Talk:Gallery of country coats of arms/Archive 2006

Unprotecting

Seeing as how things have calmed down over the last two days, I'll unprotect this and see if the vandalism starts up again. howch e ng {chat} 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the user who removes the 2 coa:

is there a way to setlle this without bloodshed? Can we talk? Please? Renata 08:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Renata3 Actually I have stated my arguments in your personal talking page several days ago. De-facto independent state is NOT a sovereign state. There IS a special separate list for the de-facto states' flags and emblems, which I had never touched. A part of my country should not be listed in the sovereign states' list between Spain and South Africa. It's the same as if Vilnius and it's region were shown in Wikipedia as part of Poland. This is an absolute nonsence and as a citizen of my country I'm obliged to prevent (if I can) spreading of this totally false information about my country among the great number of people, who visit Wikipedia. "Here I stand and I can do no other" (c) :) Neuzheli to chto ya govoru, tebia sovershenno ne trogaet i tebe ne poniatno??

Ok, but do you understand that this page is not political? If you want to remove those two entries, you should go and argue on talk page of List of sovereign states. There is a definition of this page: everything included on that list is included here. Personally, I have no opinion wheather SO & A should be included or not, I let people on List of sovereign states decide. Summary, it is a WRONG place to make political comments. Renata 18:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make any political comments actualy.

I just claim, that in the list, which is named exactly "Coats of arms of sovereign states" there should be coats of arms of the sovereign states only. Othervise, it's factually incorrect. And I don't want information about my country on such a popular Web-resource, as Wikipedia is, to be factually incorrect and misleading.

Ok, political comments/claims/statements/discussions/batlles/etc do not belong HERE. This page is unpolitical. How come you are not removing those two entries from List of sovereign states? I do not follow your logic. Renata 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I dont make any political comments/claims/statements/discussions/batlles/etc. As to the List of sovereign states,look carefully at the page. There are NO those two entries in the list which is under "The Sovereign States" name.

That is because User:Geodave removed it (my wild guess - you) and there was nobody to revert. Now you cannot just decide and remove whatever you don't like. There is this thing called consensus. Start a vote on the talk page of the list and maybe you'll be lucky. Such undiscussed removals are called vandalism. And so far you have not been blocked, but you might be. Get a consensus to remove those two, and I will be reverting whoever wants to include them. Renata 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all "undiscussed removals" are NOT called vandalism. Why don't you read your own Wikipedia definition of vandalism??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Most likely, your actions could qualify under sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. You have edited this page, the list, and the gallery of flags and have not notified anybody. Now, I am not looking for faults and etc. I am looking here for a solution. Your actions are objectonable. You are changing pages just because you don't like it and you ignore the compromises that were reached on talk pages. That is not good. Renata 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding misinformation, to the contrary, I am removing misinformation. It is not about what i like or what I dislike, it is about SIMPLE, OBVIOUS FACTS. By the way, that strange and probably politically motivated addition of the separatist regions to the list of sovereign states (!) was heavily disputed, and NO COMPROMISE was reached. Check the List of sovereign states discussion boards an you will see. Actually, as I saw, people who objected that extremely strange addition were not Georgians, but neutral persons from other countries. So there was no compromise about the matter, but nevertheless somebody (probably with admin's authority) decided that constituent parts of the states with internationally recognized borders should be equated with sovereign states, which is an absolute nonesense and breathes on Wikipedia's reputation. I repeat for the third time, that compromise about the matter was NOT reached, which you can see if you give a glance at those discussion boards. So it is not me, who breaks the rules, it is somebody, who makes decisions there. He has an authority though, that's the difference. From my side, I'm obliged to correct misleading information about my country.

Sorry for delay. Well, your "simple, obvious facts" are not so simple. I am not getting involved in mataphysical discussion who supported what and for what reasons. The fact is that this article (and others) had a very clear definition of what is included. You came here, declared that all this is wrong and messed up the definition. Now if you want to re-define the article - be my guest. Start a new discussion, reach a consensus, and be happy. (what don't you understand about this?) You cannot come here and just remove two states (for ANY reasons) without any discussions. It is not how wiki works. You cannot just come and decide that it is all wrong. And by the way, "who makes decisions here" is the community. Renata 05:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have said all I could say about this matter here. Simple and obvious fact is that under the name "Sovereign States" there should be sovereign states. I can't imagine, what you don't understand about this.

