material"). I haven't accused you of two reverts at some arbitration committee or at your user page. And I don't think we should argue about what is a revert or make accusations, etc., because I assume good faith and I hope that we will resolve the disputes in a civilized way. My initial comment about these edits/reverts was made on the article talk page - to provoke a discussion about the changes themselves/the content (and then I left your revert to be "last" - so that we can calm down and discuss). Alinor (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you did it on the talk page of an article... I wouldn't have minded it on my talk page.  Night w   13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to pester your talk page with additional reminders about the same thing following my 08:09, 15 January 2011 comment there. And I wouldn't have said anything at the article talk page about the reverts, if it wasn't your 07:33, 15 January 2011 comment (just after your last revert - per my understanding) of 07:29, 15 January 2011. You said "And we should both refrain from reverting anything for another 24 hours" (instead of discussing our issue - lately discovered to be misunderstanding) - that's what provoked me to answer "So, I made 3 reverts here and you - 4 - and now we should stop? Before we stop, should I do a 4th like you did?". Alinor (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with how the discussion went, thank you.  Night w   15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine passport
Following your edit here, I've started a new article by refactoring your contrib somewhat. Would welcome any help in expanding same. RashersTierney (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonself governing territories

 * File:Non-self-governing territories administring powers.png

Might be worth quickly deleting it and reuploading it under a proper title! :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, any suggestions? And I see that somebody added a Commons tag there, I don't know if it won't get broken in the process. Alinor (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Countries administering non self-governing territories (anachronous)" or something. Mostly worried about the spelling of "administring" ;) You only uploaded it today, should be fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't see 'delete/move' buttons. If you know how to do this, please do it, I don't object renaming it. Alinor (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As uploader/creator, I think you just ask an admin. They may be able to simply rename it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do this, please? I'm not sure where to lodge this request and I don't have time currently. You can point to this talk page for reference that I agree. Alinor (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to ask for this above, I know I should have uploaded it with better name in the first place. I was going to write on you talk page about this plead, but saw the "STOP half-half conversations" sign...
 * Anyway, I wish you a nice end-of-weekend! Alinor (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked the user who tagged it for copy-to-Commons. here. Alinor (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we both learned something useful today. (Albeit useful only within the wikirealms.) That STOP sign went up after I started losing track of threads on some pages. Anyway, all solved, keep it up! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And all you need now is to explain the relationship between Palestine National Authority and your Non-self-governing territories administring powers map :) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Croatia diplomatic relations.png
Dear Alinor, Could you make changes to the photo mentioned above? According to http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621, Croatia has established diplomatic relations with Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Congo, DR Congo, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Micronesia, Namibia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu.
 * OK. I haven't compared that link with - what to do in case of discrepancies? Alinor (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you could try to decide which link is more reliable, although both links say Brunei, Kenya, Libya & Oman have relations with Croatia.Kissoffire (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ICJ logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:ICJ logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UNWTO Logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:UNWTO Logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WIPO logo 2010.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:WIPO logo 2010.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IFAD logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:IFAD logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ICJ logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:ICJ logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification about TfD
I do apologise, I forgot to let you know that I filed another TfD to clean up that awful mess you made of the template namespace last year. The discussion is located here, and has gotten a much better response than last time. Cheers,  Night w   12:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please undo your edit
