User talk:Therequiembellishere/Archive 3

Plese Upload New Federal Council Pictures
[Swiss Federal Council http://www.admin.ch/br/org/index.html?lang=en]  replace last year picture in Swiss Federal Council  and Switzerland Main page  -- Thank you  User: Nonpawit  —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

On the template talk page --
Were you addressing me or User:Josephabradshaw (to whose talkpage I'd already sent a notice concerning the aricle probation; see here)? :^)  ↜Just me, here, now …  06:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris
I think this edit summary was unnecessary. I have researched the issue and disagree with you vehemently. See 2 USC Sec. 36, which has been used by the Senate as the rule for when service begins since the thirties. Also see this Senate research document, which supports that statement, and the Senate's chronological list of members, which shows Barrasso as commencing service on June 22, the date of his appointment, not June 25, the date he took the oath. Regardless of whether you accept the argument, I don't understand why you had to presume that anyone disagreeing with you couldn't be basing his or her edit on something more than pure ignorance. -Rrius (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I intended the summary to be directed toward Cassandro, who is not from the United States. However, I still disagree due to the twists and turns his appointment had, he wasn't even considered a proper candidate until a couple weeks after his appointment. If the Senate logs support your argument, fine; if they don't it'll be because his case was likely sui generis. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cassandro has been following several discussions on the topic. But I can see how pre-existing knowledge would cause that presumption. I've run into you on other topics, so I was surprised at the harshness. Now I understand. In any event, the terminology gets flubbed a bit here and there, but the fact is, an appointed senator's term begins at appointment. If the Senate votes to exclude him when he shows up, the Senate is saying the appointment was void ab initio. Senators who have not been sworn, though, are entitled to salary, staff, etc., but cannot vote or speak.


 * Burris's treatment is absurd in that the Secretary of the Senate rejected his credentials. That seems to me to be a violation of the rules (and the Constitution), in that the Secretary should have put them before the Senate for it to judge. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin were just ridiculous and dishonest throughout, with the most outrageous thing being Durbin's claim that the Senate has never waived the rule's requirement. It is doubly dishonest because the rule doesn't require the precise form and because the Senate has waived presentation of credentials on the promise they were in the mail, and has accepted credentials from Arkansas in a form other than the one prescribed by the Senate. I've gone really, really far afield, but I'm tired, so I shouldn't be judged too harshly. -Rrius (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't trying to be harsh. Did it really come out that way? I just thought it would be a honest thing to say, I've been told to research topics more thoroughly and then come back and found nothing wrong with the request and I apologise if it came out that way.


 * I see, alright then. And yes, I agree that the appointment is bazaar, especially with the flip-flop from all of the senators antagoising him. Reid has proven once again his ineptitude. And you're perfectly fine. Once everything get cleared, I'm always take a "hakuna matata" stance. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister Designate - Malaysia
I have reverted your edits again regarding this in the two articles, Najib Tun Razak and Template:Politics of Malaysia. There is a constitutional process in Malaysia for the appointment of a Prime Minister which Mr. Najib has yet to go through. What has happened to date is a unilateral move by Mr. Najib's party to declare him the next Prime Minister, something which the party is not empowered to do so. Further debate on this can be continued here. Let a consensus be achieved before further edits on this matter be done. - Bob K | Talk 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II
Hello Therequiembellishere, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards     02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

US Order of Precedence
Excellent work finding the source for acting department heads for United States Order of Precedence. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I knew the offices couldn't be completely vacant so I went searching. I just wished they released the Acting Transportation Sec. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that Bush's appointees continued in their positions until they resigned. Thus, no need for Acting Secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Afair the terms of Secretaries end with the end of the term of the president. Cassandro (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. There is no term for Cabinet secretaries, which is why Gates doesn't need to be confirmed again. It is by convention that they resign at the change in administrations. If they didn't, they could be sacked anyway. -Rrius (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Cassandro (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming the respective Deputy Secretaries haven't been confirmed 'yet'. Who's running the Departments. PS: I know I'm nitpicking. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Obama deputies have not been confirmed. At least some of the acting secretaries seem to be top career officials. Specifically, they are listed here. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see. There's some holdovers from the Bush Administration, like under-secretaries and assistant secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Your revert made me think: What's the use of Current U.S. Cabinet, anyway? I can't think of any situation in which it would not be redundant with the current "cabinet" template. Should we prod it? &mdash; Sebastian 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First could you explain what "prod" means. If it means delete, I agree.ABC101090 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for speaking in abbreviations. Yes, it means adding one of the Category:Prod-related templates (in this case tprod) on the page and discussing it in the correct forum, in this case WP:TFD. &mdash; Sebastian 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point, is self-explanatory and if you can't see that I'm not sure what will. Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is not tied to the Obama templates at all. You must realise that Obama's cabinet will not all stay all eight years, this is the point of the Template:Obama Cabinet. I'm not bloody repeating myself, so read this before you indiscriminately pass disingenuous judgment. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But if the cabinet members are to change, then of course they can be added to, with the dates. Then it is clear to everyone who is in office now. I believe  is unnecessary because of this. ABC101090 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But then the reader has to fish for the incumbent! I--will--repeat Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is not related to the Obama templates. You are the sole revert and you will be reported. So, reflexively, PLEASE could you stop removing Template:Current U.S. cabinet from the Secretary pages. It is not useless. The same thing cannot be said with Template:Obama cabinet. Please. Thank you. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And I will say: can be used to portray all of the secretaries of a president by adding the years a secretary was in office. Let me iillustrate:

And another one:

ABC101090 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell, that's fantastic. You've brilliantly illustrated that the other templates don't show the current cabinet, but the administration's cabinet members. I helped create those templates as they are, I know what they can and can't be used for. I don't own them but I know what I certainly know talking about so don't patronise me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that the Obama cabinet-template can be used in the same way. The dates obviously tell who is the current/latest secretary. You are really beginning to annoy me and i am considerring of complaining about you to someone. ABC101090 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This refers to these edits: ,. &mdash; Sebastian 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Acting Cabinet folks
Thanks for doing the other actings in the Obama cabinet! I got Justice done, but been too busy to do everyone else. Thanks again and good job! - Thanks, Hoshie 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points on the state leader lists

 * 1) We've actually regularly got quite a few people who are only *nominated* to their posts -- right now, for instance, the GG of Jamaica, the pres. of Bangladesh, Tsvangirai, even the not-yet-even-designated next PM of Malaysia... So there's no reason not to put the newly nominated PM in Georgia in there. (Especially since his party has got a sweeping majority in parliament and can easily confirm him.)
 * 2) Please, please, PLEASE try not to be overeager with declaiming people the new X of Y. Sharif Ahmed is *not yet sworn in*, so we shouldn't declare him so. Could you please try to be careful with that? Thanks! — Nightstallion  08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Middayexpress (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR Result. Please try... yandman 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Obama cabinet

 * You didn't see the articles First 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency or United States Cabinet . What is the difference? Ucla90024 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed Gary Locke's name at the Template:Obama cabinet by reasoning "Not until confirmation", but not at First 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency or United States Cabinet, which is not consistent. There is not harm in listing his name with TBC. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Czech presidents
I am sorry, but you are not correct. Czech republic has 2nd president in history - Mr. Klaus. And first president was Vaclav Havel, not Mr. Spidla. --Sumivec (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Klaus is the second president. Špidla was an acting president. It's not an uncommon thing by any means. And unless you can provide a reliable source that says something along the lines of "No, Vladimír Špidla did not execute the office President of the Czech Republic in an acting capacity by any means during the vacancy of 3 February 2003 – 7 March 2003 after Václav Havel left office and before Václav Klaus took office" as opposed to my source which says that he did, Špidla should remain. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Czech presidents II
I am very sorry, but you do not understend Czech political system at all. Spidla was not "acting" president. Czech Constitution do not know even term like it. In case like this, Czech government (prime minister), Czech Parlliment (chair of Chamber of Deputies), Constitution Court and other bodies are shering presidential power. Nothin like US vicepresident. It is quite crazy, that you are explaining me Czech political system, even with virtualy zero experience with Czech polical system :-( I hope, that you trust Czech wiki - please see articles, . --Sumivec (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not like the United States is the only country with acting leaders. Several people come into power this way. And no, a wiki is not a reliable source. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. you understand Czech political system and Constitution better thech all Czech wikipedia community :-D I am afraid, taht we are wasting our time. You are right. EN Wiki is not realible source. Due to edits like yours :-( --Sumivec (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind your tongue. We do have a civility policy. ALL wikis are unreliable sources according to policy and unless you CAN find a reliable source, that information can be subject to deletion (yes, according to policy). As it is, I HAVE found a source. You're not an extremely new editor, you should know this. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to List of current heads of state and government
Hi there! Why did u revert the changes I made to the List of current heads of state and government page? What I did was: - Added the correct title of the head of state of Guinea, as he is officially not president but 'President of the National Council for Democracy and Development' as can be seen on the List of heads of state of Guinea page, plus a similar title is given to the head of state of Mauritania which u did't mind as it's still there. - Added the head of government title to the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Saudi Arabia and the President of Cuba. I already raised the question of one person filling two offices on the discussion page ('One leader - two titles') to which u didn't make any comments. - Added 'Sir' and 'Dame' to the names of appropriate people. ZBukov (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because his title was President of the National Council for Democracy and Development for only two days, 22 December and 24 December, when he became President. The all extra titles are superfluous. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2009
Helo! U keep reverting the List of state leaders in 2009 page to inconsistent previous stages. Having reviewed the reverts u made, it seems u don't mind giving the Libyan head of state his proper title, but not to the head of government. Is there any reason for it? Just as the title of Miftah Muhammed K'eba isn't head of state but General Secretary of the General People's Congress, all the same Baghdadi Mahmudi is NOT Prime Minister of Libya but General Secretary of the General People's Committee of Libya as it can be seen on the List of heads of government of Libya page. And Than Swe has NOT been Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council since 1992, only since 1997 because previously he was Chairman of the State Law and Order Restoration Council. And the changes u made to Andorra are simply misleading. U changed French Co-Prince and Spanish Co-Prince to French and Spanish Monarch. I understand that u want to standardize the title for monarchs but currently the Spanish Monarch is Juan Carlos I, not Joan Enric Vives Sicília. His title is Espiscopal Co-Prince of Andorra. And since 1870 there hasn't been a French Monarch. Further naming that country Republic of Macedonia seems inconsistent too, because the 'Republic of' part is not used in the case of other countries, plus Macedonia was admitted to international bodies under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which I put in and u reverted. Further what is the reason u prefer to have the vice president of Switzerland also named, while the vice presidents aren't named in the case of other countries? What is the reason for deleting the Prime Minister of Brunei? One sign of the separation of the offices of sultan and prime minister is that Hassanal Bolkiah entered them at different times. ZBukov (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know exactly what I did. We don't put long, unruly names. We put the most common name. It isn't necessary to put former titles there, even if title changes because the office is the same. That's why we have articles. It's perfectly clear that it's directed as the Spanish monarch of Andorra, not Spain; it's equally clear that it's directed as the French monarch of Andorra, not France. There isn't another Macedonia, so there's no need to specify -- regardless of other entry names for international bodies. They Swiss Federal Councillors are to be ordered by seniority, and the added note for the vice president is to explain why they precede other councillors who assumed office prior to the vice president. The "Prime Minister of Brunei" is essentially an imaginary title and has no place but as a single sentence in his article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 'We don't put long, unruly names.' Want to make facts fit your box of 'ruly names'? Looking at the page how will people know that the Andorran title of Sarkozy and Vives Sicília is co-prince, not king, emperor or grand duke? Further as it can be seen on the Andorra page, Vives Sicília's title is Episcopal co-prince, not Spanish co-prince. His title doesn't derive from the fact that he's Spanish (if he happens to be ethnically Spanish at all) but from the fact that he's the Bishop of Urgel. Further the naming of the Libyan head of state and head of government still seems inconsistent. Why give to one his proper title but not the other? ZBukov (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The monarch thing did confuse me, yes. Conversely, we weren't talking about that at all. And it's because the more popular name is "prime minister". Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Latvia
The referenced source specificly says: "Dombrovskis has to win a parliament confidence vote, which is expected to take place on March 12." In politics that means anything is possible. No reason to skin the bear before it's shot. WikiPedia is not a crystalball. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People who are concurrently head of state and head of government
You may or may not have seen that I raised this problem on the talk page of 'List of current heads of state and government' ('One leader - two titles') in January. The cases in question are Brunei, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
 * The posts of the Brunei sultan and prime minister are definiately not the same. Your view posted on my talk page that "the "Prime Minister of Brunei" is essentially an imaginary title" doesn't seem to be shared by the Brunei government whose webpage (http://www.brunei.gov.bn/government/system.htm) states that "Brunei's administrative system is centred on the Prime Minister's Office" and not the royal palace. Further before independence Brunei had other heads of government (titled chief minister) under Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah's rule. So while having ruled as sultan from 1967, he only became prime minister in 1984.
 * The Cuban post of head of state and head of government aren't the same either. As you must be well aware yourself, Fidel Castro was head of government between 1959 to 1976 without being concurrently head of state.
 * There were also cases when the posts of king and prime minister of Saudi Arabia were held by different people.
 * And there were other examples in the past when the separate offices of head of state and head of government were filled by the same person (e.g. presidents Saddam Hussein and Boris Yeltsin were prime ministers for some time during their presidential tenures of office). So deleting and disregarding the Bruneian, Cuban and Saudi heads of government seems to be overly simplistic and against the facts. ZBukov (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All three are rubber stamp titles. The same head of state just takes it on as an added thing. It's not necessary at all. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I proved my point with arguments and facts, while u simply state your opinion. What reason do you have to think that "All three are rubber stamp titles"? What's your explanation for the cases when these offices were held by different people? ZBukov (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When the same person holds both the head of state and head of government position, it's needless to put both. They are simply the head of state and government. Because of precedence, the head of state title is the one used. Fidel merged the positions together when he became president while Brunei became a state with Hassanal Bolkiah already as the sultan who created the prime ministerial post upon independence, he does everything as sultan and all of Saudi Arabia's prime ministers were either the king or regent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Md.
Greetings. In this edit, you would have been correct to remove "Md." from Zillur Rahman's name, if Rahman did not use it. To answer your question "What does that even mean?" ... Md. is a shortened version of the name "Muhammad". Many people in South Asia, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India write Md. for Muhammad, especially when it appears in the beginning of their name. The common practice among many muslim south asian is to have "Muhammad" as a prefix for male names, so, even though someone may be named Muhammad X Y, the person will never be referred to as "Muhammad", but rather would be referred to as "X" or "Mr. Y". So, in writing, the prefix Muhammad is shortened to Md. People even get passports with their names written as Md. X Y ... which causes endless misunderstandings in the western countries, where these people are confused as medical doctors, or where computer systems built with Western names in mind cannot handle such names.

