User talk:Northernelk888

August 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ivo Sanader has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ivo Sanader was changed by Northernelk888 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866548 on 2016-08-26T18:10:55+00:00.

List of Croatian Prime Ministers by time in office
List articles shoukld not duplicate other articles, if it just repeats what appears in another article, it would be a candidate for a speedy. I trimmed the article back to what would be acceptable for a list article, and have reverted your change. Feel free to revert back to your prefered version. However, as the patroller who marked it as patrolled, I would feel obliged to mark your preferred version as suitable for speedy deletion Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, in this case Prime Minister of Croatia.--KTo288 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and really if the title of the article is- List of Croatian Prime Ministers by time in office, shouldn't that be the criteria by which the list is ordered, like every other article in Category:Lists of people by time in office, not by order of succession.--KTo288 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Interim presidencies in Singapore
I will have to revert your edits on the Singapore Presidents regarding the successor and predecessor. As a benchmark, refer to Interim and Acting President of Israel. You will note that when Acting presidents were "at the desk", it is never reflected on the "predecessor" or "successor" list of the full-term President's articles. I.e. see Moshe Katsav (1 August 2000 – 1 July 2007) and Shimon Peres(July 15, 2007 – July 24, 2014). Interim Acting president Dalia Itzik((July 1 – July 15, 2007)) does not turn up in the predecessor/successor info tab at all on the 2 president's articles. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean with the Presidents of Israel, but how does Israel relate to Singapore's case? As far as I see in Israel there is a constitutionally defined difference between acting and interim presidents. Acting presidents holding office in place of a permanent elected president, due to him being on leave or disabled. Interim presidents carry out presidential duties and serve as head of state during a permanent vacancy due to death or resignation, until the next president is elected by the Knesset. In Singapore I see no constitutionally defined linguistic difference in the above defined Acting and Interim presidencies, with both of those being refered to as simply Acting presidencies in Singapore. This is where the confusion arises i think because what should be interim presidencies are linguistically not differentiated from acting presidencies which are not presidencies in their own right and the person in that role is not himself head of state  but acting for a head of state still  in office. As for the point that in Israeli presidential articles there is no mention of interim presidencies in between formal presidencies, I would reference you to articles such as List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government, where Dalia Itzik is listed as having been head of state of Israel. In my opinion Interim presidents should be added to Israeli articles on presidents, because the aim of this encyclopedia is not to pretend as if there was an unbroken chain of presidents to try to reach the perfection of the list of US presidents, where there has never been an Acting president due to their system of Presidential Succession where upon each vacancy the next officeholder is given a number an the formal title of President of the United States. In other words countries where acting (interim is the correct term but since in singapore there is no linguistic difference i will use their formal term for officeholders during vacancies) presidents take office upon a vacancy should list those officeholders among their presidents because it shows a more realistic situation than just a pure president-to-next-president list which ignores any vacancies (which sometimes last months and may contain important events) and acts like there was never a vacancy or a temporary officeholder. Other than the Israel articles you pointed out I see almost no other countries (apart from those whose head of state articles suffer from severe negligence) which omit interim officeholders. Furthermore, instead of referencing another wikipedia article, which does not reference Singapore specifically, but another country, in this case Israel, which could have an entirely different political system and constitutional framework defining certain aspects of its politics, I will instead reference the Singaporean constitution itself as evidence supporting my additions to the articles, whic I firmly believe serve to better the quality of this encyclopedia. '''Persons to exercise functions of President when office is vacant 22N.—(1) If the office of President becomes vacant, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker shall exercise the functions of the office of President during the period between the date the office of President becomes vacant and the assumption of office by the person declared elected as President. (2) If neither the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers nor the Speaker is available, Parliament may appoint a person in accordance with clause (3) to exercise the functions of the office of President during the period referred to in clause (1). (3) Parliament shall not appoint any person to exercise the functions of the office of President under clause (2) unless the person is qualified to be elected as President. (4) The provisions of this Chapter relating to immunity from suits shall apply in relation to any person exercising the functions of the office of President pursuant to this Article as if references to the President in those provisions were references to that person. (5) Any person required or appointed to exercise the functions of the office of President pursuant to this Article or Article 22O shall, before exercising those functions, take and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice or another Judge of the Supreme Court the Oath of Office in the form set out in the First Schedule, except that neither the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers nor the Speaker shall, during his term of office as such Chairman or as Speaker, be required to take such oath more than once in respect of occasions when he is required to exercise the functions of the office of President.''' Northernelk888 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For one, by definition the "in-between presidents" you listed are what the Israel system call "Interim presidents", who hold office between the elected presidents. And these interim presidents do not figure in the articles of the Israeli presidents at all, so your edits and rationale directly contradicts what you say above and I pointed out ., your thoughts on this? