User talk:Japinderum/Archive 1

Welcome

 * }

1RR
Hello. As you can imagine, articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict generate nearly as much heat as the real-life conflict does (fortunately without any casualties). As a result, all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert restriction". That means that an editor may not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period.

I'm leaving you this message because another editor has expressed concern that you not be aware of the 1RR restriction. This message isn't intended to suggest anything is wrong with your editing.

For more information about reverts and what 1RR means, see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the restrictions that apply to articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Japinderum (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Libya move
Hi, just wanted to make sure you were okay with the move of Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council to Foreign relations of Libya. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't see a problem splitting in the way it was done (a minor issue: the discussion page dealing with the recognitions remained at the "new" article about relations, so I would suggest adding some comment in the head of Talk:International recognition of the National Transitional Council linking to Talk:Foreign relations of Libya where most of its content was discussed). Japinderum (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Palestine 194
I replied to your post on the talk page. Interested in your thoughts. Icarustalk  13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated your template Template:European council institutions for deletion
You can follow the discussion here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serbia EU accession logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Serbia EU accession 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
A tag has been placed on Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.  Night w   16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such "previous deletion discussion" resulting in deletion. Japinderum (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sascha
Dear Japinderum. I have concerns you might be user:Sascha30, but it was premature of me to revert on sight of this. I started an SPI on this to find out (Sockpuppet investigations/Sascha30) and about to self-revert in the mean time. Sorry being a tad too fast! L.tak (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * L.tak, I'm aggravated by this groundless allegation. I would've appreciated if you have contacted me first instead of opening this investigation. I'm not worried about it's results, but I find it very unpleasant for others to look out my IP and similar stuff. You know, the things called "privacy" and "personal space". But what's done is done - you started the process and it'll now roll on.
 * You can see at Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan the following comment by Kudzu1 at 15:40, 6 February 2012, I assume in response to your Sasha:
 * "Take a look at User:Japinderum in the above discussion if you actually want to contribute in a meaningful, constructive way here. He takes a similar stance as you. I don't agree with him. But at least he bothers to argue instead of just screaming and berating people."
 * Also, I think the nuances of mine and Sasha stances are obvious - we agree on some points ("diplomatic recognition is important and specific foreign relations act different from obvious recognition") and disagree on others (I think Sasha finds South Sudan independence problematic, I don't). Japinderum (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right... I was too fast and was just "reviewing" your edits and realize, YOU DON"T USE CAPITALS to get to your aims, know how to sign and discuss. My irritation with Sascha just got the worse of me. Will retract now! L.tak (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Your recent editing history at Foreign relations of South Sudan shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.  Night w   15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Foreign relations of Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar (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) 10:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Niue, CI
I put this on CMD's talk page too; I see that you're a very good and thorough researcher....  Japinderum, my only concern:  that CI & Niue not be 1) called "independent" or "fully sovereign" and 2) not be listed with the ~193 independent states in an undifferentiated fashion. That's all.

Overturning that status quo (above) requires a very large burden of proof, in part because there is such a preponderance (~90%+ ) of time-honored sources (and common WP sources) as the World Factbook, Times Atlas(UK) & 90% of other atlases, Nat'l Geographic, the US State Dept. list on line, Webster's Geographic Dictionary, the UN membership list (Switz.'s long exclusion was for totally different reasons), & at least 20 or 30 WP articles including List of sovereign states (where, after over a year of discussion, they are not listed in the "top list" or called independent.) That's a well-established status quo that, I'm afraid, will take a full UN membership or an actual declaration of independence by CI or Niue (which they don't seem to want...they voted against it before.) As mentioned before, Japinderum, some of these primary or secondary sources insofar as how the NZ govt. or its judges consider CI & Niue are not the "be-all and end-all," as the distinction we need, instead, by definition, is whether CI & Niue are considered independent by the world community at large. (You'll remember other cases such as S. Africa's homelands decades ago where territories were declared "independent states" by the "colonial" power, yet virtually nobody agreed, and they were not included in any lists of independent states by the UN or anyone else at that time. Until CI and Niue actually declare independence and until they are no longer NZ citizens and until they receive full-level recognition as independent states from more than a tiny percentage of relevant authorities (UN, other states), then there simply isn't a case to be made for listing them as independent states, is there?.....no matter how many judges rulings or proclamations or other secondary sources turn up from NZ or elsewhere. You are of course correct from those primary and secondary sources that the two are in many administrative ways about as close to full sovereignty as possible; not "dependencies". But not full independence nor full diplomatic, embassy-level recognition by more than a few states (which is different than engaging in a treaty directly with them, as the US has, for ex.)