Now, back to Zillur Rahman. He is widely known by "Zillur Rahman", and may be known in media as such, but according to official sources, his full name is Mohammad Zillur Rahman. Here is the press release from his party. I just checked the official page of the Government of Bangladesh, where it says Md. Zillur Rahman. So, his full name is officially "Mohammad Zillur Rahman", which is written in short form as "Md. Zillur Rahman". Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Incumbents whose taking office predates independence
Hi Therequiembellishere! I believe that the year when people took office shouldn't be confused with the year when their countries attained independence. Hassanal Bolkiah has been Sultan of Brunei since 1967, for a fact. It's only that the country he had been ruling ceased to be a British protectorate in 1984, which is all too clear when one looks at the Brunei article. So his title and position within Brunei remained the same as it was before 1984, the only change was that Brunei gained external sovereignity. And this is the case with Montenegro and Serbia too, whose presidents took office while their countries were still constituent republics of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia before that. So if you asked the question 'Who is the president of Serbia?' the answer has been Boris Tadic all the same since 2004 regardless of the fact whether Serbia was independent or not. And this applies to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan too, which was yet another correction of mine which you reverted.

P.S. It would be nice if your reaction wasn't automatically reaching for the revert button whenever you see a correction I made. I still can't see what your problem was with me having taken the trouble and time to put 'Sir' and 'Dame' in front of the name of appropriate people since that's the way they are referred to in writing. ZBukov (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just look at the government page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote: ''"external sovereignty" is what makes the country a state."


 * 'State' article: "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states."


 * 'State (administrative division)' article: "Many countries are made up of a number of subnational entities called states. ... Countries with federal constitutions include several sovereign subnational states with rights and/or powers which cannot be over-ruled or vetoed by the national government or head of state."


 * 'Protectorate' article: "A protectorate... retains sufficient measure of sovereignty and remains a state under international law" - Brunei, the case in question, was a British protectorate until 1984...