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But why single out the Israeli presidents articles? Out of 194 countries in the world, most of which are republics listing interim presidents in their heads of state articles is not a big issue. Most european countries, including Germany, France, Croatia, Poland, Austria, Romania etc. all normally list interim presidents normally without any complaints. I don't see how this in any way damages the article and I definitely don't agree that if an article is about a president and his info box has the title of the office as President of Singapore that that would only entail listing the next holder to hold that title while just skipping any in between interim office holder as you call them just because they don't hold that title. That's what the brackets are for next to the name of the succeeding or preceeding office holder. I just think that the perfection of the listing where one president follows another, when that wasn't realistically the case, is just misleading and wrong information. So in general I don't understand your c ase by just pushing the Israel presidents articles as evidence that in terim presidents are never listed while in a great majority of other heads of state articles ranging from Asia (India, China, South Korea), to Africa (Egypt, Libya, South Africa) and the Americas (all of South America and Central America) there is no problem what so ever in listing the TRUE officeholders in succession without regard for all this philosophy over interim and non-interim presidents. In my opinion the Israel presidents article that you are pushing as evidence is an exception to the norm and not the norm itself. It is just one out of maybe 10 or 15 articles maximum which are mostly either defined by this perfection factor of clean succession where only TRUE PRESIDENTS are listed even though the date jump between the end of one term and the beginning of another is a few months or even years in extreme cases. So that would also entail sayig that interim officeholders are less important and that important events only take place whenever A FULL-TIME, CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED AND ELECTED PRESIDENT is in office while everything else is not important. I take a different view. It is very rare for all constitutinally outlined scenarios resulting in permanent vacancies to be realized in one country, but when a few of them are realized I think it would be useful to show the constitution in action by showing how certain circumstances can result in different individuals serving as interim officeholders. In Singapore's case for example I find it interesting that despite the constitution stating that the CPA chairman should act as president in the event of a permanent vacancy, this has never occured until now, with only the Speaker of Parliament and Chief Justice (for a mere one day) holding the presidency ad interim. As a person who would hypothetically want to read more on the constitutional provsions of vacancies and what exactly goes on I would have great trouble doing that if 1) the article on a president just acts like there never was a vacancy, 2) the interim presidents are turned into second or third-grade figures whose articles will be of a far poorer quality than the presidential one's because the on ly links to them will be through maybe 1-2 other articles or even only footnotes. For the sake of information I appeal that this not become a forum where people will only want their country's articles to stand out and where people from a certain country will want to make articles about things relating to their countries to be perfect beyond realistic cicrumsatnces. Northernelk888 (talk) 2:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken on what you explained above. I will revert to the version with both acting and actual predecessor/successor listed for the earlier presidents. However, I will not do so for the case of the Tony Tan article's infobox. In that case, the constitution is a post-amendment that one you quoted above which is different from the case when Yeoh Gim Seng, speaker of parliament, took on the role pre-1985. As it is now, the "acting President" is just a person who seats in the president election committee. He is not a politician, nor the speaker or a member of parliament. This person is literally a seat-warmer til the new guy comes in. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zhanzhao for agreeing to the consensus solution I proposed. By listing both the interim holder after a president left office, as well as his next successor with the title President of Singapore, I think both the criteria for continuity of the title of president that you insisted on, as well as the realistic existence of interim presidents as heads of state that I insisted on are satisfied, to the benefit of this article. Now as for the case of Tony Tan who took office on 2 September 2011 for a six-year term. These are the reasons why J. Y. Pillay will take over as INTERIM president in the first place on 1 September 2017: 1) Singapore's Prime Minister decided to push back the presidential election to September so campaigning would not coincide with Singapore's National Day on 9 August. 