 * So perhaps instead we want to change "dependencies" to "others" as the title in the templates....& and list that says "dependency" (most don't.)....Like you, I also tried to get rid of that run-on 8-line sentence in Associated States...see my note there, as you asked me, and I have no problem with your lengthy but much better worded proposed edit on the talk page there except for a few words.DLinth (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will reply at the original location of this post. Please, let's not double-post, because we already have discussions on three pages. Japinderum (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop
Can you please stop inserting SMOM into that list? The article isn't about relations and, as we agreed, unless the government takes a position on statehood, there's no need to mention them. Please follow WP:BRD. This applies to the headings as well. We had a discussion about those on the talk page and there was no consensus to change them. You also had a discussion with Outback about the headings and she also objected to your changes. You have been refusing to listen to others for years now- please try and learn.

I have also moved your hidden notes to the talk page where they belong. Regards,  Night w   09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After discussing the headings Outback agreed with me. And your version of the headings is wrong anyway.
 * PNA has established diplomatic relations with SMOM, so naturally it goes in the table (relations = yes, recognition = no). See your version from 7 February.
 * I don't agree with your removal of the hidden notes (they are there so that questions such as "where is Tuvalu" are answered to other editors - you know, not only you and me are editing there). And I object you signing edits with my name.
 * Also, as usual your edit makes additional changes not discussed here above or elsewhere. At article talk page and in my edit-lines where I restored the Tabletop version I have already mentioned what those are. Japinderum (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about relations. We have a separate article for that. If there's nothing to say on recognition, it doesn't need to be there. The headings aren't wrong, and you've been warring over them with other editors. Please open (another) thread over them to discuss alternatives. Only states can recognise states, so anything that isn't a state doesn't need to be there anyway.
 * The hidden notes don't help with what you want them to- as seen (and obviously), editors go to the talk page to find out why something is missing. If you must add it back, please remove contentious statements of fact that will need to be sourced (like saying something hasn't recognised).  Night w   09:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So...what? This statement doesn't apply to you? I strongly objected to the addition of SMOM and have objected to your changes to the headings. Therefore, per WP:BRD, you need to get a consensus for them on the talk page. Please take your own advice.  Night w   09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Headings - I'm not warring with other editors - see the link I gave above - Outback agrees with me. And your version of the headings is wrong - we have discussed this before, you know very well.
 * Hidden notes - If you don't like the addition I made to the hidden note so that your recent edit (removal of some entries) is taken into account - then rephrase it or remove it, simple as that. Don't remove other parts of the hidden note.
 * SMOM - I shown above your version that includes it.
 * "Only states can recognise states" - wrong. Why would you assume such thing? See two examples of the opposite: Montenegro recognized by SMOM months before establishing relations, Kosovo recognized by SMOM, relations still not established. Japinderum (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Night w   10:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. You opened a thread here wherein three editors objected to your proposal to change the headings. You pushed them back in recently, Outback reverted them. I reverted the others. You then changed them (all of them) back to the way you wanted them, yesterday. You. Were. Edit-warring.
 * 1) I cannot touch your note - it's up to you to do it. Unlike you, I don't edit war (you made 4 reverts within a few hours to a 1RR article yesterday by the way).
 * 2) "SMOM - I shown above your version that includes it." -- that was before we agreed that all vague entries that don't make a position on statehood clear will be removed from the article. After the RFC, when you just reverted to what you wanted, I removed all those as we agreed on the suggestion of another user.
 * 3) Irrelevant, opinionated hogwash.
 * As I said - Outback agreed with me after civilized discussion.
 * I didn't do multiple reverts, but one single reverted divided in multiple edits - so that I don't revert all of your changes. By reading your comment it seems that I should have disregarded all your changes and just reverted en masse (like you does).
 * If you want to remove SMOM and Switzerland position descriptions as vague, then they should remain in the tables with empty "position" columns - because they have "yes" in the relations column.
 * What you call "opinionated hogwash" are two WP:RS links that show your assumption about "Only states can recognise states" is wrong. Please explain why the sources are wrong and you are right. Japinderum (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) That's great. However, that's not a consensus for the change, and we will need to see that before you can overlook WP:BRD and the consensus found on the article's talk page. Re-open the discussion on the article talk page, because there are obviously still objections. I wasn't notified of the discussion you were having with Outback and I doubt you notified any of the other former participants...?
 * 2) Doesn't matter. You made more than one revert. Are you going to amend the comment or not?
 * 3) No it shouldn't. We had an RFC to remove all entries that didn't touch on recognition. I removed all of mine, but you put your entry back. Once again: this article isn't about relations. If you want it to be, then that's something you'll have to get a consensus for.
 * 4) Irrelevant, opinionated hogwash. And if you need me to put stress on the irrelevant, there it is. I have better things to be doing with my time than arguing with you over your opinions. And I've no want to see more of your typical TLDR-style responses.  Night w   10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your headings are factually wrong and besides "I don't like it" you haven't explained what's wrong with the headings that I and Outback agree with.
 * I didn't made more than one revert - re-read above explanation. What comment to ammend?
 * I didn't put "my entry back" - I put yours as well (Switzerland).
 * The RFC is about the position descriptions (I wanted UNESCO mentioned, you didn't). Not about removal of entries who have established diplomatic relations. If you want to remove these - propose that at the talk page.
 * So, you agree that not only states can recognize states (e.g. your assumption is wrong), but that's irrelevant? Japinderum (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, my reason for keeping the headings as they were are 1) states can only be recognised by states, 2) WP:BRD, 3) we had a discussion where your changes to the headings were rejected by consensus. Unless that's changed, re-open the discussion on the article's talk page.
 * Yes you did. See WP:REVERT for what a revert is. The hidden comment in the article. Are you reading what I write?
 * From the RFC:
 * the uninvolved editor suggests, "it would be better not to mention any country there unless they've said something explicitly about recognition of statehood" - to which you reply, "if those are going to be deleted, then that should apply to both"
 * you then rule, "Night w should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that I consider to be 'useless facts'" and "Night w should not remove "my" descriptions/sources that he considers to be 'useless facts'".
 * Apparently though, the reverse rule does not apply to you. That is "Japinderum should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that Night w consider to be 'useless facts'" This is what I mean by double standards.