Please undo this edit. The "rearrangements" were completely undiscussed, and you've pushed through edits that were reverted by myself in the past. You're aware that I disagree with them. Per WP:EP, you need to discuss and gain consensus for these before you repeat them. Revert the edit please, and commit yourself to discussion rather than being deliberately disruptive. This back-and-forth thing between you and I needs to end.  Night w   16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Alinor does not have to revert what User:Nightw has reverted in the past. The fact that User:Nightw disputes User:Alinor, does not mean that the article is User:Nightw's own property. Wikipedia is not a democracy, however when some users (including User:Passionless) think that a version edited by a single user is wrong or outdated, then that version should be rejected. Eliko (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong Eliko. When a user thinks a version is outdated, and they are reverted, they discuss it. They do not edit war even if they are right. Please read WP:BRD and WP:Dispute resolution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong Chipmunkdavis, who thought I was referring to users who edit war; On the contrary: the user who has edited war, was not Alinor at all - who just adopted the majority's version (without violating any Wikipedia rules), nor the users who adopt that majority's version, but rather another user, who has today violated the 1RR that was imposed by the Arbcom on users who edit articles related to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Eliko (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but majority does not by itself determine consensus, and it takes more than one to edit war. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to say that the edit war you're talking about is irrelevant to this discussion (or may even be relevant to the opposite side, as I explained at the end of my previous response): Who edited war? Did any of those who support the version supported also by Alinor? No, none of them edited war. Regarding the "Consensus", it does not mean 100% of the users: Even when most of the users, except for a single user, adopt one version, then it's still a consensus. Eliko (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I responded on the respective talk pages. "This back-and-forth thing between you and I needs to end." - yes, please stop pushing for your edits - you don't agree with my changes, I don't agree with yours; if you insist you can revert to a version with NEITHER, not to a version with your changes that I don't agree. Alinor (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I've had to revert you myself, which I should've expected. Contrary to your claims, my reverts have been to the last stable version. This version saw no changes for four days, 3 times longer than the page's average edit interval, and the longest interval since over a month. If you want to make improvements to that version, fine, but you're not; you're pushing through the same edits that have been reverted multiple times before.  Night w   15:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the stable version. This is a version that includes some of your changes that are made without consensus. Please use the talk page at SoP for these. The stable version is - right after the implementation of consensus reached in this discussion. Or some version before that - such that doesn't include neither your nor mine changes that the other side doesn't agree with. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's almost a month ago. The protocol is to revert to the most recent stable version. Your undefined objection to "some of [my] changes" (I've made many) wasn't raised on the talk page anywhere I can tell, nor did any other editor object... And you had four days in which to do so.  Night w   15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All subsequent versions are not "stable" - they are back and forth edits between you and me. Your changes that I don't agree with are these changes that are reverted in "my" versions (I adopt these of your changes that I agree with). And the talk page is full of discussions, I even listed most (maybe all) of the not-in-agreement changes one-by-one in some of my comments. Four days? You mean that for 4 days I refrained from reverting your changes, because I was waiting for you to comment on the talk page on the numerous still open issues? Or you mean the four days that I needed to finish the infobox proposal (during which time I also refrained from reverting). Alinor (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition and organisation of Eliko's sources is under discussion at the OR noticeboard. You had no right to override that attempt at achieving consensus. Revert the sources you added, and notify the thread on the noticeboard when you've done so.  Night w   11:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the intention to do any changes. Currently I hope that we will discuss the various issues at the talk pages and reach consensus. Also, the page is under some kind of protection - if you can you may remove these sources - but also, I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct - Eliko is pointing to a merge decision, and again I don't understand your problem with these sources. Anyway, if you think these should be removed - remove them, don't ask others to do it. Alinor (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states
It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this word "extants" you keep using? I assume you're referring to the column spacing template used...but this is "ext e nt", as in the point or degree to which the column spacing extends (having nothing to do with the actual content)... The word "extant" (ant. "extinct") refers to the presence of something; it's primarily used in biology to refer to wildlife or disease.  Night w   16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to the "notes" column where each state has a description like "UN member, dependencies this and that, territorial dispute about ..." So, OK, it seems this is called "extent". Alinor (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

History of European Space Agency enlargement
I updated the article History of European Space Agency enlargement to reflect recent changes and newly available information, and to be in agreement with the main ESA page. But since you created the map, could you please update it to reflect those changes? Thank you in advance. CostaDax (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated the map, made some changes to the article and commented at talk. Alinor (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And on another subject: I may be wrong but I think it was you who added the map in the article Southeast European Cooperation Process. If this is the case, this map needs update too, since Slovenia joined in 2010. Sorry to bother you. Thanks again! CostaDax (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I uploaded some older version of the map, but the current one there isn't made by me and is in SVG format. Alinor (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slovenia done, hope that helps! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