2) Singapore's parliament introduced a constitutional amendement that will take effect from the 2017 presidential onwards. This amendement states that if one of Singapore's ethic groups (Tamil, Chinese, Malay or Caucasian) has not held the presidency for more than 5 presidential terms, the next election would be reserved for a member of that ethic group. This just happens to be the case in 2017 as the Malay community has not had a president since Yusuf bin Ishak in 1970. Therefore all other possible non-Malay candidates are automatically disqualified from contesting this election, including the incumbent president Tony Tan Keng Yam, even though no term limits exist in Singapore. In line with this Tan Cheng Bock, a Chinese candidate who narrowly lost to Tony Tan in 2011, filed a legal challenge against the new reserved presidency amendement, thereby delaying the election originally planned for August, and thereby also delaying the commencement of a new presidential term on 1 September 2017, when Tony Tan's term ends, to some unknown later date. This being said means that a vacancy will occur in the presidency on 1 September 2017, and will last until whenever the next election finally takes place, the results are certified and the winner is declared and sworn-in as the 8th President of Singapore. Now, as a PERMANENT VACANCY will take place from 1 September 2017 onwards, someone again has to take the place of head of state. The constitution I took the articles out of above is not pre-1985. It is infact the newest version which even includes  the reserved presidency amendement, and it clearly states that the first in line to the interim presidency is the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), currently J.Y. Pillay. Only if this role is vacant as well will the next person in line, the Speaker of Parliament (currently Halimah Yacob, a possible presidential contender herself) take office as interim president.  And if both the CPA chairmanship and the Speakership are vacant parliamnet will select a person constitutionally qualified to serve as (permanent) president to become interim president. So the line of succession to the interim presidency is: 1) CPA Chairman 2) Speaker of Parliament 3) someone selected by parliament. As Tony Tan's term ends on 1 September 2017 the presidency will become vacant and J.Y. Pillay as CPA chairman will become Interim (or Acting as it is called in Singapore) president until the 8th President takes office in late September or October. Pillay will not be acting for Tony Tan, because Tan's term WILL NOT be extended or something like that. Once 1 September comes Singapore will no longer have a permanent, but only an interim president. Also, I see no evidence in the Consitution itself to support your claim that a member of the Presidential election committee would under any circumstances become an interim president during such a permanent vacancy. The PEC only gives out certificates which say that a candidate has fulfilled the strict criteria for contesting presidential elections.

Northernelk888 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Shehbaz Sharif
Hi, lets not engage in edit war. Usually we don't add citation in the lead paras. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Croatia by longevity


The article List of Presidents of Croatia by longevity has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:LISTCRUFT - List of Presidents of Croatia already exists."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

'Phelekezela Mphoko
Hi There are no source that he is president. He is a virtual president like Diosdado Cabello after Chavez's death. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Go in talk page Talk:President of Zimbabwe. Mphoko never been acting president. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Stop making these edits when we know for a fact (as discussed in multiple talk areas) that he was the first VP for mugabe after he sacked mnangagwa and that mnangagwa has the right to appoint his own team as he is the president, this is your last warning.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

President of Zimbabwe
Hi Yesterday, the zimbabwean justice retroactively cancelled the dismissal of Emmerson, so Emmerson was interim president or the office was vacant ?--Panam2014 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the de jure situation that we represent on Wikipedia. Manuel Zelaya was the de jure president but he left office in 2009 and not in 2010 and Diosdado Cabello was not acting president in 2013. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "To avoid further argument over the issue I can propose a compromise in the form of leaving the Nov 21-24 box vacant but putting a reference that Mphoko is presumed Acting Prez for those dates as per the experts in Zim. which are cited." Agree. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Panam2014, look every situation you have cited as a comparison for the one in Zimbabwe is a different and unique one. The constitutional provisions in each of those countries regarding succession (and the formal processes that must be fulfilled for that process to be legal), the circumstances in which Zelaya, Chavez and others left office, as well as the degrees to which the constitution was enforced in each case differ. Diosdado Cabello is regarded as having deposed Chavez and taken office, while Zelaya denied having resigned and there was de facto a situation where both Zelaya and Acting president Roberto Michetti claimed the office. In Zimbabwe's case Mugabe himself never revoked his resignation (and it was never disputed once read out by Parliament). After that occurrence the only provision to fill a vacancy is to have Mphoko (as the only remaining member of the line of succession) take office as Acting President, which requires no formal ceremony, oath or confirmation by any political or constitutional body (e.g. Supreme Court or Parliament) or person (e.g. Speaker of Parliament). There is no mention of a requirement for the person taking on the role having to be in the country or (publicly) confirming himself as holding the role. Mphoko was never removed from the post of VP (which he could have been by the military), by which the office of president (acting or otherwise) would truly be vacant unless the cabinet met and chose a person among itself to fill the post of Acting president.