I perfectly understand. But you don't understand the way WP works. I am not judging if you are right or wrong, I am judging your actions that are against WP policies, traditions, etc. Reopen the discussions, reach consensus, and I will be reverting anybody who wants to include SO & A. Renata 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I will be grateful if you wait at least untill the matter is finally decided on the List of Sovereign states page. In one way or another.

Huh? What do you mean? I am not sure if I understood you here. Renata 04:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean your "reverts" of course.

I would appreciate it if you would wait as well, instead of continuously blanking information you don't like. I'll put a {{Disputeabout}} template on the article. I hope that is a good enough compromise for as long as the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are under discussion. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of false information is intolerabel. It is not about what I like. It is about simple facts. If you disagree, go to the List of sovereign states discussion page and lay out your arguments. And please stop posting false information here.

Oh please, give me a break. The information is neither true nor false. The dispute concerns in how far the criteria for sovereign states apply to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is an interpretative difference, it's not as easy as right (2+2=4) or wrong (2+2=5). I won't go so far as to call your blankings vandalism, but I will call it disruption. And I would like to ask you to stop removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia from this list for the duration of this discussion and keep the article the way it was before the dispute started. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 18:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are things, which are not disputable. One of such things is that Sovereign State is sovereign. The idea of sovereignty automatically means that this state is not part of another state. If some territory is part of another state, it means that this territory is not a sovereign state. If you don't understand anything else on this matter, I will explain it once more. But I would ask you to stop adding false information on this page. Go to the List of sovereign states talking page and list your arguments there. What you are doing here (deliberately adding false information) is a real vandalizm by Wikipedia standards. Please stop it.

I do wish you would refrain from accusing others of vandalism. Please don't let your emotions get in the way of this discussion. The problem is that sovereignty isn't as easy as you make it seem. As the sovereignty article explains, many states have both de jure sovereignty (the legal control over a certain territory) and de facto sovereignty (the actual power to exercise that legal control). However, there are still a lot of states where either one is missing. One of the cases would be Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where non-independent entities exercise power over a certain territory, to which they are perhaps legally not entitled, whereas the independent country that is legally entitled to the exercise of power over that territory is not able, for whatever reason, to do so. The best example would be Taiwan. Legally speaking, the territory falls under the authority of Beijing, but Beijing does not hold any physical power over the island; that rests with the authorities in Taipei, who in turn, technically speaking, do not have the legal power to do what they are doing, since they have not been recognized by the international community. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the Taiwan is totally incorect. The idea of sovereignty is that no power other than the sovereign state's power itslef is executed over a certain territory. If the territory is a constituent part of another state, it cannot be a sovereign state itself, becouse it cannot execute the sovereignty over the territory. It is constituent part of another state, which executes sovereignty itself.

That is but one view on sovereignty. And while it may be more or less true or realistic than other views on sovereignty, it is not up to wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia, to favour one view on sovereignty over the other. The neutral point of view is vital to any encyclopedia, and I can't say that you have been very neutral in this dispute. Fact of the matter is that the de facto authority of the governments in Sokhumi and Tskhinvali is consistent with at least some interpretations of the concept of sovereignty. Whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are constituent parts of another country is irrelevant in this. Yours is only one view on sovereignty, and it's not up to wikipedia to choose that view, or any other view in particular. It is up to the community here to write this article in such a way that it is a reasonable, well-defined, well thought through interpretation of the physical dimensions of the existing notions on sovereignty. That will automatically include clear-cut cases and less clear-cut cases. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that you defend one view on the idea of sovereignty, which dates back to 1933, when there was no UN and no International Law in it's modern sense. It's 2006 today.

Have you got a more recent definition from an equally authoritative source? (After all, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought) Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, get any book on International Law and read the definiton of sovereignty there. Everything will become clear at once. Now, after we have reached the consensus about the structure of the List of sovereign states page, the structure of this page should be changed correspondingly, so that people who read it don't get a false information, that Transnistria or South Osetia have the same official status as the United Kingdom or Australia. I hope, you agree with me at least on this matter (that this page should follow List of sovereign states page)?