 * So if you are a constitutional and international law expert and know otherwise, please re-write the articles I referred to above.


 * You wrote concerning 'Sir' and 'Dame': "superfluous titles are completely and utterly unnecessary."


 * Orders of knighthood which confer the right upon the recipient to prefix their names with 'Sir' and 'Dame' are legally sanctioned state honours and from a practical point of view, they are widely used in the press. So arbitrarily declaring them to be superfluous seems to be unfounded.


 * If you discover an inaccuracy like the title of the Guinean head of state, than it would be helpful and construstive if you corrected it in the internal Wikipedia source of reference, in this case in the 'List of heads of state of Guinea' article. ZBukov (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I hadn't seen the first comment. My last message was about the Guinean president. Yes, and that "external sovereignty" is what makes the country a state. And again, superfluous titles are completely and utterly unnecessary. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Head of state of Guinea
Your wrote about Moussa Dadis Camara of Guinea that his "title was President of the National Council for Democracy and Development for only two days, 22 December and 24 December, when he became President". If you know this from a verifiable independent source, than it would be rather expedient if you corrected it on the 'List of heads of state of Guinea' page and not just undo my change on the 'List of state leaders in 2009' page. ZBukov (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama Timeline
Thanks for your edit to the subject article. I did a little pruning to keep it in accordance with some necessary guidelines that have been set-up regarding brevity.. If you consider all the people that are in attendance when President Obama meets a fellow head of state or high ranking foreign dignatary you can understand why I removed the aide. And, we are trying our best to keep away from the "why" of meetings, etc as they are very well reported in the media and other articles and only open the door for political comment. Hope you understand.--Buster7 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's perfectly fine. I was tentative adding it at all because I had no idea what the guidelines were. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Women leaders
Do u think it would be useful to put women on the 'List of current heads of state and government' in bold font to give people an impression of how many of the current world leaders are female? ZBukov (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a page about them at List of elected or appointed female heads of government and List of elected or appointed female heads of state. I'll add them to the see also section now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of the Czech Republic
Hi, I saw your edit summary here. I was wondering, is there a way we can recognize the confidence vote while also recognizing that Topolanek's administration may be in place until June due to the EU Presidency?Spinach Monster (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could add a note to his name or the end date section that just says that he's resigned and will remain prime minister until a successor is sworn-in. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll leave it to you unless you want me to do the honors. I might check later, but more than likely I'll agree with your judgement. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PM of Israel
In case you were wondering why I reverted all your edits, Netanyahu has not actually become PM yet - it has to go to a Knesset vote, and only then is he actually Prime Minister. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jan Fischer
Hi, I have reverted a bunch of your edits regarding the appointment of the new Czech Prime Minister, because they are factually incorrect. You are way ahead of the reality. The Sunday deal is only a preliminary agreement of the leaders of four parties (Civic Democrats, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Greens) to form a new government, including allocation of government seats to the parties, and nomination of Fischer as the new PM. (You can read more here.) At least two more things (each of which may go wrong) need to happen before the deal is finalized: Only then would Fischer become the designated Prime Minister. (After that, Fischer would name the ministers of his government, and ask the President to swear them into office, at which point he would finally become the Prime Minister of the new government. Within 30 days, the new government would have to ask for a confidence vote in the Parliament.)
 * The deal has to be approved by executive bodies of the four parties (not just by the party leaders).
 * The President must name Fischer as the new Prime Minister.

So, please, hold your horses. Fischer is likely to be eventually designated a Prime Minister, but we are not there yet. — Emil J. 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating Issue
Let me remind you of the fact that date formats on English Wikipedia are equivalent. There is no need to change it and, according to WP, if you are editing an article, you should follow the style it is written in. Leaving these things as they are also might be perceived as paying respect to the article's creator. And if there is something immature going on here, it's your behaviour.

Now, some additional pieces of information: Please be informed, that in the Czech Republic people speak Czech. That means that they simply can't have guidelines saying how to write English dates in a correct way. And as far as Czech ortography is concerned, we write a dot after an ordinal number, and the first letter of the name of a month is never capitalized. If I can provide you with further information, please, let me know, just leave the article "as is". Thank you.

Ad TBD: Everything's gonna come to an end some day. However, he is to leave this post just for the period of his PM-ship, and it is even not sure, so stop being a tabloid journalist. Black&amp;White (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant immature in an unnecessary sense, sorry for the confusion but please try to remain civil. It was written in Commonwealth format, so I'm not understanding your argument here, the European Union uses Commonwealth spelling so any official document translated in Czech would use Commonwealth dating. The TBD shows that he will be leaving his post in the immediate future. Again, Civility when it comes to the journalist comment and Owning is clearing stated with "If I can provide you with further information, please, let me know, just leave the article "as is". Thank you." Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes sense, and in fact I like the Commonwealth style more the the N. American one... So would you mind reediting all the European personalities, so that all the articles meet this practice? And as for TBD: Please, do not unseat him yet, because INDYW/NHSITBD. (It's not decided yet whether or not his successor is to be decided.) Anyway, I'm giving up editing this article and ribbing you. I don't know how familiar you are with this topic.. If you're an employee of the Czech Statistical Office and know some backstage information, then feel free to leave it there and/or cite it properly. Black&amp;White (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to harass you. Let this message be my apology, and the only one I will need to write. I wasn't trying to tick you off. Please forgive me. I promise I'll never write to you unless I need your help on something. Once again, I'm sorry. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Seeboo
I've blocked this editor indef as another sock of User:Akashkunal, reverted his edits and deleted the copyvio image he'd inserted into Anerood Jugnauth and elsewhere. I've also semi-protected his two favourite articles for a month, as he's edited as an IP before. If you see any other account behaving like this, can you alert me and I'll sort any problems out? Thanks, Black Kite 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very much. And I definitely will. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Chat about Reverts
''I would like to call on everyone, whose edits are constantly reverted by this user, to share their remarks here. Thank you.''