 * Zimbabwe's problem is that Mphoko is not just abroad, he is also on the run. The situation is totally comparable to Venezuela in 2013. Chavez died, the constitution named Diosdado Cabello as interim president until April, but the Venezuelan government ignored this and swore in Maduro in March 2013. There, the supreme court sworn in Emmerson but she was never recognized as acting president Mphoko. The three sources does not say that Mphoko was acting president, only the constitution considers him as. But there are no source who said that he is the the facto president. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But that is just the point. There is no legal provision of any kind that states that for someone to become Acting President of Zimbabwe they have to perform a certain act, such as take an oath. Therefore, there is no way that someone could have said that Mphoko is Acting president, especially since it was expected that Mnangagwa would take office in a matter of days. The only provision for an Acting President to take office (in the sense that he is the constitutional head of state and not just acting for a head of state (the constitutional president) while they he or she is abroad for example) is that the office falls vacant. No process has to be put in motion for that provision to take effect. Venezuela is a different issue, since you yourself state that there was an exact time frame during which Cabello should have been Acting President. Namely, in Zimbabwe the VP becomes Acting President until the ruling party names a permanent replacement for the president who has vacated the office. This replacement can be anybody, including the incumbent Acting President himself. This new president NEEDS to take an oath to assume office. Therefore an oath is rather needed to end an acting presidency, rather than commence it.
 * It's wrong. Explain to me why the sources (Zimbabwean or international press) do not say that Mphoko was acting president but only constitutionally, he is. The context of his flight abroad is important. I prefer to stick to the compromise found just now, we do not put anything, vacant or unclear and we put a note. We do not know, we can not invent an info.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I do agree that the box currently containing Mphoko as Acting President should be replaced by a note that his tenure is disputed, but this is something that should only be a temporary solution. My impetus to propose it were the already endless discussions on the issue which had taken place before my involvement in the discussion and which were stalemated as far as productivity in reaching a lasting solution is concerned. Therefore I felt the need to first put in place a neutral solution until there is a more-or-less wide consensus among editors, because allowing a culture of mutual edits and counter edits to continue would have only resulted in one of the parties giving up due to being annoyed or exhausted and the other party unilaterally putting its solution into force. Secondly, as I have said there is no clear provision that states that someone has become Acting President at a certain moment or stopped being Acting president in another, with the sole exception of one permanent president leaving office and another taking office. Thirdly, to give you an answer to your question regarding media sources addressing Mphoko as Acting president, I have to say that I view it as just a lack of interest in Mphoko himself, due to the fact that it was very evident that Mnangagwa would take the reigns of power, as the successor to one of the longest serving leaders in Africa and the world. If Mphoko had been selected to succeed Mugabe permanently I believe that he would have been more in the spotlight of this whole cycle of very confusing and secretive stuff that was going on, ranging from the very question of a coup actually taking place to whether Mugabe would resign at all or be impeached. Furthermore, no dramatic or hugely significant event took place following Mugabe's resignation which would have prompted someone to propose the serious question of whose responsibility it is to do something about it. If there had been an acute need for someone to issue a decree or sign a legal document regarding Zimbabwe's internal affairs, then there would have been the need to clarify who has the authority to do so. But since none of this happened and Mnangagwa was the one in the spotlight I believe it was just found irrelevant by media sources to state with 100% certainty who is going to be holding a title that will permanently pass to Mnangagwa anyway in 48-72 hours. And finally, acting presidents hold a very limited amount of political power and are constitutionally only allocated more or less basic authority to keep the system running while there is no legal permanent head of state in place. So again, had something major happened and had it required for example the involvement of the repressive apparatus (police, military etc.) then it would be VERY relevant who exactly had the authority to legally command them to do this or that, but in this sense there was no urgent need. Mugabe's resignation after all was the most major event and the pinnacle of the whole crisis, so any legal consequences arising from such a move for only 2-3 days fell well short of being covered apart from the most basic statements saying Mphoko is constitutionally mandated to be Acting President. In short no one bothered to do a deeper analysis of  the state of things which would go beyond what the constitution says. Even the official websites of Zimbabwe's presidency and Parliament were down after Mugabe resigned so there is just no way other than the constitution to determine who WAS or SHOULD HAVE BEEN in charge.
