User talk:Kransky/Archive 1

List of Largest Flags

Hi there. Thanks for your contribution to the talk page. I was fighting a one man battle. The article is supposed to be on the largest flags in the world. If you look in any dictionary a flag is defined as "a piece of cloth, varying in size, shape, color, and design, usually attached at one edge to a staff or cord, and used as the symbol of a nation, state, or organization, as a means of signaling, etc." Basically, the trouble is, the author is using the article as a political vehical to promote the TRNC. The TRNC is not recognised by the UN or any other nation except Turkey. It represents an illegal Turkish occupation of the northern third of the island of Cyrpus. The "flag" that he refers to is pain on a mountain. I just get very irritated when people use wiki for their own agendas. Many thanks. Bunzo1980 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions articles

Kransky, these lists of diplomatic missions are helpful, but they aren't really what wikipedia is all about. You might try listing things like that at WikiTravel. Unfortunately we can't transwiki them b/c the lists are now licensed under the GFDL, but I'm reasonably certain you can still relicense the content by posting it at WikiTravel. I'd encourage you to do so. In the meantime, I'm going to propose deletion of the articles. Sorry.--Kchase T 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military losses are listed under the flag that they were incurred

Military losses are listed under the flag that they were incurred. For example German nationals who served in the US Armed forces would be listed with US not German losses. The UK drafted men from colonies who are listed with the UK since the losses were incurred with the UK armed forces not with each colony. Germany drafted ethnic German citizens of Poland and Czechoslovakia, they are never counted as Czechs or Poles. The Irish who served the UK forces did not fight for Ireland. It would be impossible to break out the nationality for the losses of each nation and reallocate according to your methodology. The losses must be listed under the flag that were incurred in order to avoid a list of numbers that make no sense and cannot be backed up with solid sources. The UK losses listed here are per the Commonwealth War Graves commission.

Australians, New Zealanders, Rhodesians and others fought under their own flags and the death tolls can be enumerated separately. Do you have specific information that states that the British war dead includes non-British combatants?

You bet I do, go to the CWGC wesite and browse through the names of the dead, there are many African, Malay and Burmese names. The Merchant navy had many Chinese and Arab losses. The problem is that there is no breakdown for each colony.
There is no breakdown of UK and Commonwealth losses by country of origin. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does not provide the detail you are looking for. The US had German Jews in their ranks, Henry Kissinger is a perfect example. If we could identify German Jewish losses in the US Armed Forces would you include them with Germany? We need to keep the various Armed forces as seperate entities and the losses under the flag they were incurred. --Woogie10w 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Myanma embassy in New Delhi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Myanma embassy in New Delhi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Indian high commission in Canberra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indian high commission in Canberra.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Japanese_embassy_in_Berlin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Japanese_embassy_in_Berlin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetroPitt

Thanks for the MetroPitt article; it's really appreciated. You might like to change a few things given that the Government has done further planning on the route (now also called the "Redfern to Chatswood railway line"). On your map, the Park St station should link to Town Hall - they are meant to be connected. Also, the Castlereagh St station should link to Martin Place (it's also spelt wrong too). Additionally, as per the Dept of Planning Website, the lines are meant to connect to the new Campbelltown Express line at Redfern and the Epping to Chatswood link at Chatswood via two new rail lines between St Leonards (not Saint Leonards by the way) and Artarmon. Can you fix that stuff up for us? Thanks. (JROBBO 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

List of embassies

In my opinion such lists should not be place on Wikipedia. It is task of respective governments to provide this information and external link + few statistics in artcile about foreign relations of country X should be enough.

Specifically, Chinese diplomatic missions, could make good overview article about Chinese mission during history. Pavel Vozenilek 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the airline destination lists is example of what could get wrong with Wikipedia.

If anything, one may be interested in web pages of individual embassies, what kind of service they provide and in what timeframe and some general overview about diplomatic system of China. Just sequence of "Tirana, Yerevan, Vienna, ..." doesn't give very much, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the interest comes in discovering which countries bother to open embassies or consulates in particular places or not. What would a government prioritorise in its foreign policy, given limited resources. There are lists of flags, lists of planets, lists of alumns etc. with even less information. You are welcome to your opinion about what you think is 'wrong', but you would be holding a minority opinion against the consensus. (PS it is 12:30am here, I am going to finish the Chinese article then go to bed) Kransky 14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian diplomatic missions

Hi! You've gone a great job with the dilomatic missions articles!

Do you really think it's necessary to remove the ambassadors? I know they're constantly changing, but there's a lot of such lists in Wikipedia (like List of ambassadors to the United States), and it's got the as of thing, so I think it's basically OK, but after all I wouldn't object to removing them. Todor →Bozhinov 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sure keep them. The problem is maintaining the lists as ambassadors come and go. Do you think however you can format the list so it resembles the other entries, i.e:

Asia

Cambodia
- Phnom Penh (Embassy)
China
- Beijing (Embassy)
- Shanghai (Consulate-General)

Start with a short introduction, then list the missions by continent (ending with Multilateral Organisations), a link to other Bulgarian foreign affairs articles and a link to the external website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Use the same continents, the same order etc as much as possible Maybe you could add the names of each ambassador at the bottom of the list, or next to each mission.

Again, thank you for your contribution Kransky 12:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish embassy in Canberra

Hi Kransky,

Yes, its correct - the Danish embassy in Australia will reopen in 2007 as part of a major reorganisation plan by the Danish MFA - weird Denmark has'nt had an embassy in such an relatively important place - considering other "less important" places in the world hosting a Danish embassy.. Sir Tanx 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are a lot of pro's for reopening the embassy - good to see more Danish embassies abroad :) The more the merrier! Sir Tanx 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar foreign policy

Happy New Year to you, too! In regards to my merge, it is okay by Wikipedia guidelines, if there is no response to a merge proposal, to be bold and merge them, which is what I did. I had never seen another diplomatic listing like those you speak of, but as the coordinator of the Burma/Myanmar project, both looked like very underdone stubs to me, so I waited, then merged them, now they make a more solid encyclopedic approach. We are going through a couple hundred Burma stubs and doing just the same. If you feel there is a need for duplication like that, then go ahead and recreate your article, but do not remove the info out of the new larger merged article, we like the improvement. And say hello to vegemite for me, do you know how rare that is in the States? It's like only me and three other people here must eat it here. I can go through a peanut-butter sized jar in about two weeks. :) Chris 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, thanks for the heads-up-one thing-for those countries that recognize the name, it's Myanmar, with the r at the end. Would you be okay with a name correction move? Chris 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I am well aware of the adjectival correction, as is the present regime, but they still use the incorrect form, as do most in the country, which is why most of the Wikipedia articles use the r. I am ready for them to have a change of government, and go back to Burma, which the democratic opposition favors. I'm just saying for the sake of uniformity for other articles on the nation, r is the norm. Chris 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks :) I plan to make an article about foreign embassies in Serbia but it seems to be hard as some of them have closed down in recent years due to financial problems, some of them have reduced their mission level on consulates and some of them maintain only a representative office with ambassador and his family. The outdated official websites aren`t helpful at all. Avala 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Honorary Missions

Thanks Kransky for catching those! Ithinkhelikesit 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all of them Ithinkhelikesit 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hi Kransky,

I think a wikiproject would be fine. I have no idea of how to start one, though, so I'll let you take the lead.

I've tried to follow the prevalent style. I don't think I've gone and done anything wildly inconsistent with the other articles.

In addition to having mission of countries listed, we should maybe attempt to list embassies in countries as well. "Icelandic diplomatic missions" should be complimented with "Diplomatic missions in Iceland," for example. With some countries, which treat diplomatic missions as a state secret - North Korea, Libya and a few others - that could prove to be difficult, but that's why we're in the business, right? haha.