 Night w   11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already said - it's not about "Japinderum descriptions vs. Night w descriptions" - you removed both and I restored some both of mine and of yours. Right now I already removed all descriptions that I have restored, so this is a moot point anyway.
 * The RFC is about the position descriptions (mentioning UNESCO is explicitly stated in the RFC title), not about deleting entities that have established diplomatic relations.
 * The hidden comment - I already said that if you disagrees with the description I added after the removal of Barbados, Tuvalu, etc. - you can change that description (I'm not sure what exactly you disagrees with in the wording). OK?
 * "states can only be recognised by states" - this is simply wrong. See sources right above. Japinderum (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What sources? You put up two links that showed something about SMOM. The SMOM can say whatever it wants it doesn't give it any consequence under international law. A state can only be recognized by another state.
 * But let's ignore that for now. Accept that you have ignored WP:BRD and the previous consensus from the discussion on the article's talk page. You didn't re-open the discussion and I have upheld the previous consensus by reverting. You need to revert your change and re-open the discussion to get a consensus for it. Your silence on this point is most telling.
 * Read the contents of the RFC:
 * the uninvolved editor suggests, "it would be better not to mention any country there unless they've said something explicitly about recognition of statehood" - to which you reply, "if those are going to be deleted, then that should apply to both"
 * you then rule, "Night w should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that I consider to be 'useless facts'" and "Night w should not remove "my" descriptions/sources that he considers to be 'useless facts'".
 * Upon the conclusion of the RFC- you concluded: "So, the RFC finished. Night w, I'll restore Tuvalu, CI and Niue as shown above - but if you subsequently remove them again, then we have to remove some of the entries you added before that - those that are vague and irrelevant." -- or does this only apply to my entries?