About an Image

 * Hello, Alinor I saw that you uploaded an image in List of bilateral free trade agreements particularly in the United States free trade agreements therefore could you please upload an similar image for India FTA as well. For information of FTA concluded by India is here.-- Kkm010  &#124;  Talk with me   05:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem making a map - but what are FTAs among these? Because some use ambiguous titles such as "economic cooperation", "partnership", etc. Also, some of these agreements include provisions such as "the goal is for a FTA in the long term", but the FTA is not in effect at the date of entry into force of the agreement itself... Alinor (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can do some map and then see how it is - but I really would prefer to have a FTA list, not a trade agreements list. Alinor (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Take this or this one check if you get any clear info or not. Try to make the map like this one, only change in the map will be the flag instead of NZ it will be India. As far my knowledge (SAFTA, ASEAN, recently Japan and Malaysia) are signed and on 2011 EU and EFTA shall also be signed may be by middle of this year or so. And for other negotiations are still going like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even Chili. Suppose if any mistake happens, don't worry later we can modify it isn't.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank U very much Alinor

One thing u might had missed is (South Korea which is under FTA.) please have look at this link (although Korea isn't mentioned here).-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   05:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.


 * Could you please another FTA map for China as well. Source.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to put a flag of the respective countries Eg on the top on the map. Therefore put a flag on the China FTA MAP & India FTA MAP. And also change the colors as it is shown in the NZ FTA MAP (Change for both maps). Thanks-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should put flags in the maps. About coloring - I don't think the "multilateral/bilateral" separation in the NZ map is relevant (also it's inconsistent - only for "proposed", but all "current" have the same color regardless of type) and I think the "home" country should be non-colored (e.g. black) instead of additional color adding to the rainbow.
 * This discussion should be continued at the article talk page, if needed. Alinor (talk)
 * Its OK leave it, those stuff aren't necessary. Thanks You-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   08:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Здравейте!
Видях, че подкрепяте идеята тази статия да се разшири. Защо не се присъедините към нас, за да я разширим? Даже да е мъничко... Cohneli (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Vatican relations.png
Would you please update this map? Vietnam now has diplomatic relations with the Holy See and a non-residential papal representative has been appointed. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was moved to the commons. Alinor (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And can you not edit it in commons? The maps in Foreign relations of the Holy See also need updating.  And one of them (File:Holy See missions accreditations and relations.png) lists a category that does not and, practically speaking, could not exist: "Diplomatic relations, non-resident accreditation with additional privileges".  Esoglou (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The category exists - see Talk:Holy_See - it covers states where the nuncio has priority in the order of precedence and is non-resident.
 * Vietnam-Holy See don't have diplomatic relations yet . The maps currently colors it as "contact with government", so no change needed here yet.
 * And yes, I can't edit in the commons. Alinor (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought anyone could edit the commons files. My initial statement was quite wrong.  The category of relations with Vietnam is obscure.  There is a "non-resident papal representative".  He is not called either a nuncio or a delegate.  It may well be (but there is no explicit evidence) that the government's agreement is required for his appointment as for a diplomatic representative.  The situation seems to be somewhat similar to that existing until recently in relations with Russia, but is certainly more obscure.  It seems I was quite wrong also with regard to a non-resident nuncio-with-precedence.  I couldn't see how a nuncio who isn't present can be dean. acting on behalf of the whole corps present in the country.  But your eye was smarter than mine.  I find now that the nuncios to Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and San Marino are listed without asterisk in the Annuario Pontificio, but are given as resident in another country.  I suppose the nuncio, who lives not far away, is always present for ceremonial occasions.  Sorry for troubling you.  Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. When/if Vietnam (or something else) changes, please contact me again and I can update the maps that aren't moved to the commons (and/or upload updated version here) Alinor (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

copy/paste moves
You have moved content into Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) via copy/paste. In "Republic of Kosovo" you seem to have copy/pasted the whole article, while in "Kosovo (region)" you only copy/pasted the first sections (about 2/3 of the article).