Catch you later Canadian Bobby 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Brigitte

Please provide your source(s) for Willie Brigitte. Excellent work nonetheless. KazakhPol 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of The West Wing deaths

I've nominated List of The West Wing deaths, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of The West Wing deaths satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The West Wing deaths and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of The West Wing deaths during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Hnsampat 16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Sure, no problems. I did take a look at some other similar articles, and was going to format that article like them, but I had to get involved in some other articles. But I will do further work on that article later today to expand it. Cheers! Baristarim 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COUNCIL proposal

Your recent proposal here has been fulfilled by a WikiProject that I myself proposed. You can see it on WP:WPFR. You are welcome to help out, if you'd like. However, I do feel that in the project becomes successful in the future, we can create various task forces to deal with Diplomatic Missions and other topics such as the United Nations and the Coalition. What's your opinion on this?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in making a task force for your proposal? I'd be happy to help you out with putting it through, if you need me to.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRC diplomatic missions

Kransky, I was unaware that there was a "club" of editors whose consensus was required to edit these articles. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit (see WP:OWN) and I thought I was being helpful with the PRC article since I noticed you were playing with the layout too. But in the interest of playing nice, I will do my best to leave a message on your talk page every time I make major changes to the layout of the diplomatic missions articles. Also, about the politics infoboxes, I think it's an entirely logical thing to include an infobox on the diplomatic missions lists especially if the infobox links to it (like Template:Politics of Iceland). I think if you make it very obvious, via an infobox, that the list of missions is part of a bigger series of politics articles, it will help ensure that nobody comes and nominates it for deletion. If you agree, I'm going to put infoboxes starting with Icelandic diplomatic missions. Wl219 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fijian Diplomatic Missions

Hi there! You're most welcome to change the formatting of the Fijian Diplomatic Missions to conform to that used for similar articles. I haven't got time to do it myself at the moment, but you're most welcome. David Cannon 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kransky

I saw your message in Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board#Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus diplomatic missions, and I agree with you that the article has to be categorized. I think that we should pursue the extension of the present consensus in relevant lists, such as Template:Countries of Europe and co. in Template:Templates listing countries, List of countries et al that foresee some sort of separate listing or highlighting of the non-recognition of these entities. My opinion is we should create a subcategory of Category:Diplomatic missions by country, titled as Category:Diplomatic missions of unrecognized or partly recognized states. I find this very descriptive, and very "grouping", if one is interested on the particular topic. I am also certain that this will solve whatever misunderstanding for legitimization concerns raised by users of either side. I will leave this up to you since you are apparently extensively involved with all diplomatic mission articles. What is your opinion? Niko Silver 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are on to it already. I would preferably group "partially recognized" (as is our case, and it is quite extremely so in my opinion since only the invader recognizes it), with "unrecognized" (and not with "recognized"). Niko Silver 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by somebody else earlier. I understand that many Greeks are sensitive to this (as I would be if somebody invaded my homeland, invented a country in the territory they seized, and then treated it like a normal country). However I think we would be splitting hairs by having two separate categories for this and other articles (we have a List of Countries receiving snowfall, so should we have a List of partially recognised countries receiving snowfall?). Perhaps you might recommend some words to go in the article that explains no other country recognises the sole TRNC Embassy as a legitimate embassy. Kransky 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. I am not into these nationalistic-motivated actions anyway. I just dropped it as a stop-gap proposal. You are right in your parallel, and the issue is indeed for people with a great appetite for red-hairring. BTW I spotted a colloquial joke with the snowfall up there! Cheers! Niko Silver 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian diplomatic missions and what not

Hi Kransky. I apologize for changing the style internally of the article. That can be changed back. Regarding the name. It's complex in the sense that there are many on Wikipedia who are insistent that Palestine is not a country and it shouldn't be treated as one. This manifests itself as regular article renamings and regular deletion of categories which use the simple name "Palestine" in such a way that someone can construe it as a reference to a state. See here for a few examples of what I am talking about:

The basic implicit rules seem to be that one can use "Palestinian territories" / "Gaza Strip" / "West Bank" to refer to geographic locations, "Palestinians" to refer to the people themselves and "Palestinian National Authority" to refer to the attempt at self-government unless there is a specific name of a document or declaration ("State of Palestine" or "Palestinian Declaration of Indepedence".) It sort of sucks, but it seems that if you fight it, it just results in all the articles getting disjointed and screwed up. Thus for consistency sake within the Palestinian articles I strongly suggest sticking with PNA as the "country" name of the government related articles. Do you understand my reasoning? --Abnn 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Father film poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Father film poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I've left a note for you here asking you to undo an incorrect move you made. Thanks. 86.147.226.9 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now been a request to revert your move of Der schwarze Kanal to Der Schwarze Kanal. See Talk:Der Schwarze Kanal#Requested move. It would be good if you could contribute your reasons for choosing to capitalise schwarze, which (as you will have gathered from the above comment) has been disputed. Andrewa 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Embassy in Warsaw

added again Australian Embassy in Warsaw. Hi Kransky. You don’t have a point. Australian embassy in Warsaw occupies three floors of this building and this is not a small part. Small part is only available to customer of visa and trade section on 3rd floor, the rest embassy office space is not available. This pic shows where embassy is located. Could you tell me where in the statute of Wikipedia is written that I can not attach a picture of building in which there is an office of some company/embassy, though there are offices of others companies? So what that is multi-tennant building? That’s your private opinion and I don’t agrre with you. Sorry but your reason for removing this pic is ridiculous. So please, stop removing this pic. love, regards Isee1

Hi Isee1, The photo is not of the embassy. It is of a building that houses the embassy. As the caption (incorrectly) states that the building is the embassy, anybody reading the article would think the Australian Embassy in Warsaw comprises of a large six(?) storey building. This is misleading.

Secondly, I do not think we should start a precedent. So if the Austalian Embassy in Warsaw occupies three stories of the building - then what are the limits? The Dutch Consulate in New York occupies the Chrysler building, so do we put a picture of this New York landmark and say it is the Dutch Consulate? Or do we include it with the awkward caption "Building in New York which hosts the Dutch Consulate." Notice that on the other articles this practice is not followed.

There is a Wikipedia requirement that pictures are pertinent (see WP:IMAGE - "Pertinence and encyclopedicity"). With thousands of embassies existing all over the world we have a wealth of images to potentially choose from indeed one person was concerned the American diplomatic missions was overloaded with photos. One might also question the value of including photographs of trade offices and Ambassadorial residences (a trend you have started, and nobody else seems to be following). We do not have to add photos for the sake of adding photos!

But otherwise, many of your other pics from Warsaw are great (especially the North Korean one!).

Amore,

Kransky 01:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Australian Embassy in Warsaw

Hi Kransky

Ok. If we have to keeps the rules (you have been presented) you should remove others pics. For example Australian Embassy in Paris. This is also multi-tennant building that houses the embassy. Not occupies only by Chancery of Australian Embassy (embassy occupies only ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor) There are we have also others institutions like OECD and UNESCO offices, ambassadors apartment on the top floor and a residential apartments for some of the Australian diplomats and their families. Also no diplomatic institutions like Australian National Tourist Office in Paris. The caption that the building is the embassy (only!) is incorrectly. The same: anybody reading the article would think the Australian Embassy in Paris comprises of a large seven storey building (really occupies only three levels of this building). This is misleading too. So... Why you not removing this picture from this article? Whay you don’t KEEPS STRICT THE RULES? It’s against the rules! Whay you removing pic of Australian Embassy in Warsaw and leave alone Australian Embassy in Paris? Whay others pic presented many others embassies in the world that are located in multi-tennant buildings are not removing?