 * That the press would be better off talking about Mphoko is a certainty, but we have to do with the available sources. And so to date, any source it said in the interim president president. On the other hand, in other cases, an acting president, even if a limited power, the black-and-white print media that he was. For the rest, there is no question that he was chosen or not, in fact, not only was he excluded from the party in power, but he was also on the run. So we can not do our own analysis or distort the meaning of the sources. So on can only put "unclear", unless Mphoko claims to have been president or an analyst says so.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Being party chairman is neither a head of state nor head of government
I propose deleting Miloš Jakeš and Rezső Nyers from this list because they never held any of the leading government positions in their countries (e.g. President, Prime Mnister, President of the Presidency of the Republic, Member of the Presidency of the Republic...) that would qualify them to be considered de jure leaders of their countries. I am well aware that 99,99% of the time in cases where the party chairman and the de jure head of state/head of government of a country in the Eastern Bloc were not the same person, that meant that the de jure leader was just a puppet and all the real influence was with the party chairman, BUT, constitutionally the puppet head of state or government was the leader of that respective country (be it in the form of a single leader or a council of 10, 15, 30, 50 people...). Another reason I would discourage the inclusion of people who were considered only de facto leaders is because it opens up a whole pool of possibilities on how to define de facto leaders. For example, even some party chairmen had times when they were locked in a power struggle with leaders of other party factions, and then the issue of who the de facto leader was pulling the strings attached to the puppet presidents or collective heads of state becomes anyone's guess. As the most constructive proposition I can think of is to just crate a separate table for all these (usually communist) de facto leaders who's true power came solely from party influence and positions and not formal government hierarchy or structures. That way their status as the de facto most influential people in a country is recognized and there is less room for arbitrary definitions of who should or should not be included. Northernelk888 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would incidentally exclude those who were merely members of a collective presidency if that presidency had a designated chairman (as was always the case in Poland).LE (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Northernelk888, thanks for creating List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by time in office
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Northernelk888, thanks for creating List of Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by time in office!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources and communication
I have contacted you twice but you have not responded. Please be aware that WP:Communication is required, as well as polite. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Please respond to my previous messages. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my 4th message to you. I again ask you to look at the links above; you are risking a block. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond? If you continue to ignore messages, this will lead to an WP:ANI and you will risk a blcok. I have contacted you five times over two months. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Boleyn, I wish to first and foremost apologize for not responding to your pleas addressed to me and say that I have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the wikipedia article relating to the list of members of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by their time in office has reliable sources, which I must say I had trouble locating at first as they are in a PDF format. However, after a longer period of searching I am glad to say I have been successful. Therefore I deeply regret that I had to be blocked from editing as I believe I can offer constructive and quality editing in the future if my capacity to do so be restored to its original pre-blockage state. Once more I wish to stress that I am very regretful as to not having replied to your pleas and state that it was in part unintentional as I was not actively editing wikipedia in any greater measure at the time and was also having trouble locating the needed articles to cite as sources, which I have in the mean time successfully done. Therefore, I will to finally request that my editing capabilities be restored and I pledge to meet the requested measures as much as it will be in my capability. Northernelk888 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Aruba and Sint Maarten
Could you please undo the damage you did to List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government? You clearly haven't read the page Kingdom of the Netherlands. Aruba and Sint Maarten are independent countries within the Kingdom, as is The Netherlands (not to be confused with Kingdom of the Netherlands) and these Prime Ministers were/are head of government. PPP (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what "damage" I did to that article. Because from what you are complaining about I can only gather that you do not understand that that list you are refering to is only for heads of state and/or government of fully independent countries. Forgive me if I sound rude but Aruba and Sint Maarten are NOT independent states. The country IS the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands, Aruba and Sint Maarten are CONSTITUENT Countries of the KINGDOM just like England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland are for the UK. Just to prove my point. If Aruba and Sint Maarten were independent wouldn't they have separate representation in the UN for example? Therefore any women HOGs or HOS' of either of those, along with any similar future casses should by listed in the dependency and country subdivision list.