You seem to be implementing already option 5 in your RfC, but you were still trying to find consensus in Talk:Kosovo.

It's ok that you start a sandbox so people can see how the final article will look like, but these creations of articles are disruptive. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No split is started and no moves of content are made. I created two articles with topics that are notable - Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) (by copying, not moving). The current article here could remain or be changed or redirected or whatever (see discussion on its talk page), but the independent state Republic of Kosovo deserves its own article and I don't think anyone questions its notability. The dispute over Kosovo makes a Kosovo region article notable too. I will restore the two articles one more time and open discussions at their talk pages.
 * Please see my reply/continue this discussion at Talk:Kosovo. Alinor (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider asking an admin to close the RFC in a formal way. If you really have consensus for your split, then you will be able to proceed unhindered. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Such RFCs are not subject to formal closure - as you saw the RFC disappeared automatically after the 30 day period ended. These RFCs are only a helpful tool to gather community input and opinions.
 * And I repeat - I'm not doing any split. Kosovo article can remain with its status quo non-sensible mixed topic APKiM+RoK or be redirected to Republic of Kosovo or to Kosovo (disambiguation) or to Kosovo (region) or its topic could be changed - I don't care so much about that. But Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) are notable subjects and each of these should be a topic of Wikipedia article.
 * Please see Talk:Republic of Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo_(region) and Talk:Kosovo and continue the discussion there. Alinor (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As promised, reported to AE, see WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement article ban: Kosovo
In application and enforcement of WP:ARBKOS, as explained in this AE thread, you are banned from editing Kosovo and related articles for three months.  Sandstein  13:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to hear this, as far as i am asked about it, you are one of the greatest editors on Talk page:Kosovo i have seen so far. As i see, only problem was edit warring, which was earlier the main problem on Kosovo article, so ARBKOS and ARBMAC are severe per that vio... But you still can edit talk pages. That is out of article space anyway... We will talk... -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, be very careful about this restriction. You must clearly get respond about editing talk pages regarding Kosovo. I dont want you to be blocked over some pointless minor edit that violate topic ban... You should see with Sandstein about this. And then place that notice on the top of your talk, or main page. Please, man, be careful. It may be vise for you to enable e-mail option, i will explain you all by mail then, not to spam user page... -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I asked at the AE page multiple times whether the ban includes talk pages or not, said that I assume it doesn't, nobody responded. Nevertheless I may limit my participation there too. Alinor (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Idk if you are a serb..in fact I could care less...good job on the Kosovo article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.82.3 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

European_Union_conditional_acquis_suspensions.png
Just a question. Does Estonia still have conditional acquis suspensions since they adopted the euro at the start of this year? If that is not the case, could you change the photo showing Estonia doesn't have any acquis suspensions, or am I missing something? Thank you.Kissoffire (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Relation of GoK / ROK && UNMIK
if you look at all agreements of Kosovo being represented by UNMIK it's very simple to understand. All the participants are state employs under the name of UNMIK meaning not using ROK symbols..UNMIK does not represent in any way Kosovo in any international organization...except before independence. If you look at CEFTA and other organizations it is ministers of ROK that head Kosovo's interests abroad.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you post this here instead on some article talk page, but anyway -, , show that CEFTA, Energy Community and ECAA membership is by UNMIK. IMF and WBG membership is by RoK. Obviously UNMIK should somehow interact with RoK and RoK official should somehow be represented at these UNMIK-membership organizations - but I don't have any source describing this relationship. Also, one of the main points in the recently launched "Belgrade-Pristina" talks is this very issue - because currently Serbia blocks/complicates RoK participation there, especially in CEFTA (that is not "chaired" by the EU, but is wholly owned by the Balkan states and Moldova). Alinor (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)