For example: - Brazylian Consulate General in Barcelona (occupies only one floor of many floors in this building) - Brazylian Embassy in Helsinki (occupies only office number B1 in this building on the 2nd floor) - Chinese Embassy in Berlin (building occupies not only by the Embassy of China – ditto Australian Embassy in Paris and Warsaw) - Colombian Embassy in Mexico City (the same) - Czech Embassy in Berlin (the same) - Danish Embassy in Bratislava (occupies only 1st floor of this building) - Embassy of Argentina to the Holy See (occupies only one floor of many floors in this building) - Embassy of Finland in Prague (occupies only one floor of many floors in this building) - French Embassy in Berlin (ditto Australian Embassy in Paris, China Embassy in Berlin and many others) - Hungarian Embassy in Berlin (ditto) - Irish Embassy in Prague (occupies only one floor in this building) - Japanese Embassy in Bratislava (occupies only two floors of this building) - Liechtenstein Embassy in Vienna (occupies only 2nd floor of this building) - Luxembourgian Embassy in Prague (occupies one floor in this building and NOTICE! this is the same building that comprise Irish Embassy) - Malian Embassy in Paris (occupies only 3rd floor of this building) - Maltese Consulate in Istanbul (occupies only one floor in this building) - Moroccan Embassy in Oslo (ditto) - Norwegian Embassy in Prague (occupies one floor of many floors in this building and NOTICE! this is the same building that comprise Finish Embassy) - Saint Kitts and Nevis Embassy in Washington DC (ditto, share this building with oters embassies) - Saint Lucian Embassy in Washington (ditto) - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Embassy in Washington (ditto) - Sudanese Embassy in Oslo (occupies one floor of many floors in this building NOTICE! this is the same building that comprise Moroccan Embassy) - Swedish Embassy in Washington DC (building occupies not only by the Embassy, comprise also others swedish institutions also no diplomatic institutions, ditto Australian Embassy in Paris and Warsaw)

Why pics of this whole embassies/consulates still existing on wikipedia but pic presented where is located Australian Embassy in Warsaw can not existing? This embassies pics don’t keeps yours words. You said: “ ...I do not think we should start a precedent. So if the Austalian Embassy in Warsaw occupies three stories of the building - then what are the limits? The Dutch Consulate in New York occupies the Chrysler building, so do we put a picture of this New York landmark and say it is the Dutch Consulate? Or do we include it with the awkward caption "Building in New York which hosts the Dutch Consulate." Notice that on the other articles this practice is not followed...” !!!??? So... What's going down??? Sould I removing pic of Australian Embassy in Paris and will add note: “Australian Embassy in Paris only occupies a small part of the building shown” ??? If we have to keeps the rules I should do it. By the way... I think your example is bad. People are not that dumb. I'm sure nobody would think the Dutch Consulate in Chrysler Building comprises of a large 77th storey building. I would like to specify Dutch Consulate in New York City don't occupies the Chrysler Building only Rockefeller Plaza Building number ONE (11th floor).

Secondly, You said: “...One might also question the value of including photographs of trade offices and Ambassadorial residences (a trend you have started, and nobody else seems to be following)...” It is not true. Photographs of trade offices and Ambassadorial residences exist before. Before I have starded adding my pics.

By the way... trade office, commercial offic and so on ... is a part of the embassy even is located in other place than main chancery. The same ambassador’s residence is a part of diplomatic mission.

As a conclusion... I still don’t agrre with you. About pic of Australian Embassy in Warsaw You're Not Just!

Best regards Isee1 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

I think there is a clear difference in the standard between an embassy that houses different government agencies of the same embassy (eg Swedish embassy in Washington DC) and having photos of different buildings of the agencies in the same city. In the former case it is inevitable that the main building will house these offices, while in the latter case it goes back to pertinence - do we need these additional photos when the embassy itself alone illustrates the nature of the bilateral relationship and the streetscape of the capital? Ambassadorial residences - (technically they are embassies) are another matter, especially if they are architectually important different buildings. Trade offices are another matter.

My main concern is that a photo may misrepresent the size of an embassy when it shows a building housed by other tenants. I did not know that some photos fail on this point (eg Mali in Paris). Thanks for the research. If it is clear what *portion* of the building is taken up by the embassy then it could be acceptable (eg: embassies of Italy and Brazil in Helsinki, which appear to be more like townhouses), but in may other cases this would not be possible.

So what do you think is a good standard? Kransky 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Australian Embassy in Warsaw

I'm not convinced but I give up. In the allotted time I will remove my pics.

EOT.

best regards Isee1 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

I did some checking - the Australian Embassy in Warsaw only occupies all of the third and part of the second floors of the Nautilus Building on Ulica Nowogrodzka.

Please keep sending those pics in Warsaw all the same. Regards Kransky 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Australian Embassy in Warsaw

Something has been changed from last time maybe (cost-cutting, staff redundant). I remember that Australian Embassy in Warsaw three storeys occupied (may 2007). Who knows? Maybe next year embassy will be closed.

It does not change it facts. I have served examples (pics of embassies/consulates)which do not grant principles (you have been presented) as well as pic of Australian Embassy in Warsaw. Even presently only occupies part of this building it does not change fact that also Australian Embassy in Paris only occupies part of this building shows. It does not change fact that also Brazilian Embassy in Helsinki occupies part of the 2nd floor of this building shows, not all 2nd floor, only one office and so on. If you removing my pic you sould removing remaining photos.

The RULES are binding for all users or nobody. There is essence of case! best regards Isee1 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the Australian Embassy in Warsaw in 1999, it was located in a freestanding building. Subsequently it has moved to the new building.

Actually I wanted to remove the Brazilian Embassy photo you mentioned, since it shares the same building as the Italian Embassy. It was subsequently replaced. I only picked on yours since I am absolutely certain the Australian mission in Warsaw does not occupy a significant portion of the building.

Remove the Helsinki photos if you think it is appropriate. I believe in consistency, but I don't have time to check and change every single difference, and if I picked your photo and not others, it was only because in your case I am certain the embassy only occupied a small portion of the building. Peace Kransky 10:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you think/consider. I will not write in this thread more. Thanks and Bye.Isee1 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of premature obituaries

Thanks for your Kevin Stoney entry in this. Do you have a reference for this, e.g. the specific date of the Dreamwatch issue? Ben Finn 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Diplomatic missions of the United States

Thanks for catching those. I was unsure how to label foreign territories which had US embassies accredited to the "home" state, thanks for the feedback! ithinkhelikesit 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand diplomatic missions

Hello. Just wondering why the diplomatic missions by country category has been removed from the New Zealand diplomatic missions, since I can't seem to find any mention of it. Thanks. -- Vardion 21:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vardion, On advice from other editors I am in the process of renaming articles to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. New Zealand diplomatic missions is now Diplomatic missions of New Zealand.

I decided to use the original article as it fits in with the same style and formatting as other 178? articles in this category. Please refer to the second sentence of WP:MOS - One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles.

Could I suggest you judiciously add to New Zealand diplomatic missions information from your version of the article. Your history of New Zealand's foreign diplomatic presence is worth including, and could be neatly and succinctly summarised in prose form at the front of the article. Please do not make this article be inconsistent with all the others. Thank you.Kransky 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that there's still some useful information to be transferred (such as indications as to which countries each embassy is responsible for, as distinct from the individual country it's situated in), and that history should be given a separate section (it's too specific to be treated as an introduction, as at present). However, I'm not really planning to taking an active interest in this article anymore, so by all means feel free to arrange it how you think best. -- Vardion 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botswanan

Hi. I noticed belatedly that back in June you undid my move of Botswanan diplomatic missions to Botswana diplomatic missions with the edit summary 'we use the adjective form of country names for these articles'. "Botswanan" is however not the correct adjectival form for this country, while it is true some dictionaries list it it is unknown in Botswana itself. Per WP:ENGVAR we use "Botswana" as the adjective on Wikipedia. See also Botswana and this discussion. Best wishes, --John 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Route

Just saw your re-write of Kangaroo Route this evening... thanks for being bold and giving it the clean-out it needed. It makes it even more obvious now just how badly it needed it. It's being bothering me for awhile that one. -- Rob.au 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Immigrants_to_US_by_COB_2006.PNG

Hey Kransky, I find it very positive that you made a map that shows immigration to the US. I would suggest however you provide a legend, a colorbar, so it could be faster interpreted (cf. e.g. these images). Thanks. --Ben ^T/_C 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your comments to see if they still apply to the revised article. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006)

An article that you have been involved in editing, You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006). Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Dan

The source for Viz (Desperately Unfunny Dan) doesn't look too reliable to me, because by the time it gets to us, it's third-hand hearsay. Can you find a better reference, e.g. Viz' website? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, you need to sign up for viz' website, but it's referenced in Viz anyway, so I've reverted & just removed the reference. As you were. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign residents in Taiwan

Hi, Kransky.