 * Aruba, Curacao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten are independent countries as such, that there is no parliament for the entire kingdom, unlike for the UK, which is for that matter comparable to a federal system. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own regional governments, but Westminster is still responsible for them. The Hague is not responsible for nor allowed to influence the governments of Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. The three Caribbean countries are not represented in the UN, as are so many countries. There is a so-called Kingdom Government with limited power and with limited responsibilities, and they submit to the four country governments, not the other way around. The Kingdom Government does not, for example, have a Prime Minister. PPP (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again, if you don't mind I would like to try to settle this matter by going over each point you mentioned briefly one by one. For the issue of there being no parliament in which each of the four equal countries is represented, I would again raise the example of the UK (or more exactly it's dependencies and other forms of semi-self-governing territories). In the case of the UK, I can fully agree that each of the four constituent countries is not as such represented in Parliament and that three out of four (because England isn't devolved the same amount of self-rule from Westminster) have their own assemblies, but the electoral constituencies themselves take up the area of the entire UK, so even though e.g. Scotland may not itself have any MPs for the whole of it, if you add up all the constituencies making up Scotland than Scotland is de facto represented in Westminster through MPs elected in Scottish constituencies. However, coming to the issue of British dependencies. As you may know only the four countries themselves (Scotland, England, N. Ireland and Wales) are actually rightfully called the UK, while other areas like the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Anguilla, BIOT, Gibraltar etc. are all just areas that recognize the Queen as their sovereign and still have their own parliaments mostly with a large amount of self-rule in many areas. They can even independently choose whether to apply certain EU regulations or even to not be part of the EU at all, but no country in the world has granted any sort of recognition of their independence because ultimately they are just in various ways linked to the UK (of which they are legally not a part). This is quite similar to the relationship between the four countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of which Willem-Alexander is king, and this not in such a way as referencing or even implying any sort of mutual recognition between the four countries as independent states, but as part of the common realm of one monarch. In this way, I don't think that it matters per se if the countries have a common cabinet or even a parliament, but if their mutual relationship is one of independent states (e.g. with embassies of each of those countries existing in every other or at least some of the other countries of the Kingdom). Does Aruba have an embassy in Amsterdam or the Hague, or does the Netherlands have an embassy in any of the other countries? Because if your argument were valid, we would be looking at a situation similar to the Commonwealth Realms (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and 11 other countries) which all are purely in personal union (sharing the same monarch) but having fully independent international relations both with other countries but also mutually (e.g. Canada has an embassy in Canberra despite both countries sharing the same monarch), however, with regard to the Kingdom of the Netherlands no such evidence exists. Even the wikipedia article about the Kingdom states: The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state and constitutional monarchy with the large majority of its territory in Western Europe and with several small islands in the Caribbean Sea, in the West Indies islands (Leeward Islands and Lesser Antilles). The four parts of the kingdom—the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten—are constituent countries (landen in Dutch) and participate on a basis of equality as partners in the kingdom. In practice, however, most of the kingdom's affairs are administered by the Netherlands—which comprises roughly 98% of the kingdom's land area and population—on behalf of the entire kingdom. Consequently, the Caribbean Sea islands countries of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are dependent on the Netherlands for matters like foreign policy and defence, although they are autonomous to a certain degree with their own parliaments.  Northernelk888 (talk) 8:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Caribbean countries do have a representation (call them embassies if you will) in The Hague: Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. The other way around, the Netherlands has embassies in the three Caribbean countries: NL in Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten. PPP (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Northernelk. I have unfortunately had to block your account due to your refusal to communicate, even to address problems with your editing. As you should know, the threshold for content inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability; you have created unsourced articles and have apparently been unwilling to rectify these issues, and have in fact completely refused to respond to this feedback at all, even in spite of repeated pleas to communicate. As I'm sure you understand, our new page patrol process depends on reasonable cooperation between page patrollers and article creators, and failing to communicate is not actually an option available to editors, as a WP:EPTALK matter of policy; failing to respond to feedback, communicate, or cite sources is considered to be disruptive editing. Please review WP:V and WP:COMMUNICATE and if you will pledge to adhere to them going forward, you may continue editing at your convenience. S warm   ♠  08:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi S warm  ♠, I wish to first and foremost apologize for not responding to the respective fellow user's pleas addressed to me and say that I have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the wikipedia article relating to the list of members of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by their time in office has reliable sources, which I must say I had trouble locating at first as they are in a PDF format. However, after a longer period of searching I am glad to say I have been successful. Therefore I deeply regret that I had to be blocked from editing as I believe I can offer constructive and quality editing in the future if my capacity to do so be restored to its original pre-blockage state. Once more I wish to stress that I am very regretful as to not having replied to the fellow user's/ wikipedia editor's pleas and state that it was in part unintentional as I was not actively editing wikipedia in any greater measure at the time and was also having trouble locating the needed articles to cite as sources, which I have in the mean time successfully done. Therefore, I will to finally request that my editing capabilities be restored and I pledge to meet the requested measures as much as it will be in my capability. Northernelk888 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity 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/List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of spouses of presidents of Croatia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of spouses of presidents of Croatia 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/List of spouses of presidents of Croatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)