I've reverted your last edit of the Václav Klaus article and hope that it won't be necessary to do it on and on again. Black&amp;White (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment is inflammatory and uncivil. Do it again and I'll report you. Your edits were revert because the inclusion is irrelevant and not needed. See my comment in it's history if you'd like. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then feel free to report me, why just to threaten? I don't know what's been so "inflammatory and uncivil" about that comment, but you seem to be right everytime, so I just say 'okay'.. Well and then, if somebody blocks my account, I won't be spending my time on improving Wikipedia pages anymore and I'll have more time for myself. Please, be advised, that everything I do here is done to my best ability.


 * Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have Police corps yet and a quite reasonable level of democracy is still present. I fully understand, that there are people here craving for bossing around, as it is in the real society. However, if they win, Wikipedia stops being a credible source of information. When I look into the list of your contributions, I can see just reverts. Do you think this is the purpose of this site? That you are to demonstrate your everlasting truth all the time? Or, would you try to think in a positive way? Just to create, not to destroy? If something is really unnecessary, other people can do your present job and you can devote yourself to writing about what you really know instead - the way I and millions of other users do. And as far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, I know a lot about that matter and btw I am expected to. And I know, that unlike other cases (I don't like 'overloaded' infoboxes either) it's quite useful to know that a PM of a splitting country wasn't supervised by President in the time of dissolution.


 * So, I hereby end another "immature, inflammatory, uncivil, impolite, wicked, loathsome and revolting comment", and now, If you really feel ticked off, please, let somebody judge these solemn matters. Have a nice day full of successful reverts :-).. Black&amp;White (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are vacancies in terms under several pres/PMs, to include them all would be overkill, unsightly, congested and un-encyclopedic. The names themselves are linked for a reason. If anyone wants further information, they click it. Including everything obscurely related to someone is against policy. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "I would like to call on everyone, whose edits are constantly reverted by this user, to share their remarks here. Thank you.", "Have a nice day full of successful reverts" and extending my (frankly long-winded) comment into "immature, inflammatory, uncivil, impolite, wicked, loathsome and revolting" are EXTREMELY inflammatory and uncivil and you should know that; and I don't take insults lying down. Even though you are editing to the best of your ability, know that nearly all of us are. Forgive me for pulling seniority here, but I've been editing pages for a very long time, a great deal of them being infoboxes and I am well aware of what belongs in them. I don't want you to lie down and just accept what I do, but if you're going to contest it don't leave a comment on my talk with a rude section title and begin it with an even more rude sentence.


 * I revert a great deal of good faith edits and vandalism, it consumes a very large amount of my time here on the site, as it does many editors. If you bothered to look at what I have reverted, you would see that they are almost always for the best. I don't spend my time here to "destroy" other peoples work, I come here to make sure the articles are encyclopedic and when I see something that doesn't belong in the article, I won't hesitate to remove it so it can stay encyclopedic. It is useful to include that information but rather as prose in the article, not in the infobox, which is meant as a short, quick run-down. Sentences are never to be used in an infobox unless something specifically needs a footnote like on Mahmoud Abbas' page. A vacancy in the president's office is not something that can be hotly contested or is controversial, even if it is under a new state (which you didn't stipulate as your reason for it's inclusion), so it would be best to simply put it in the section themselves (although if you do believe it belongs in the infobox, I suppose it could be made into a footnote.) Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's bury the hatchet. I don't tend to pour cold water on what you are doing here, nor evaluate your contributions. I also am well aware of the fact, that keeping the site in good shape costs big effort. But if a doubt arises, why to criticize one another instead of talking about it? This is imho what talk pages are for. And as for the "long-winded" comment, I paraphrased you a little, however, I didn't mean it as an insult. You use this quite often, huh? So don't take the words too seriously. :-) I appreciate very much every comment on my work here, but I'm a grown-up person so I don't feel any need to let myself be brought up by anybody here. Moreover, I bet that each and every user would be grateful for your well-intentioned advice, if expressed without scorn. The purpose of us being here is to cooperate on facts, not to wrangle and assess each other's politeness, am I right? So let's go on making this site a better source of information, no matter if by adding data or reverting edits ;-). Black&amp;White (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (btw that wish wasn't that bad, was it? ;-)


 * Sorry, I'd actually just gotten into a fight with my sister right before I saw this. I understand what you mean, and I'm quite ashamed of how I use edit summaries instead of the talk page invariably leading to an edit war. And no, it wasn't. :) Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the point, bro :-D. So I'm looking forward to coming across your nick again somewhere here ;-). (Btw if the infoboxes are your work, I take my hat off! I'd also translated some of those into the Czech version. :-) Black&amp;White (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD Nom
Regarding this CSD nomination of Harish Boodhoo, please note these recent news articles about him. I agree the article needs help, but "absolutely no credibility" is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, and it's not exactly assuming good faith, either. Frank |  talk  09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources.
Please read wp:v and wp:blp, and don't undo referencing of information with comments like "No point at all." -- Jeandré, 2009-05-09t22:17z

Request for help
I thought it might be a good idea to run a contest or two through the Countries WikiProject to attract editors to improve country coverage on Wikipedia, especially the country outlines.

I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject, and was wondering if you could help.

I've posted a message at Countries WikiProject talk page to get discussion started on what the awards programs should be and how they should be run.