I noticed that you made a map Image:COB data Taiwan.PNG, which is a little bit inaccurate.

You see, your data was based on Ministry of the Interior of Taiwan, but the page you referenced didn't list all of the countries in the World.

If you can read traditional Chinese, there is another page also made by MOI, but they list all of countries [1]

This page lists the number of foreign residents in Taiwan from over 150 countries. (but in traditional Chinese)

If you can't read traditional Chinese, I can help you to translate it. --Kerry7374 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not many changes.

* 50,000 +

Indonesia: 113,743
Vietnam: 96,686
Thailand: 90,042
Philippines: 83,506

* 10,000 – 49,999

Japan: 10,770
United States: 10,339

* 1,000 – 9,999

Malaysia: 7,755
Burma: 3,023
Canada: 2,882
South Korea: 2,805
Cambodia: 1,705
India: 1,429
United Kingdom: 1,370
Singapore: 1,171

* 100 – 999

South Africa: 984
France: 849
Australia: 776
Germany: 757
New Zealand: 355
Russia: 243
Netherlands: 217
Brazil: 163
Nepal: 163
Mongolia: 149
Italy: 145
Switzerland: 145
Spain: 140
Sweden: 133
Paraguay: 119
Turkey: 110
Austria: 105

Date: October 31, 2007

--Kerry7374 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kerry. However I notice the data you cite comes from 1996 (製表日期：96年10月31日). Best to rely on the more recent MOI data - interesting that numbers have dropped from South Africa, South America, Mongolia and Nepal... Kransky (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... "96年" is using Republic of China calendar, which is started from 1912; so the "96th year of the Republic" here actually means the year of 2007. (sorry for confusion) --Kerry7374 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bit of information - very handy. In future I will say I was born on the Minguo calendar year of my day of birth to make me feel young. Map updated Kransky (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Kransky. Thanks for your efforts first. I double checked your new map. I found out there are still some mistakes - Burma, Turkey and Austria are not included; and the date of data should be 2007. (Thank you again) --Kerry7374 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania

Hi Kransky, I found this page from the gov't of Lithuania that seems to indicate that they have embassies in more counties than are listed at Diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Can you read what some of the countries are and update the article? Thanks, Lord Uniscorn (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Lithuanian, but I think the list just shows countries which have diplomatic relations with Lithuania, and not necessarily host a Lithuanian embassy (marked with a *) or a consulate (marked with a "GK") Kransky (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmir lee (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name. How do you expect people to know who you are?. If this is Izmir lee, please follow Wikipedia guidelines by seeking a consensus first before making dramatic changes. Kransky (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izmir

You're welcome.

And I set him back another 48 hours (at least) from returning to editing for that little attempt at sockpuppetry. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod, that's over a hundred or so articles to protect. I'll start it but you may want to post about this at RFP to get these protected sooner rather than later. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the J's and Kazakhstan before him. I can't stay at this computer much longer ... you'll have to post to WP:AN or AP:AN/I if this continues. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

Hi. Please remember to use the proper format at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Thanks! - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hi Kransky... Question: do you HATE Turkey and Turks?? I see that you consider Armenia as "Europe" but not Turkey, that means your borders of Europe are religion based (ie, christianity) and not geographical. Well I do not know if you have been to Turkey AND any State you name as "Middle Eastern", like Syria or Iraq prior to this date, which I would gladly invite you to, since it will clarify your ideas. I do not know from where you look at things but I see some lack of information, like your post on the Cyprus issue saying "I understand that Greeks are very sensitive on the issue, since if some foreign invader came to my homeland carved up a new country and treated it like a state"... meaning that Cyprus was NOT home to any Turks?

Please let's stop that pretty lame edit war on the diplomatical missions, as Turks are pretty sensitive on it. A region named the "Middle East" is not a continent like Asia or Europe or Antarctica, but is a political Entity, that is still not well defined. Some people include Egypt, (Africa) some people Afghanistan, (Central Asia) some people both some people neither some go as far as including Algeria and for example excluding Israel. If you make such sub-continental groups, then you must create a separate one for "Southeast Asia" or "Central America" and so forth, each with non-defined borders, and as you could guess, we could not get away with it as we would constantly be harassed by Nicaraguans or Indonesians claiming our listscarry false information

When it comes to Turkey, we are speaking of a state that is candidate for EU membership, a very prosperous economy, a member of the OECD and a permanent participant to the UEFA and to organisations such as the Eurovision. The history of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire has shaped Europe as much as it has shaped Western Asia. If you ask citizens of Turkey, they will, for the majority , tell you that they are either feeling "European", "Asian-Anatolian", or neither or both (but mostly not belonging to some imaginary political entity named "the Middle East" though). As it is pretty unfair to place Turkey in one category, without pretty much prior knowledge of Turkey or the Turks, it is also pointless to coin something on them they do not even see themselves as.

I would personnally be OK with a double-representation of Turkey on those lists, (like on the UN lists) together with other bi-continental countries such as Russia, with an icon-figuration in both Asia and Europe. (Definitely not in the Middle-East)

Since you are the Creator of those lists, with all the respect we owe you, you have a great part in the responsability to think of a viable solution that goes beyond your own set of thought, or, if you do not want to think about it, I can bring it up to the WikiProject Turkey page and we can discuss it all together.

Cheers!

--Eae1983 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your post and my response is at Category talk:Diplomatic missions by country Kransky (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kransky,

According to what I read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism, what you or I have done could not at all be qualified as Vandalism, but maybe as "Stubbornness" (please read the guide of conduct about Vandalism thoroughly). As it is therefore far from being Vandalism, (we are dealing with real information and points of view) not blankings, or obscenities or so, please refrain from doing so in the future. Also, when you leave any comments on my page, please sign them.

Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Australian

Why did you change the article? You say you made it less POV, but what you have done is made it your point of view. Before this it was complete reference. I have fixed it now so you do not need to make any more changes. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on article talk page Kransky (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America

I have removed the warning templates and script - I think we understand ourselves more. You should be satisfied with my last change to Chilean Australian.

Good to see you finally realised what site the information was obtained from "The Embassy of Chile". If you find yourself in conflict with someone having an aggressive attitude who is giving you hassle that you think is unjustified, call me. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Australians

There are two statistics regarding Vietnamese people in Australia; one is the number who are born in Vietnam, the other is the number of Vietnamese speakers. The first does not count those who are born in Australia, which there probably is a significant number (I believe they number 30% in the US), and might include those ethnic Chinese who are born in Vietnam. The second statistics might overstate the number due to some who are born elsewhere and are not ethnically Vietnamese but still speak Vietnamese (this seems paradoxical; if they are born elsewhere and aren't Vietnamese, why would they speak Vietnamese?), but it also does not count those who do not speak Vietnamese at home. Overall, I think the second statistics present a closer picture of the number of Vietnamese people in Australia. DHN (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the gov't of Australia released ancestry information. If that's available, we should definitely use only that. The information I had indicated that the number of Vietnamese speakers is significantly larger than the number of people who were born in Vietnam. DHN (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations project

Ok I'll move those countries to Asia and I want to be involved in the International Relations project. Thanks Izmir lee (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honourary Consulates

Why are you excluding them from lists of diplomatic missions? They carry out similar duties. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not. Furthermore honorary consulates are not granted the same level of priviledges and responsibilities as fully accredited consulates and embassies. Adding in honorary consulates to this list would depreciate the importance of accredited missions. It might be worth considering adding in honorary consulates for every article, but I don't know how many people would be willing to carry out this work. Kransky (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of I'm So Ronery

I have nominated I'm So Ronery, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm So Ronery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of African Australian

An editor has nominated African Australian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Australian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:World's busiest passenger air routes

Thanks! Would have loved to complete the tables for the other continents, but it was a rather labourious process which I didnt have the stamina zeal to finish it all in one go at that time!--Huaiwei (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I won't be doing it tonight...far too tired. Anyway you are fortunate indeed. I have yet to find an excuse to fly to Sydney or London!--Huaiwei (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nukuʻalofa