 Night w   11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I said above what I objected to in your hidden comment. Please read what I'm writing.
 * (edit conflict)
 * RFC - it's about the position descriptions. You can't expect to repeat every time the lengthy "remove Tuvalu position description, add Barbados position description, ..." instead of "remove Tuvalu, add Barbados" - when the topic of the RFC makes mentioning "position description" redundant - it's obvious that this is what the comments are about. The whole RFC is about that!
 * what you said about the hidden comment was something about sourcing, which I find strange since this is a hidden comment... so, it would be faster if you change it.
 * I don't comment on some items (e.g. headings), because it seems the major disagreement here is about your assumption "states can only be recognised by states". Your link above includes that statement in the user comments section, not in the article itself.
 * My links are two examples where a state (Montenegro, Kosovo) is recognized by a non-state sovereign entity (SMOM). And of course the links are about SMOM - how many other non-state entities that conduct diplomatic relations and recognitions do you know?
 * My links are from the official MFA websites of these states and they clearly show "a state recognized by a non-state entity". Do you agree with the following:
 * Republic of Montenegro is a state
 * Republic of Kosovo is a state
 * Sovereign Military Order of Malta is not a state
 * Montenegro is recognized by SMOM months before establishing relations
 * Kosovo is recognized by SMOM, relations still not established
 * So, states are recognized by a non-state entity, correct? Japinderum (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, read the RFC. I am pasting it here so you can read it again.
 * The only uninvolved editor opined "not to mention any country there unless they've said something explicitly about recognition of statehood".
 * You ruled, "Night w should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that I consider to be 'useless facts'". Am I correct in assuming the reverse would also apply? Please answer this question... Otherwise, you are not abiding by your own rules.
 * On your conclusion of the RFC, you decided: "...if you subsequently remove them again, then we have to remove some of the entries you added before that - those that are vague and irrelevant ." I did this. I removed all of them as you wanted. It is only you that are not holding up your end.


 * No, the "major disagreement" here is that You. Edit. Warred. to push your changes through. You still have not accepted that you have ignored WP:BRD and the previous consensus from the discussion on the article's talk page. You didn't re-open the discussion and I have upheld the previous consensus by reverting. You need to revert your change and re-open the discussion to get a consensus for it.
 * I cannot change your comment. That would be edit warring under the article's restrictions (same as your reverting 4 times in one day). I don't do that. Please amend it yourself.
 * No, not correct. And giving me links to examples where one group of people is saying they've recognised a state isn't persuasive in the slightest. As you know from the article you were edit warring on, the OIC and Arab League also said they "recognised" a state. The act means nothing under international law.  Night w   13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You paste selectively - read explanation above about the topic of the RFC.
 * I already explained about the headings - I don't reply on that, because there is no point if we disagree on who can recognize and who can't.
 * Oh, enough about that hidden addition - I don't object you to edit it, but fine - after we finalize the other issues we can deal with that quickly.
 * I gave you links where MFAs prove your assumption to be wrong. So, MFAs interpretation of international law differs from yours. Do you agree with that? Japinderum (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Night w   14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. We had an RFC about something, in which a user proposed a measure which would resolve the issue. You laid down what would happen if that measure was taken-- "Night w should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that I consider to be 'useless facts'". Does the reverse apply?? For the fourth time, please answer this question. At the conclusion, you took a unilateral action to add something back which there was never a consensus for in the first place, and stated "...if you subsequently remove them again, then we have to remove some of the entries you added before that - those that are vague and irrelevant." I then did that, going with the solution the uninvolved user originally presented. Are you now going back on what you said?
 * No, there is a very clear point. Please accept that you ignored WP:BRD and the previous consensus from the discussion on the article's talk page. You haven't re-opened the discussion, so the previous consensus is the status quo ante bellum. You need to revert your change and re-open the discussion to get a consensus for a change.
 * Where in the links you provided does it state that a non-state actor can recognise a state under international law. It just gives an example. I can give dozens of other examples. I can give you an example of where a corporation recognised the independence of Kosovo. It doesn't mean diplomatic recognition.
 * Addressing the core issue first. You say "non-state actor", but here we speak not just about any random non-state actor (those are either citizen of some state or chartered/incorporated under the laws of some state) - we speak about sovereign entity, who is subject of international law in its own right and who isn't related to any state (SMOM is not an Italian or Vatican organization). The links I gave are from states' MFAs and they show that states have been diplomatically recognized by SMOM and that states and SMOM have established diplomatic relations.
 * I think you know pretty well that diplomatic recognition is an act that not all states do - some have a policy of only establishing diplomatic relations. SMOM does both. EU, like some states, does only diplomatic relations. And that exhausts the list of the entities conducting diplomatic relations. AL, OIC or any other intergovernmental organization may have missions, offices or post representatives (however they're called) in various countries, but these intergovernmental organizations do not establish diplomatic relations with states, SMOM and the EU - because these organizations do not have such authority - states and SMOM are sovereign subjects and their governments and legislatures having ultimate authority over their actions, EU is a supranational union where the member states have delegated to the EU institutions the authority over some parts of their foreign policies (especially trade issues). Another difference between EU institutions and intergovernmental organizations institutions is that members of the European Commission are not representatives of the member states governments or legislatures (members of the Commission are explicitly defined to represent the interests of the Union and not of the member states) and the members of the European Parliament are not posted from member states parliaments, but are directly elected by the citizens.
 * In contrast - you don't have any source about "Only states can recognise states". You don't have source from Kosovo MFA website (not a random blog or journalist) stating "Following Corporation X formal recognition of Kosovo’s independence two years ago ..."
 * Also, the Montenegro MFA source is about "Dates of Recognition and Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" and you can clearly see who's in the list and what dates are listed there - no corporations, NGOs or anything like that. The list shows SMOM granted diplomatic recognition to Montenegro on 30.06.2006 and later the two sovereign entities established bilateral diplomatic relations on 05.09.2006.
 * So, that's what the MFA sources show us. Sovereign non-state entities recognize states. Do you agree (if not - please provide sources for your objections, if any)? Japinderum (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Should mention that I'm willing to compromise on this. Remove the two added entries and keep the changes to the headings, or keep your two added entries and revert the changes to the headings (with a gentlemen's agreement that it'll stay that way unless there's a strong consensus to change).  Night w   12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which entries do you refer to? (I'm not sure since more than two are involved in our disputes) Japinderum (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No... You restored two entries that don't mention recognition. Those are the entries I refer to.  Night w   13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, to make this clear. You suggest to choose from the options:
 * Remove the whole entries of Switzerland and SMOM (currently their vague position descriptions are already removed). Keep the version of the headings that does not restrict the list to states).
 * Keep Switzerland and SMOM entries (with or without the vague position descriptions?). Replace the headings with the version that restricts the list to states.
 * Correct? Japinderum (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