Your ideas and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

The Transhumanist 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grybauskaitė
Hi, I noticed your interests in this article, feel free to use up-to date info. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. En version lags a bit in total 89,65 % votes are counted with 51,44% turnout.
 * No problem, thanks for the input. M.K. (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Bryce
Quentin Bryce is neither the Head of government or the Head of state of Australia. Please desist from adding the article to Category:Current national leaders. The Constitution of Australia is quite clear on who the head of state in Australia is, and that is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. That is why QEII's portrait is on the wall at the Local Government office in my town, on the $5 note in my wallet and on the back of the coins in my pocket, not QBs. I know Australia's constitutional arrangements may seen unusual to an American, but those are the facts. -- 00:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of what you have said alters the fact that QB is not Head of government or the Head of state of Australia and thus not a current national leader. The GG's role in Australia is utterly unlike "an Acting President or Acting Prime Minister" and your claim that it is is bizarre and I think quite possibly unique to you. Not even the Australian Republican Movement would claim that that is the case. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wizard rock task force proposal
The idea of a Wizard rock WikiProject was proposed almost two years ago. Now that there are two more bands and a few more Harry and the Potters releases with articles, it would benefit to have a wizard rock task force. There just thirteen articles related to wizard rock, however the task force will not only be a place that improves these articles, but will also be a place to gather sources, build new articles in collaborative sandboxes and discuss uploading the mass of photographs related to wizard rock to WikiCommons (from Flickr). The task force will be under the umbrella of WikiProject Harry Potter.

To get involved within the task force or discuss it, see here. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Andorra
Please, read and think before making changes -- you had seen no source which stated that Bartumeu was sworn in, and in fact he wasn't as he lacked the majority in parliament. The vote is now set for 3 June. — Nightstallion 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

James Purnell
I appreciate your desire for accuracy, and well placed as it was with Smith and Blears, James Purnell has actually resigned from the Cabinet; he has not announced he will resign at the next reshuffle. His term of office as Work and Pensions Secretary is over as of tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.62.172 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * James Purnell has resigned, hes not "stepping down. He is no longer in that job. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Member of "British" Parliament
I don't know why you've took it on yourself to add this to certain, signficiant MPs, but could you please stop? The current system of presentation of "Member of Parliament for" et al has been long-agreed on. Do not alter this to suit yourself.

I appreciate your want to do so; thank you for the effort. But with all due respect, it has been agreed upon previously.

I don't remember I'm afraid; it's a LONG way back in the history pages of the UK Parliament I think. Malarious (talk) 23:21

Haha. Cheers mate. Malarious (talk) 23:24

Brown cabinet
Fair enough. Could we have a link directly to the Cabinet_of_the_UK#Current cabinet (or similar) then, just you can read down a list of all the posts and who holds them (I think the one on the Brown Ministry page would be too complicated for this purpose)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great work on Brown Ministry (very fast updating!), but in future, could you not remove peer's definite articles from their names, as you did in this edit? It's just a minor niggle, but irritating to have to put them back in (per MOS).
 * James F. (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Flint.
this guy keeps inserting this twaddle, what shall we do about him (Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Gabon
In the event of a vacancy in the Presidency, the President of the Senate, currently Rose Francine Rogombé, would succeed as Interim President. However, there has been no announcement that anyone has officially succeeded Bongo at this point, so we should leave it vacant for the time being. Everyking (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Foreign relations
I see you have an interest in foreign relations, do you have enough interest help edit at Malaysia–Sweden relations and Denmark–Mexico relations ? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Fitzgibbon
Hi, please note that Fitzibbon's resignation on 4 June was 'effective immediately': http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/04/2589300.htm Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

List of heads of state of Gabon
Why do you support Eric Edwards' version of the article? ~ EDDY  (talk /contribs /editor review ) ~ 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the current version. This is my version. ~ EDDY  (talk /contribs /editor review ) ~ 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we really need that election table? That would be better placed at Elections in Gabon. Louis Sanmarco and Jean Risterucci were not really head of state because Gabon wasn't completely independant. ~ EDDY  (talk /contribs /editor review ) ~ 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown
I have taken profession out altogether while we discuss it. I would prefer to leave the article stable until we have discussed it. You say that the convention is that we put the job they had before they were a politician, I totally disagree with this so called convention. Take a step back and can you really tell me that brown's profession is Journalist? No you can't. Sorry to answer for you, but it is a stupid question, On camerons article the profession has been left stable as politician and we should do the same respect to brown article. Ok.. look at kilroy silk, his profession could easily be described as tv presenter.. and then he had a little incursion into politics. Brown had a little incursion into journalism but it is not his profession. A profession is what you make your career out of. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Gordon Brown GAR notification
Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya
his term ended on june 28 2009, Roberto Micheletti succeded Manuel. the world doesn't recognize micheletti's government but that doesn't mean manuel is still in office, he was deposed. therefore honduras assigned a new constitucional president which is micheletti which took office june 28 2009, therefore, manuel zelaya left office that same date. Vercetticarl (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop!
please stop reverting what i'm doing, or i will put these issue to administrators. Manuel Zelaya: his term ended on june 28 2009, Roberto Micheletti succeded Manuel. the world doesn't recognize micheletti's government but that doesn't mean manuel is still in office, he was deposed. therefore honduras assigned a new constitucional president which is micheletti which took office june 28 2009, therefore, manuel zelaya left office that same date. Vercetticarl (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop! (warning 2)
please stop reverting what i'm doing, or i will put these issue to administrators. Vercetticarl (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it!
i'm going to rest now, first thing i will be doing when i come back will be putting these issue to administrators, have a nice day. Vercetticarl (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit War over Manuel Zelaya
Please stop your edit war with over Manuel Zelaya. Thanks.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. at Manuel Zelaya, per a complaint at WP:AN3. More details are at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;C45207 | Talk 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Manuel Zelaya President of Honduras In Office 27 January 2006 - 28 June 2009