The actual spelling of the capital of Tonga is Nukuʻalofa (Nukuʻalofa), not Nuku'alofa. It appears that you may be using MS IE6, you may want to update it to IE7, or change to another browser which doesn't have a problem rendering unicode (Firefox is one). The reason being, what one thinks is an ' in the name, isn't an ' but rather an ʻ, or ʻokina. If needed the template for the ʻOkina is found at Template:Okina. --Россавиа ^Диалог 12:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the lesson - I never knew thatKransky (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi

you need to read what the notice message says.
It says on the message notice:- "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."
I improved the article therefore i removed the notice as thats what the message you put up advised me to do. So don't tell me not to remove the message, when it clearly says i can if it is improved. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, I didn't intentionally link it to my myspace account haha. However i have since corrected it. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi, I wonder if I could bug you with a question? Could you please tell me how I can modify and/or create maps in wikipedia? For example: I want to update the map in Diplomatic missions of Mexico because since the map's creation, Mexico has opened a diplomatic mission in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Thanks for any help you could give me. Aquintero (talk) 18:37, 30 April, 2008 (UTC)

click on the map, click on it again when it is in "full screen mode", then right click and save it (it should save automatically as a PNG file).

then open the map using Paint, and perform any necessary edits (get rid of the trade mission category!)

save the map with a slightly modified name, ensuring it is a PNG file

upload the file through Wikimedia

change the link on the article page to point to your new map. Easy!

btw, could you go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 30 and enter your opinion on what should happen to Trade missions of Vanuatu. Kransky (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything! Aquintero (talk) 14:32, 1 May, 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TeePee-20.7

Hello. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TeePee-20.7 is likely to be deleted in about 24 hours from now unless it meets all the requirements listed at the top of the page. Can you have a look and either fix it or withdraw it. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word in your ear

Just to say that this is generally fine, but "I would gently ask TeePee to consider if Wikipedia is really the right place for him" is probably not a good thing to say. Best of luck with getting the Chilean-Australians sorted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing with me your version, but as it contains the phrases " Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons.[7]" and "It is estimated that 857,781 Chileans are living outside of Chile [1]... Around 2% of those live in Australia." it still does not address our central concern of the reliability of the Nadine source. I also have believe the text "The majority of Chileans have both European and Amerindian ancestry." needs to be referenced. Kransky (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to try

Try WP:WQA as a means of settling this problem. If that does not work, it will at least show you have tried, and exhausted, all avenues of resolution availible to you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kransky admit you have been wrong and let it be done. Why must you always go around behind my back speaking badly of me? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject?

Hi To take things from the specific to the more general would you be interested in a wikiproject? I have started to draft one at User:Matilda/draft wikiproject to cover demographics of Australia. There seems to be some inconsistency across the various articles listed on Template:Ethnic groups in Australia. There are perhaps issues about classifying people by ethnicity as per Chris Watson at Chilean Australian and previous discussions on African Australian. A whiole lot of issues might be clarified by a centralised approach. What do you think? Regards --Matilda ^talk 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Sure! I can mass edit these articles :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll review the UN guidelines to see what other sections could be added, but keep in mind Asia is the largest continent on Earth, and so it would make more sense to divide Asia than, say, South America or Oceania. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could go with whatever classifications the UN has for Europe, Africa, and North America - so that's 4/6 - I do not believe that the UN classifies South America at all. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I could bring it up on the project page and see what they think WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#United_Nations_geoscheme_for_embassy_listings - And if this is accepted it can be indicated in the WikiProject page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions of the Republic of China

As per your request, I've semi-protected this page for a month. I hope this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

teepee

like a hole in the head - or when you stop banging your head against a brick wall :-) --Matilda ^talk 10:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is way cool!

Wow - I am really really impressed!

No probs about African Australian. I have move protected it so we can't have it moved yet again to Black Australian, Afr-Australian or any of the other permutations. Copy-paste vios have to be dealt with separately. Regards--Matilda ^talk 10:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Top 21 passenger air routes.PNG

Hi Kransky, I just want to point out an error with regards to the route Jakarta-Surabaya. Both cities are actually on the same island, Java. So the route appears to be wrong. Thats all. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (damn) Kransky (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Missions by Country

Hey, I'm not so much removing the category wholesale, but rather recategorising them so that they appear under its parent category only. For all intents and purposes, categories should ideally, when they are further categories present, be empty. i.e. Category:Diplomatic missions by country should have as it's only article Diplomatic mission, with the actual by country in it's relevant category. e.g. Diplomatic missions of Russia is the 'main' article in Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia, it wouldn't make much sense to also have it in Category:Diplomatic missions by country; it's merely doubling up in the 'by country' category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me posted! Aquintero (talk) 16:46 24 June, 2008 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Here's a discussion which you may be interested in - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_16#Embassies_and_high_commissions_by_city_categories --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section above this one. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houston-area consulates

So far, I know of two consulate complexes that are full-building. I uploaded the photos of Mexico and the People's Republic of China consulates in Houston. I think Australia is a full building but I am not sure if it is actually a consular facility or if it is a residence of an honorary consul (I would not post photos of any honorary consul residences).

Pakistan in unincorporated Harris County *may* have its own consulate building too, so when I get photos of nearby Jersey Village, Texas I will also get the Pakistan consulate. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia only has an honorary consul in Houston. Is Harris County part of Houston? Kransky (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Harris County is in the Houston area - The City of Houston is mostly within Harris County. Other parts of Harris County are unincorporated (not under the jurisdiction of any city) - The Pakistan consulate is located along Jones Road in an unincorporated section of Harris County, so it is within the Houston area and outside of the Houston city limits. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I have determined that Pakistan does have its own consulate building. In terms of the Houston area, aside from Pakistan, Mexico, and P.R. China I am not aware of any countries with full-fledged consulates or consulate-generals that have fully-contained buildings; the rest are suites in office buildings. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I found that four LA-area consulates listed on Wikipedia are in Beverly Hills - Using the BH city limits map and some consulate pages confirming addresses I added Beverly Hills and sourced the changes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe, people associate Beverly Hills as part of Los Angeles. It forms part of the County of Los Angeles. It forms part of the Greater Los Angeles Area. I cannot see any reason to change articles to refer to suburbs. I doubt that your suggestion - which would effectively require changes to 180 articles - would gain much support. It is more useful to know that Egypt has an embassies in London, Tokyo and Canberra, rather that in Mayfair, Meguro and Yarralumlah.Kransky (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could only do this for United States articles since our definitions of "cities" differs from definitions of "cities" in other parts of the world. In the USA we typically define cities by their city limits, while London and Sydney are composed of various municipalities. Also just because Beverly Hills is in the LA area doesn't mean that a person looking at the article is not interested in the fact that the consulate is in actuality in Beverly Hills, a city famous in its own right. I admit that Harris County is not famous, but the fact that the Pakistan consulate is not within the Houston city limits ought to be indicated. In the BH case, the association with Los Angeles is clearly indicated and obvious because of the "Los Angeles-area" added to it. Other areas of Wikipedia concerning U.S. articles are precise with city limits (E.G. the article for Westfield High School, which I wrote, does not say that the school is in Houston - it is in Harris County), and I feel consulate listings should be so as well. Since people on Wikipedia are seeking precise, accurate information and because the consulates are important for the specific cities, there is no reason not to include precise city limits.

Perhaps the idea is to list the consulate by principal city, i.e. "Los Angeles," and as a note underneath the precise city and/or notable tower (in the case of an office building consulate) could be listed

For the matter, Diplomatic missions of Japan lists the Guam consulate as in "Tamuning" - Perhaps it can be "Guam" first and underneath be listed as "In the city of Tamuning" - Since Tamuning is not that well-known.