UNCLOS map
Hi, it would be useful if you could upload the map of ratification of UNCLOS to Wikimedia Commons as it then could be used on other language versions. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons
Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Input request
Hello, as previous participant in a relevant discussion, i would like to ask your input on the issue of the status of Palestinian Authority as an autonomy at Talk:Palestinian National Authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in participating in this
Because you participated in Talk:Palestinian National Authority you might be interested in participating in this: Talk:Elections in the Palestinian_National Authority. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's started back up again. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What did you mean by "Organization"
At Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority there seams to be some confusion over weather by "organization" you meant "an autonomous geopolitical entity with specific territory - similar to Hong Kong", or if you meant an "organization" like the Government of Hong Kong or the Kurdistan Regional Government". Could you clarify please? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Transport in the Palestinian territories about what the weather the scope of that article should be the Palestinian territories or the "region under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority", i.e. Area's A and B of the Palestinian territories. In particular I would like to know if you would object to the article's scope covering the Palestinian territories, rather then just area's A and B. I invited the percipients in a similar discussion, but I later realized that there seamed to be a "The PNA is just a government" conclusion there which is disputed at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority, so I'm inviting you and Pluto2012 to that discussion to compensate for that bias that I accidentally introduced. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Euro-Mediterranean University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN Palestine
this is blatantly synthesis when you write "effectively..." secondly, you have indicated it is not in the source, which is more so your personal synthesis. Kindly discuaa that matter. Further, it seems more than 1 editor agrees with that version, so you need to discuss that. Nothing is emoved on the page, its hidden till verified. (as it may be true, but needs discussion/rewording)

Also noone mentions "Palestinian delegation" in this edit. However, it has been referred to as the palestinian delegation in years when they spoke at the GA(Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).
 * "Palestinian delegation", "Palestinian government" and similar references are ambiguous in the context of the resolution - it should be clear who we write about. The resolution is about the PLO and the State of Palestine - not about some other Palestinian entities and organizations (notably Hamas and the PNA) - to avoid confusion we should be explicit about what we write.