You want the definition changed, so you provide an alternative definition. The burden of proof is on you, not on me (I know that doing so can be a bit hard in the evening). Simply saying that the current definition doesn't fit is not enough. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to prove anything, as this page automaticly follows the List of sovereign states page. Provide an alternative definition? Well can't you just look at the List of sovereign states page (which is a result of a compromise)?? First there are listed Internationally Recognized States in an alphabetical order, below it there are listed Unrecognized or Partially Recognized States, also in alphabetical order. Thats it.

Yes, you have to provide an alternative to the current definition. You had a problem with it, noone else. You felt it was outdated, noone else. You thought we needed a more up-to-date definition, noone else. You wanted it changed, noone else. And if you want something done, I'm not gonna do it for you. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have started talking too emotionally. Now, I am finally tired of your lies. You have been writing everywhere today, that I am the only one who has such an opinion and nobody agrees with me. While anybody, who comes to the List of sovereign states talk page can see, that you are not in majority really and other established editors agree with me, not with you. I tried to find another term instead of lie, but there is no other term for what you are doing. Now, if you don't want to carry out your function of a Wikipedia established editor, and if you want me or somebody else to edit this page so that it will correspond to the List of sovereign states, you should unprotect this page. Which you probably won't do:) To say the truth, your actions are somehow irrational.^)

I have asked you on your talk page to prove my alleged lies/untruths, and I have asked it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I will now ask it again: where have I lied? Where have I said things that weren't true? Perhaps there are more people in here with your opinion, but they haven't spoken out. Of the people who have spoken out, noone has shared your view. I've said it before: John Kenney came with a proposal that you agreed with (not vice versa), while koavf's position was so broad that your narrow position almost accidentally happened to be covered by it as well. On the articles involved, no less than seven people (Randwicked, Nightstallion, Renata3, Shocktm, Chanheigeorge, P Ingerson and me) have reverted your removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That should have been an indication of the massive disapproval of your actions. I won't say that these editors agree with me, because I don't know if they do, but it's clear that they oppose what you have been doing. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's difficult to argue with you, as you say "green" about things that are "blue". I repeat for the 10th time - everyone can see the List of sovereign states talking page and judje for himself, whether you are speaking truth about "total support" to your opinion, or not. Actually only you and one more editor opposed me there. The others where saying what I was saying. If you don't understand what people say, I believe others understand it and (I'm saying it again!) everyone, who is interested can see the List of sovereign states talking page.

You sure are a master at dodging difficult questions. I'll ask you for the fourth time: where have I lied? Where have I said things that weren't true? And I want direct, solid proof, provided by diffs and by "the truth" from which what I said differs according to you. "Everyone can see that..." is no answer or proof. As you can see on all involved pages, I have never claimed total support, or any other form of support for that matter. Talk pages are not the only indication to a person's position. Reverts are indications as well. Seven more than established edited reverted and undid your removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That is opposition to your position as well. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again. You have been liing for the whole day, when writing everywhere, that I was the only person who was saying something against the established consensus. Thats exactly what you where saying and yes, this is an obvious lie and you have repeated it dozen of times today. And YES, things which everyone can really see are considered to be properly proved usually!

Who supported you? You were and are alone in your position that Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be removed, while at least seven editors opposed that removal by reverting you. I wish you wouldn't accuse me of things I didn't do, and if you do accuse me, please prove it. Simply saying "anyone can see it" is no proof or argument, but a fallacy. If you are so certain of your case, you should have no problems proving it. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion and a page version absolutely corresponds to the opinion of John Kennedy and Justin (koavf) of the established editors and Irakly81. Your opinion was represented by you yourself and Nightstallion. I am tired of repeating this again and again. Things which anyone can see don't need any proof at all. Now, the consensus is reached, and you don't unprotect the page, just to tease me:)) It's your business to do some kidding if you want. I have to go. I will reply tomorrow (probably will have to repeat something for 15th time).

Changing your opinion after a new proposal and then saying you've always felt that way doesn't fly here. You felt that the two regions shouldn't be on the list, which is why you removed them. And like I have said time and again, at least seven established editors showed their disapproval by reverting you and by continuing to revert you. Noone shared your view. And if you're saying that I'm so bad, you should be lucky. Many other admins would have blocked you for disruption, trolling and violating WP:POINT a long time ago. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?

Someone has requested that this article be unprotected. Is it ready to be unprotected? Please respond at the proper entry at WP:RFP. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]