BTW I looked for "Yarralumlah" and cannot find it.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be guided by whatever makes the article more functional, and agree that (say) Agana is a more appropriate town to mention than Tamuning (assuming of course Tamuning is in Agana). Functionality is a core Wikipedia imperative, and just listing diplomatic locations by their suburbs would not be helpful for people who do not know where the suburbs are.

Consistency is also another Wikipedia imperative. There is no reason why missions in the US should be treated differently to missions elsewhere, and to make the change could run too close to a US-centric bias.

If you would like to propose a change to the style of these articles, please propose it on the talk page of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. Yarralumla (excuse the typo) is in Canberra. Thank you for picking up that issue with Guam.

Just as a quick note, I think we should start looking at compiling details of Ambassadors by country. Would you like to get involved?Kransky (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the talk page, I started Category_talk:Diplomatic_missions_by_country#Listing_of_precise_locations_of_consulates - Perhaps this alternative will include the precise information but will more emphasize that the consulate serves Los Angeles. As for the "ambassadors by country" idea, for a category that sounds like a neat idea! I already started Frank Huddle, a former ambassador. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Tamuning and Agana are separate cities. Agana is the most prominent of any of the Guam cities since it is the capital of Guam. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Diplomatic missions by country

Consulates in office buildings

How should I use pictures to represent the consulates in office buildings? Is there a change in policy that I missed? EDIT: I decided to restore the office suite pics, but if you want you are welcome to use the project talk page to discuss this. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: "(a photo of a door to a consulate is ... do I have to explain?)" (Regarding Denmark)
- To be fair, I believe that was an honorary consulate, so I supposed it *could* be removed. But, the problem is: How am I supposed to represent it? Either I have the office building that the consulate is in, or I have the more precise entrance and/or seal. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret my tone of voice, but I maintain that

(a) honorary consulates are not included. I had earlier sought if anybody was interested in a change in this policy; there was insufficient interest, especially given the amount of work that would be required for wholesale changes.

(b) there is no policy about excluding photographs of doors or office suites for these articles. However Wikipedia encourage us to be judicious in selecting images (WP:IMAGE, Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). Yes it is relevant, but in the view of a casual observer it does not look like notable example of a consulate - it looks like a waiting room instead. If you cannot photograph anything anything notable, I would not include anything.

(c) There is also a Wikipedia guideline on keeping articles consistent. If only consulates in Houston are going to have their addresses published, they will stick out like sore thumbs. Nobody else has shown any desire to compile the addresses of the thousands of embassies out there.

Kransky (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's alright if honorary consulates are not included (although images of demoted consulates may be okay if they are in the same location)

2. It may look that way to the casual observer, but that is how the consulate actually appears, since it is a suite in an office building. Most Houston consulates are office building suites. I tend to take photographs that show flags and/or seals to make it obvious that this suite is indeed a consulate of the particular country. For instance, in the Brazil shot there is a Brazilian flag and a seal seen, so the observer should notice that the office itself is in relation to Brazil. If he or she zooms in the image it should be obvious that it is a consulate. The inclusion of the seals, icons, and flags should make the images *appear* sufficiently notable.

3. I do not mind if the addresses are removed.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I removed as many of the addresses as I could think of at the moment. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Please read: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Office_building_consulates_and_photographs WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isn't the Seattle consulate self-contained in a historic building? Why would that not be listed as an image? It looks exactly like the European embassies. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: NVM. I realized the pic is still there; it's the redlink that's gone. Perhaps one could create an article about the historic building itself (anything on the US Historic list is notable) and/or about the consulate. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the consulate is of appropriate notability you might want to create an article for it. Kransky (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Consulate in Alexandria

Hi, I was just in Alexandria this weekend and I personally saw the consulate. Unfortunately I couldn't take a picture of it due to a lot of security around it. Aquintero (talk) 15:00, 13 July, 2008 (UTC)

Demographic map

Nice job on that map, however, I'm a bit confused as you list Italy (light green) and (former states of) Yugoslavia (dark green). I don't see two different colours of green at all. Either they're so close in brightness as to be indistinguishable (on my monitor at least), or there is a problem with the reliability of the map. Also, I don't know how good it would look on a map such as this, but it would be handy to see a few notable landmarks/cities on the map such as Footscray, Dandenong, Springvale, Doncaster etc to relate to. Would also be nice to have seen it extend a bit further down the peninsula.

Also, a few quick Q's about the creation of it: How exactly did you convert Census data into the map? Were you able to automate it or was it manual process? Is the original a layered vector file or is a matter of what-you-see-is-what-you-get? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff. Thank you for the compliments. I checked my map and could identify a difference between Italy and Yugoslavia born, although it is not clear. Unfortunately there are many countries, a limited number of discernable colours and (unlike in Sydney) Melbournians don't tend to cluster.

I used Mapitude to generate the maps, using ABS data - similar to a layered vector file. Kransky (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan consulate near Houston - unfortunately...

Hey Kransky! I was driving around northwest Harris County taking photos of Jersey Village, Texas on a Sunday. I thought I would try to get a shot of Pakistan's consulate, thinking it was in a separate building like Mexico and China. Unfortunately I couldn't find any separate building along Jones Road. I later found other businesses used the same address as the Pakistan consulate; so the fact that the consulate website does not have a suite number apparently mislead me. Oh well - there's always the commons. BTW, for the commons I retook the Netherlands and added Egypt, Russia, Qatar, and Chile. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch born in Australia

Hi you asked: How do we solve this? The COB data was gathered by using thisABS tool to generate Excel charts for different cities in Australia. By putting them together into one single chart I was able to identify which cities had the largest number of persons born in a certain country. As the ABS data has been referenced previously I do not see a reason to include a citation - otherwise we could refer to the URL of the ABS Census table generator. Kransky (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am really keen to ensure that all data is verified and verifiable. The ABS links already provided do not provide links to tables where the information on Regions with Significant Populations can be verified. I am happy to use the link to the tool you provided but would expect the footnote to include the numbers derived from the tool. That way the reader can verify the information and also see how the conclusion was drawn.

To give you an example see Italian Australian and the information about and specifically footnote 5. I probably didn't have to put the numbers there in that case as they were easily there in the link but because the linked page has quite a few tables I wanted the reader to be quite clear about what population figures I was using to get the proportions.

For this Dutch example I would say place a footnote in to the ABS link and give the figures you ahve derived using the tool. The trouble with Sydney say is it can be various definitions within the ABS. If we use the tab states and cities we get a link to "Sydney (Statistical Division) - NSW" but there are other groupings. I then got an excel file with

Cat. No. 2068.0 - 2006 Census Tables

2006 Census of Population and Housing

Sydney (Statistical Division) - NSW

ANCESTRY (FULL CLASSIFICATION LIST) BY SEX

Count of responses

Based on place of usual residence

The information I derive from that file is that there are 42,474 people of Dutch ancestry living in Sydney of a total population living in Sydney of 5,145,409. The total count of persons is 19,855,288 and possible ancestry responses is 25,451,383. We'll not worry about the latter denominator for the moment. Dutch ancestry was declared by 310,089.

Sydneysiders represent 25.9% of the total count of persons
Dutch Sydneysiders represent 14% of all those who have declared their ancestry as Dutch. I would say they are under represented in Sydney and I do not think on the basis of those figures it is appropriate to describe Sydney as a Regions with significant population.

Using the information from the Census Media Package and comparing to Australian proprotions by State (as per the example in Italian Australian we find: I am going to cut an paste from a Excel sheet here - hope not too hard to read

State of Usual Residence	Persons born in Netherlands	%	Estimated resident population, preliminary - 30 June 2006 in '000s	%
New South Wales	18,817	23.8%	6,817.2	32.9%
Victoria	22,833	28.9%	5,128.3	24.8%
Queensland	15,262	19.3%	4,091.5	19.8%
South Australia	7,797	9.9%	1,568.2	7.6%
Western Australia	10,109	12.8%	2,059.0	9.9%
Tasmania	2,435	3.1%	489.9	2.4%
Northern Territory	484	0.6%	210.7	1.0%
Australian Capital Territory	1,183	1.5%	334.2	1.6%
Total (Other Territories)	78,923		20,701.5

Iknow this is people born instead of people of ancestry but what it tells us is that for this group NSW is underrepresented and Vic, WA and Tasmania (slightly) are over represented.