 * It's best to continue this discussion on the resolution talk page, not here. Japinderum (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe eve resolved the first part of the edit in question per the talk page(Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

State of Palestine
You may be right that the paragraph should be included, and there being significant edit warring at that article, I couldn't see that the paragraph had been there for some time. However, you have violated the 1RR restriction on that article, and you should have known better, as you've been warned for 3RR before.

I won't report you, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope we are here to improve the articles and not to argue about a few hours less or more than 24. Politically-loaded articles are edit-war magnets, yes. But neither you nor the other editor, who removed the paragraph in the first place, cared to follow WP:BRD and explain on the article talk page what are the reasons for that change to be done. Japinderum (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your query about this edit that I have removed. The reason I have deleted the paragraph is that it says not one word about 'State of Palestine', Palestinians or any variant of the word Palestine. So I would appreciate if you can explain how it is relevant to that section or as the other editor pointed out why keep it there? Please read the paragraph in question and the whole section in question before answering, thanks Mor.--Mor2 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit: sorry I have seem to skimmed your second paragraph, where you explain your position, I have no problem to take it to the talk page.--Mor2 (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I have added your position to the talk page and will respond shortly.--Mor2 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass RM
There's a mass RM at Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories you might be interested in. I'm telling you this because you participated in the RM at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

New RM of Prostitution in Palestine
There's a new RM of Prostitution in Palestine at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine. I'm informing you because you participated in the last one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Serbia EU accession logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Serbia EU accession logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice
Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I need that? Anyway, if you're an admin maybe you can assist with User_talk:Reaper_Eternal. Japinderum (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, all that is is a notice which lets you know the area in which you are editing is under sanctions. So you need to take it easy. Happy editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A complaint about edit warring at State of Palestine was filed - but not about you
Hello Japinderum. Please see WP:AN3. You are not the subject of the complaint, but I think some material added by you may have been what was reverted by Mor2. Mor2 has complained about one of your recent edits. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Mor2's complaint about your edits at Night w's page. Ideally people would have a discussion of all these changes at Talk:State of Palestine and try to reach a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm waiting for his proposals at the talk page. Japinderum (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Serbia EU accession logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Serbia EU accession logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Serbia EU accession logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Serbia EU accession logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The map
Would you rather I post it somewhere else for you to get to it, since that thread will eventually be archived?--Yalens (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem - it will be archived together with the map - then we go to "Archive 42" (links on the top of the talk page). Japinderum (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be intersted in this
Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Distortion
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you're aware of that, it goes both ways. Japinderum (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

beating the drums
This is the difference between us I use per source info (your source) "Abbas has enjoyed a boost in his status since he led the Palestinians' successful bid to upgrade their status at the United Nations to a non-member observer state." Which is important because the article link directly the upgrade to 'non-member observer state' in the UN and this being one of the first steps after it. While you add what you want to see. --Mor2 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "beating the drum" refers to the redundant placing of "Palestinian upgrade" and "non-member observer state" in dozens of paragraphs on the same article. What I said is that the resolution doesn't use the word "upgrade" - that's a journalistic flashy expression. I don't say that it shouldn't be used, or that SoP isn't UN observer state - I just say to not repeat it every third sentence. "My" source is added there for another things it says, not for that one that there are dozens of other sources about already in the article. About the first steps - as you can see in my edit it's written "following the 2012 UN ...", so it says the same thing. Japinderum (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "upgrade" is not a journalistic flashy expression, the UN always accorded the title because its not a computer game, but their status was upgraded from one stage of observer to another. As for rest it is repeated where its needed and here it provide context/introduction, to this move and why the Arthur called it symbolic.--Mor2 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "upgrade" is not used in the resolution, but by journalists and others - as explanation of the UN resolution result. I already said I'm not against using "upgrade" where appropriate, but repeating it a zillion times is not. The first sentence also ended without a verb. And I didn't removed "symbolic", so I don't get what you want to say. Japinderum (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All I know that you had not problem to call my edit, which was word for word from the source, correct and in context "weaselish". While no objection to the guy who put the resolution as "UN recognition of statehood". Great neutral editing.--Mor2 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, basically I'm tiered of correcting the dozens excited "UN recognition" edits and pointing to the official UN sources themselves that explicitly state "UN does not recognize states, its members do that individually" (or similar). If you look at my edit history you will see that I've corrected quite a few of those... But the diff you started here about doesn't include "UN recognition". Also, if you tell me which of your edits I said is weaselish, then I can explain further why I think it's so. Japinderum (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)