Hey!
Hey, please watch your language kid and don't get mad, we are smart people, not gorillas. If you threat me again or say to me a bad word, i'll report it understood!!?? be careful i don't want another edit war with you, i' sick of you okay!!?? so don't dare to threat me again okay kiddo??? YOU ARE WARNED!!!! YOU WILL BE BLOCKED AGAIN FROM EDITING IN WIKIPEDIA!!!! Vercetticarl (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How are you
Therequiembellishere, i know i gave you a terribly bad impression when we first met each other at the edit war over at manuel zelaya, i'm very sorry, it won't happen again, i promise. i also want to apologize about what i have said in earlier in your very own talk page, once again, i'm sorry, i hope you forgive me. / i've been a contributor to wikipedia more than 2 years now, and my primary goal, since i've first started, has been improving and creating respectable articles related to reggaeton, if you see my history, you will notice i have created new articles and improved a lot many articles related to regggaeton artists, labels, albums, etc. / there's one article i had problems improving on, and is the Luny Tunes articles, (who are the best producers of reggaeton), i would like to see that article be very impressive as the one of Daddy Yankee, not as long as the Daddy Yankee article, but with more info and up-to-date info also. if you improve that article, i will appreciate it a lot! thanks, i hope you help me, if you have questions, talk me on my talk page, thank you very much Vercetticarl (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * do you know someone that knows about reggaeton or is willing to look around the web for info about Luny Tunes? if you know someone, tell me or put me in contact with the user, thanks! Vercetticarl (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, thanks anyway! keep up your good work on wikipedia! Vercetticarl (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union in 1926
Re this edit. In 1926 Lithuania was independent country. It was occupied by the Soviet Union in June 1940. Renata (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff that needs deletion
Sophie Anderton worked (if it can be called that) as a prostitute. So did Lady McCartney. Jeffrey Archer used prostitutes.

It's relevant to include because; (1) she was an MP (member of parliament) and he was a minister (actually the Deputy Prime Minister) at the time of the affair, in the same circumstances as Edwina Currie and John Major; and, (2) because of the implication, actually expressed in the blog link, that she owes her preferment as a Privy Councilor and minister to her role as mistress rather than any other ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.74.200 (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly sure that I see the difference in relevance between, on the one hand, referring to a threat to sue for libel and, on the other hand, an un-sued blog reporting her as the mistress of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the interests of achieving some sort of consensus, however, how about something along these lines: In 2006, the influential political blogger Guido Fawkes reported that Winterton had threatened to sue The Currant Bun for libel if it described her as Prescott's mistress; the blog itself repeated the allegation and went on to imply that she owed her political advancement to her relationship with Prescott (see also: John Prescott:Criticism and controversies)


 * Because of the vagaries of English libel law, it is actually reasonably common practice for journalists in such cases to 'publish and be damned' and, if the libelee comes after them, to rely on a fair comment or truth justification. You can see this very clearly in the case of Heather Mills: the newspaper reported that she had been a prostitute; she denied it and loudly issued threats to sue, and then did nothing. You draw your own conclusion in that case as in this one.


 * I don't think that there's any point being squeamish about such matters; after all, women such as Madame de Maintenon and Madame de Pompadour advanced horizontally in exactly the same way. Rather like the Sun King (and Bill Clinton), John Prescott seems to have seen, and used, his position as a wonderful opportunity to pick up girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.74.200 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Honorary vs Honourary
re: your changes in Anerood Jugnauth

1. Read this http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=222313

2. Look up the word in the dictionary

3. Undo your own changes

Thank you

Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi sorry but beeen v busy all ok at mo just getting backinto editing article about my church. Georgereev118118 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP!
HELP!! I hav a problem. I am editing the page on St Peter's Church, Devizes and I have written a large and iformativ section on the history of the church. can u tell me why when i log on any other computer that section is not on the page but if i go to edit the page on another account OR if i go on my account it is there???!!! AAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!!! :( Cheers!!Georgereev118118 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is the history bit i was tlaking about does it come up on your computer when u go on the page cos when i do before logging in it is not there and neither is the list of heads of the school and list of rural deansGeorgereev118118 (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)!

Time for new pages?
Have you noticed how the entry for Iraqi Kurdistan keep appearing and disappearing?

Rather than get into a childish game why don't we come up with a compromise?

It seems to me what is needed is a new page, linked to the main one which will list the elections for all: subnational federal entities (Canadian Provinces, Indian States, US states etc), autonomous regions (Hong Kong, Macau, Aland Island, Kurdistan etc), dependent self-governing territories (Bermuda, Cook Islands, Puerto Rico etc) or self-declared states (Northern Cyprus, Abkahzia, South Ossetia, Somaliland etc)

This way we can avoid the disputes over the legal status of certain territories and still be able to read the details of the elections held.

Any thoughts?

Fairtoall1 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice you have restored the comment I created. Not sure what your arguement is. Are you saying I am biased because I want to be balanced, or that I don't want to get into a game with you over inserting comments and then deleting them?