If we redo the query for Melbourne we get Ancestry for the Melbourne statistical division. There are 60,737 people of Dutch ancestry in Melbourne representing 20% of all those with Dutch ancestry. Melbourne residents represent 22.7% of Australian residents - so again Dutch in Melbourne are very slightly under represented.

I will have to break here to save work-in-progress but will continue ... Matilda ^talk 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice lost my additional response to you. Am now a very frustrated Matilda (kicking herself for not saving response elsewhere). Please see the footnote I have aded to Dutch Australian and let me know your feedback. I have removed Adelaide as there are less people in Adelaide than in Vic outside of Melbourne. Regards Matilda ^talk 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hey, thanks! :)

Also smaller image sizes help with monitors that have smaller resolutions.

Anyhow, I hope to find (for the Commons, at minimum) some good shots of the British and Japanese consulates in Houston. If I find entrances that are as impressive as France's (and therefore good for WP), I would be very happy :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, the other participants on the talk page were either in favor of including the suburbs too, or one guy advocated not mentioning the main city at all. If you want we can restart the debate. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The CBD is a part of the City of Sydney; surely there are other areas within the entity, but the label does not matter as long as the facility is within the City of Sydney. 2. While the facility may be more associated with Mayfair than the overall city, the overall city is the municipality. Where I draw the line is that districts of cities are not named, but municipalities are. 3. I understand that municipality systems vary across countries, and that some stuff is sourceable and verifiable while other stuff is not. Since the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and not necessarily truth, and that Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, it is acceptable to go into as much detail into the municipality status as possible.

BTW, regarding notable buildings, I think notable buildings (either prominent skyscrapers or U.S./UK/Other Historical sites) with consulates should be noted. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus edits

Hi. I don't think that there is any way to stop Russavia from making those edits for which there is no consensus. He has continuously made mass edits like moving categories or AWB clean up and there is absolutely no way to make him stop with his actions. I tried supporting you in a wish to discuss these issues with him but he always has a ready reply how he is right and how everybody else is wrong which is followed by more controversial mass edits.--Avala (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you should wait that long. When he tries to defend himself he just lists a dozen unrelated Wiki policies. You can see my "discussion" with him here. Very argumentative but without anything to back it up. He cites some policies which clearly state a different thing when you open them. He will cause a lot of damage to Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is pushing for proKosovo POV in the silliest manner. Obviously Russia (as it can be seen on their MFA website) and Kosovo have no relations and Russia considers any such relations to be relations with Serbia. But no he is pushing, literally pushing, for Wiki to have an article on such non-existent relations. I don't see any problem in having France-Kosovo relations as they do exist but those with Russia do not and maintaining an article on that subject is senseless and OR violation. Please start that arbitration asap before he makes more damage.--Avala (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way to assume good faith Avala. Thanks for that. --Россавиа ^Диалог 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I go and make Russia-Chechnya relations would you assume good faith or think of me as a POV pusher? Please.--Avala (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to do so, and so long as it is NPOV, go ahead. However, most of it is already covered in the various history articles. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...please don't fight in my living room please guys.

A standard that has adopted is that we only include states that are recognised by at least one other state (which itself has majority recognition). Thus we have articles for the diplomatic missions of Kosovo, Palestine, Israel, Salhawi, Taiwan and Northern Cyprus. This is regardless if the state (or "so called state" if you prefer) has UN or majority recognition Kransky (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstood me. I am not objecting the existence of such articles, but only where they describe an existing thing. Therefore France-Kosovo relations is perfectly fine but Kosovo-Russia relations is not (because it is contradicting to write about non existent relations - Russia considers all relations with anything regarding Kosovo as relations with Serbia so having an article called Kosovo-Russia relations is simply contradicting) but I think we are near of solving that issue. Anyway back on topic. What are we going to do about mass edits for which no previous consultations or consensus were made? --Avala (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Until Russia recognises Kosovo I cannot think of anything that could go into such a named article. As for those mass edits, I think it pays to trust people. I am waiting for Russavia to do what he has promised and actually write some articles - not just on Russian embassies, and not just stubs. Kransky (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard that is easily subject to a litmus test. Given the time, resources, and inclination, one could easily come up with Russia-Abkhazia and Russia-South Ossetia relations, and it could totally NPOV and fully referenced and verified. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed consulates

Kransky, I wasn't aware of this particular convention either; the articles themselves had listed some of the closed missions anyway (particularly Australia and the UK, prior to my edits). Also, some people have different ideas on what articles should have compared to others. I understand that these lists are meant to generally illustrate the diplomatic network in and of itself, but I do not see a harm in including small details of some consulates, especially those with not enough information to get their own articles. Anyway, perhaps closed missions can be noted in sentences like what was seen in Australia's and UK's articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Russian consulate building in Seattle, as I recall, is on the National Register of Historic Buildings in the U.S. Anything on that list is notable on Wikipedia.
Also, regarding seeking consensus, that depends on whether the edit would be a major "shock" for the article. There is a principle called Wikipedia:Be bold - the principle states that one may be bold in making changes, but also that one should be careful that he is not reckless; it is a bit of a balancing act. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We want to keep the articles consistent and accurate. For most countries we do not know where they have closed embassies in the past.

For example: I know that the United States once operated a famous consulate in Tangier. Should I add that to the list? No. Why? Because I cannot complete the list with other missions that the United States once operated. Does this matter? Yes, because we don't want readers to think that Tangier was the only mission the United States ever closed.

This is why we recently considered removing North Korean diplomatic missions article because of a lack of reliable sources. Russavia for his pains updated the article with references, and it contains a caveat about its possible incompleteness. If we were dealing with much less important subject matter, or if the task would have required much more work, I don't think anybody would have put in the commitment to complete this work.

If you want to include details of closed missions in the intro paragraph, make it relevant to some larger context. For example in the British article the closure of diplomatic missions is mentioned in the context of the FCO's review of its resources. An article that leads with Country X has a moderately sized diplomatic network. It used to have a mission in Helsinki but it closed down in 1998 after additional staff were posted to Stockholm. Country X's consulate in Houston is located in the XYZ Building is a collection of unnotable facts with no collective alignment to the article.

So the Russian consulate is in a National Register of Historic Buildings - is the register relevant to diplomatic missions? No. Is it a notable fact? Well, if the consulate deserves its own article, then it does. But not in an article covering the diplomatic network of the Russian Federation.

some people have different ideas on what articles should have compared to others .. This depends on what their values are. We try to keep our values universal and consistent - it has for the most part prevented edit wars between people with deeply held convictions, say on China, Palestine or Cyprus. Putting laborious details about Houston consulates or consular districts would force writers to either accept this American-centric deviation, or force us follow suit and update all the other 180 articles - a Herculean and potentially uncompletable task. Kransky (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lists should not contain information on previously closed missions right next to the existing ones but if there is something notable it can always be added to the lead or a separate section. But there should be some kind of story behind it for it to be included not just that the consulate or embassy existed and was closed which is no way interesting but something a little bit further than that.--Avala (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe: Please add additional comments at the bottom of a chain of messages. It also pays to talk about articles in their talk pages (or in the categorisation page's talk page, rather than on user's talk pages.

Be Bold means make a change, then let consensus decide if it should live. Kransky (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice you say that Kransky, because I seem to recall an edit war that you and I had over Diplomatic missions of Russia, in which it appeared it was either your way or the highway, with no consensus at all. Nevermind, keep an eye out for discussion. And by the way, do not use a categories talk page to gather consensus; as I have said on previous occasion, consensus by stealth is not consensus; there is a project talk page, use that. --Россавиа ^Диалог 00:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a new format in Diplomatic missions which should make articles look better. For stat I will use it in Diplomatic missions of Serbia and if everyone likes it it can be used elsewhere. It will be more modern because it will be a table and it will be more informative.--Avala (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Diplomatic missions by country

I have nominated Category:Diplomatic missions by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ornate enough to use on Diplomatic missions of Angola?