Surely you cannot object to the idea I put forward on the discussion page, as this would on your criteria satisfy your self-evident wish not to see Kurdistan listed on this page? Fairtoall1 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

info box talk
Hi, the user User_talk:90.203.62.17 in question is starting to talk. could you go there and explain to him what the problem is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Harman
I'm not sure if you remember me, but we've crossed paths at the current Privy Council list. Would you be so kind as to take a look at Talk:Harriet Harman. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but merely to provide a fresh pair of eyes. The debate has gotten long, so it may be easier to start by reading the second half of the section that follows that one, called "Serious matter". Based on the other editor's contribution in those places and at my talk page, I am starting to have trouble assuming good faith. Whenever that happens, I try mightily to get someone else to step in with a fresh perspective before I let my temper get the best of me. Given your interest in UK government, you have the right background to address the issue. Please Help! -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good edits
In here, you changed some stuff, for example making the prefix "Her Excellency" a little bit smaller. While researching Wikipedia, I can't find MOS which must not include the order of the President to the list of Philippine presidents, that is, her being the 14th president. If that is the case, where is that MOS you are referring at? If there is no MOS rule with this matter, then I will revert it back to the old revision.--JL 09 Talk to me!  16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the MOS you're talking about then?--<font style="font-family: Verdana">JL 09 <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Talk to me!  23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it, there must have references especially that sources on the internet have circular referencing to Wikipedia. I am also asking you why making the prefix "Her excellency" smaller and what is the MOS you are saying about. Thanks. Perhaps we should revert it back if there is no MOS or reached consensus with this concern. Please respond to this, this is a serious issue.--<font style="font-family: Verdana">JL 09 <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Talk to me!  23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
<font style="font-family: Verdana">JL 09 <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Talk to me!  23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hai
Thar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.96.174 (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga
Hi, can You please explain Your activities in this article? I`m talking about country, where she had born. The same about Valdis Zatlers - please, be more careful in facts, before doing edits like this.--Riharcc (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Valdis Zatlers was born in time when Latvia was occupated by Soviet Union. My english is far from exelent however, I understand the word "Residence" in this infobox as a country, where some person was/is a president. Let`s see, what other user will say about it. Have a nice day :).--Riharcc (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "11th" from Giorgio Napolitano.
Greetings. I noticed you removed "11th" from "President of Italy" at Giorgio Napolitano, an addition I added. I couldn't find a rationale, so I was wondering what your reasoning was. I hope I don't sound combative. Otumba (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you gave no reason in the first place, and since there has been no response to the post above even though you have been editing, I will readd "11th". If you dispute, please could you present a rationale. Thank you. Otumba (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abbas
You could have asked me to remove it as you are now at your 3rd revert (I would have gladly obliged) but why do you think that order as Pres of Palestine shouldnt be in the infobox? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But they are really not the same thing. The PNA is an interim government set up by the Oslo Accords, the State of Palestine was declared in 88 well before the PNA. The State is a member of the Arab League and a few other international organizations. President of the PNA and President of Palestine are two different things, the President of Palestine is effectively the same thing as the Chairman of the PLO (recognized by the UN as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people). But it isnt that important to me, so I leave it to your discretion. Thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 19:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff
Is there a reason you keep removing the university name from the infobox without any explanation? You don't seem to understand how Trinity is a college within UToronto. Do you even know how the university are organized? In any case, you are being disruptive by repeatedly inserting your change even after this was explained to you. 209.195.79.238 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I even tried to compromise with you by putting "Trinity College, Toronto". You can't have just have the college name without the university name. So at the very least the name "Toronto" must be in there. Strangely, you leave Oxford as simply "University of Oxford" without a college name, which contradicts with everything before. Don't you know there are colleges within Oxford as well? Bottom line: use "XXX College, Toronto", just like "XXX College, Oxford" and "XXX College, Cambridge". 209.195.79.238 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Václav Klaus
Heya. May I ask why you reverted my addition of 2nd to the infobox of Václav Klaus? HonouraryMix (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very quick response. Please do not worry about sounding rude; I myself used to hold a particular point-of-view regarding Wikipedia editing, and after arguing said point over and over again I too got pretty tired of reviving my points, so I do understand and sympathize.  Would you agree, though, that since consensus at the moment is for having an order of office in relevant infoboxes, my addition was valid? HonouraryMix (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Karamanlis-Papandreou
Hello! Unlike the US system, in Greece, one is considered (acting) PM from the moment one receives the mandate for the formation of a cabinet, even before the official swearing-in (which will be on Wednesday). Furthermore, Karamanlis officially resigned today, so he no longer is PM. Regards, Constantine  ✍  20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't get your problem. I live in Greece, and no one in Greece still regards Karamanlis as PM since his resignation today. Are you seriously going to argue that a resigned PM can still be in power? Papandreou has the mandate, he has an absolute majority, de jure he is the PM-elect, de facto he is the PM. In essence, he succeeded Karamanlis today. Constantine  ✍  21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that I can respect (although, as I said, Greek conventions are different). If you want to have Papandreou as PM-elect for 24h in order to be technically correct, that's fine by me. I mostly objected to the statement that Karamanlis remains as PM. His resignation was pretty much final. Anyway, it'll be straightened out tomorrow either way, so good night. Constantine  ✍  21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty - Presidency
I've removed Merkel again from the list of potential Council presidents. As long as she doesn't even appear in the article [President_of_the_European_Council#First_president] itself, she should not be listed in this overview. When you have sources for her being considered in the council by other heads of state (the only source i found was an internet poll) you could write it there and add her again in the Lisbon Treaty overview section. --Fred Stober (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A question
I have a question for you here. Lambanog (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the President of Lebanon have to be Maronite Christian, or can be from any Christian denomination, according to the National Pact of 1943, as this is not specified?
Does the President of Lebanon have to be Maronite Christian, or can be from any Christian denomination, according to the National Pact of 1943, as this is not specified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.135.101 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Max Bellerive
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jean-Max Bellerive. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanuatu
FYI, the PM survived the motion of no confidence, as well. Could you check that I didn't overlook any reversions of the hasty changes to oust Natapei on Wikipedia? ;) — Nightstallion 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Next United Kingdom general election
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. warrior 4321  02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)