Hey Kransky, I took this photo:

Does this look ornate enough to use on Diplomatic missions of Angola, or do you think it should only be on the commons? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Anyway, speaking about pictures of diplomatic missions of African countries, I got a shot of Equatorial Guinea's consulate in Houston:

I think this says a lot about Equatorial Guinea's government. I could use this pic somewhere, but I'm not sure where. I could come back to the consulate to check who this man is, but I think it's Teodoro Obiang. IMO it is the most interesting office consulate photo I have taken. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This time I wasn't referring to the "Diplomatic missions" article - I instead placed the picture in the politics page. Anyway, here's the thing - when you go into an American consulate, do you see a large picture of George W. Bush as the very first photograph that you see? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland China

I explained in the talk page of the Chinese Australian page and said why the ABS terminology is inappropriate. You agreed with me, then you proceeded to use another POV term. I expressed my concerns that this other term is not appropriate and explained why. You didn't bother to reply. Then when I proceeded to use the NPOV term, you just simply reverted the edits and gave a reply suggesting that you didn't read my explanations at all. No, you did not write a term that is equivalent to "mainland China" and I explained why if you bother to read it.

I feel that your act is simply disrespectful.

I am not introducing a new terminology for the sake of it. The term used by the ABS is incorrect and it cannot be used in Wikipedia without breaking the NPOV policy. I cited the policy and I didn't get a reply to it.

Then you insist on using "PRC" in the main text, when you conceded that the original survey didn't even use this terminology.

It is commonly accepted in Wikipedia that "mainland China" means the PRC territory not including HK and Macau and the term does not include Taiwan (regardless of Taiwan's status). This is the neutral term. Please don't let me constantly repeat stuff. It is quite rude.--pyl (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline logos

Hello Kransky you can revert my change on the page by cliking on the history tab at the top of the page then at the end of the line with the change I made is listed click on undo. I will not remove them again if you are going to ask for another opinion I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Airline liveries and logos

I have nominated Airline liveries and logos, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline liveries and logos. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —teb728 t c 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian diaspora" Request for Comment

Hello. Comments have been requested for an article you have been involved in discussing - Australian diaspora; if interested in participating please visit Talk:Australian diaspora. SeventhHell (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Diplomatic missions of Ireland

Hello Kransky. Though your recent Talk contributions show an effort to resolve this disagreement, if you keep on reverting the article itself, without waiting for a Talk page consensus, you and your counterpart may both be blocked, per WP:Edit war. Please work toward a consensus, and wait for it to form. Bring in outsiders if you wish. I assume you have seen the result of the posting at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein

Hello, I have a question about one of your older contributions, namely this one. It is currently part of List of suicides in fiction because List of suicides was split-up. In your contribution, there is a link to Frankenstein, however it leads to the book, which has another ending. I assume the jump into a frozen lake is the ending of a film – can you update the article List of suicides in fiction? Maybe its possible to enter both endings, however in the book its only a swear. Regards --Cyfal (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Actually, the ending is somewhat open, see the last sentences here. --Cyfal (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing by User: Kransky

Please do not canvas in support of your views. It is against the rules and makes a mockery of genuine discussion. See:

I suppose it may help you get a "consensus" on the Diplomatic missions of Ireland article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume bad faith.

If we are talking about the status of the Irish office in Taiwan, it would make sense to seek views from Taiwan related projects as it would views from Irish related projects. Actually it would be far more important, since whatever is decided on this issue will impact on more Taiwanese related articles than Irish related articles.

The names of people in the International Relations project are there for you to canvas opinion. I believe that I have been NPOV in seeking comment and raising the broader issues likely to transpire from your proposed change, and any reasonable observer would concur with this.

Kransky (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(commonly known as "Taiwan")

I don't think it is necessary either. But I did that to avoid disputes with pro-independence supporters and those who argue that the "Republic of China" is not a well-known name outside Chinese speaking communities.--pyl (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you think that way. I have not had problems with pro or anti independence supporters when I explain how Wikipedia's self-identification principle works. Nor do I think "Republic of China" is so unknown outside Chinese speaking communities that it requires an explanation every time it is printed. Kransky (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding original research to Extreme points of Earth

Please stop adding original research to the article. Any sources you do add must also state the fact which only one partly did. Sources must be reliable and verifiable or it will be revert. Bidgee (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee has a habit (he just did it with me) of incorrectly applying verifiable. A measurement of distances that can be verified by any user or any editor with any atlas or many mapping sites on line is most certainly not original research. Please ignore his overly-quick admonition and continue to contribute geographic facts derived from such measurements. DLinth (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Airlines on Noi Bai International Airport

Hi Kransky! Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_9#Should_former_airlines_and_destinations_be_included_in_airport_articles.3F. The consensus is not to include former routes in airport articles unless they are complete and well reference. I have removed it as it fails both criterias. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Celtic Australian

Hi Kransky. There's a dispute boiling at Anglo-Celtic Australian. I notice you've contributed to the article in the past. Is it anything you could help with? WizOfOz (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chongryon

Hi! Please check out the NK diplomatic missions talk page - I would like to see if it does any activities that could be considered Tier I. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missions in Taipei

I found Irish mission in Taipei was removed on Diplomatic missions of Ireland.

And I found foreign missions in Taipei are not listed in following pasges.

Diplomatic missions of India (India has India-Taipei Association [2])
Diplomatic missions of Russia (Russia has Representative Office [3])

Jjhcap99 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being attentive. There was a bit of an argument over this, as the respective talk page illustrates, with one contributor wanting an unnecessary amount of explanation about the status of the office. In the end there was the view that because the office was a trade office, not just in name but also because it was part of Ireland's trade liaison network (and not mentioned on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website), it was neither a de facto nor de jure diplomatic mission. Kransky (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Wikipedia has an MOS. And wikipedia is based on consensus, not on a vote. Your freely admitted position that flags are there to look good goes against the MOS. And you are forcing your inclusion against MOS by numbers, not reason which is not what wikipedia is about. Yet, you fail to explain address that contradiction - you just say you have the numbers. --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I'm not sure how canvassing those you know support your position is part of RFC. Isn't the idea to get another opinion? --Merbabu (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am contacting most people who have contributed to the article. Anyhow, this RFC will go to an independent group of editors who will provide their views. Kransky (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the RFC? As far as I can see you are canvassing for supportive opinion. Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? --Merbabu (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not - I contacted Longhair even though he provided a view adverse to my views (whereas you only contacted him and nobody else).

The RFC should appear within the hour (or at least that is what the message states)

Incidentally, you may be interested to know there is considerable debate about the phrase "Help the reader rather than decorate" which you are citing, with many people unhappy about its restrictive and vague meaning. See the talk page for Manual of Style (icons). Kransky (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help the reader = informative rather than make it pretty. As for readability, I think it is less readable with the decorations. As per my list of Indonesians examples, it is only country lists where this is a problem. As for Longhair, i contacted him because he had actually edited on the specific issue. I have not contacted User:Bidgee. --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up this discussion from your canvassing of the relatively inconsequential issue. Please accept these remarks with good grace, despite the forcefulness with which they are put, because it is in the interests of the community that I am posting here. I am doing so with good faith, the onus will be on you to prove anything to the contrary. You need to a take a step back ...

First and foremost: your choice of forum to promulgate you views on icons is in exceptionally poor taste. Please take that discussion elsewhere.

Secondly, by my reading of the discussion, you are arguing from a fugitive position. In doing so, you have made unfounded personal attacks on Merbabu, and unjustly accused him of the same. So it goes, but, I state again, that talk page was a poor choice for personalising a discussion. Please show some decorum. I would recommend that Merbabu also abstain from further comment there, as I have chose to do.

Lastly, as a general note on images in articles and [especially] lists. You have advanced a position that very clearly contradicts the MOS, we are building an encyclopaedia, why not make a gallery at commons if you feel so strongly about this collection of flags. The MOS itself is the product of consensus, and these are not formed at marginal pages relating to a national tragedy. cygnis insignis 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]