User talk:Rennell435/Archives

Answer

Please see User_talk:Yug#Locator_map_help. Good luck to you ;) Yug (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this :

Location in Alaska

{{Location map
 |Alaska
 |label=
 |lat=51.459167 <!-- note these are not the correct coordinates, but please don't change them-->
 |long=-183.108611
 |position=right
 |width=250
 |float=right
 |caption=Location in Alaska
}}

] Yug (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

Thanks, Chzz ► 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sovereign states sorting criteria

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An edit I don't understand

Please explain Why did you remove the BES Islands from this list? Please answer on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North America table

Your edit summary is wrong and missleading because I didn't just reverted. I used the data and the source you provided, I just sorted the table as it previously was, by regions. Those regions prevents the table from being a simple alphabetic ordered table that is difficult to read and the regions are well defined. And it doesn't mess the auto-sort when you click the button. And if it does I can fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guate-man (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see my mistake!! SORRY!!! I thought when I clicked the edit history I was using your data >.< I AM SORRY!! I will re arrange the countries as they were but without the mistake, this time I will use your data. SORRY AGAIN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guate-man (talk • contribs) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seranilla, Bajo Nuevo

Belize! I hope to get there some day!

I saw all your in depth research in the correspondence with Xavier Green on wapedia....nice research!

I see you made edits yesterday and in April removing the claim by Jamaica to Seranilla Banks....controlled by Colombia, of course, but are you sure about Jamaica dropping their claim to one and not the other!?.....The two have always been treated similarly by Jamaica. Is there any evidence of Jamaica dropping its claim there?....those two banks were as you know expressly excluded from the Colombia-Jamaica Joint Regime Area. I believe that Jamaica still claims both. (Their 1981-2 fishing treaty at http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/10/4/00018176.pdf expired in 1986 as you discovered.)

Pointing out that only Colombia and Nicarague have actively pursued their claims lately is also important, yes?

Honduras now claims neither (see last paragraph under Bajo Nuevo.) The Honduras claim expired upon their final ratification on Dec. 19, 1999 of their Aug. 2, 1986 maritime boundary treaty with Colombia, registered with and certified by the UN as number 36360.

Nice wording change on Guantanamo and a very nice correction in April to Xavier Green's mistaken edits.) Keep up the good research and work. DLinth (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re naming convention

I'd say be BOLD and add a section on the NCGN page. If someone objects, the conversation on the talk page at least will be given a jump-start. The template thing you'd have to handle at WP:TFD. Nightw 12:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be appreciated

As a member of WikiProject Countries, I'm seeking your opinion on a possible issue identified at List of sovereign states. If you have some spare moments, please contribute a comment at the Discussion of criteria. Best regards, Nightw 06:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! Could you answer either "yes" or "no" in the survey section? This is for the reference of participants to identify whether or not there is a problem with the arrangement of Kosovo in the list. Thanks, Nightw 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you contributed to this previous one, please join a preference survey on how to divide our List of sovereign states. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, Nightw 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last one! Promise. You've given a statement before, so you can just leave a vote if you wish. Nightw 12:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

Please review - thanks. 86.150.20.200 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you edit from an IP and get picked up by ClueBot beforehand I can't help but automatically revert. I undid the edit, but kept two links where a Google search determined they should stay. Rennell435 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DAB - if the information isn't in the target article, it shouldn't be linked. If the information belongs in the target article, feel free to add it and then list the article on the dab page. 86.150.20.200 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rennell435 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 86.150.20.200 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out the Netherlands

Hello, I hope you don't mind my brining this to your talk page, but the editors as the list of sovereign states article have other issues on their mind (issues over a year old mind you), and I just saw your post on that talk page. The sources you found on Denmark were very good, no idea how you found those. I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you mean when you say the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not a sovereign state. Membership in the UN is granted to the "Kingdom of the Netherlands", shortform name the "Netherlands". Now of course, because the english language is often quite useless, this could possibly refer to just the European part, but I doubt that. It's not as if the Kingdom is made up of different sovereign states. You're right of course, that the King is explicitly referred to as the "Head of the Kingdom" in the charter, but the charter also refers to a "council of state" (article 13). Also interesting is that the constitution of the constituent country Netherlands applies throughout the Kingdom, unless the charter states otherwise: From article 5: "...the exercise of royal and legislative power in Kingdom affairs shall be governed, if not provided for by the Charter, by the Constitution of the Kingdom." This leads me to believe that the area is considered a single sovereign state, albeit one with extremely devolved powers. Note that the Netherlands Antilles (when it included all the Caribbean Islands) left the UN list of non self governing territories due to a change in status, which is the same as Greenland. There's a large number of sources on Kingdom of the Netherlands, unfortunately for me they are in dutch, but it leads me to trust in what that page says since I lack other sources. If you are able to find english ones, that'd be great. Your sources for Denmark have further convinced me that it would probably be beneficial to merge Kingdom of Denmark into Denmark and Rigsfællesskabet. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your response, friend. I'm sorry I have not been able to get online for a few days now. I think you are correct and I am wrong again! (with the Netherlands this time). Since they are the same then logically their articles should look like France or the United Kingdom articles, yes? However, I don't see their being much support for this (mostly because of Wikipedia's "common name" policy making the European parts the primary subjects for "Denmark" and "Netherlands". Maybe we should bring this up at their WikiProject noticeboards for advice or opinions? Even if we don't merge the articles we could discuss how best to expand the articles separately (since that seemed to be the main concern for not linking to the Kingdom pages) and where to direct flagicon links... What do you think? Rennell435 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personalised talkback, very cool. I question whether the common name policy is that clear here, no doubt most people think of the European parts instead of the entire state, but most people probably don't know about the overseas parts. I don't think most people know about French Guiana etc., yet France doesn't direct to Metropolitan France. User:Orange Tuesday has stated that the current setup of the Netherlands articles (A Kingdom page, four country pages) is the best way to organise it, and they know more about the situation than I do. It's the Denmark articles that need a clearer distinction. The flag templates are more tricky. I'm willing to bet that a good portion of

Netherlands templates should apply to the Kingdom; basically every time it's on a list with other sovereign states. There's also however a Kingdom flag template, and I'm unsure arguing making the Netherlands template default link to the Kingdom page will achieve consensus, although I think it should. As for Denmark, obviously it's unclear what to do with the flag templates if we haven't figured out the article setup. I agree it would be very beneficial to establish a clear policy of when it is appropriate to link to which article. Don't worry about not being online very often, not a problem. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies again. I will try to stay connected if we begin any community discussion. I think it might be easier to concentrate on one at a time and I think it would be easier to get a merge passed on Talk:Denmark because there is not much informaton to merge from Kingdom of Denmark. Rigsfællesskabet appears (to me?) to be an independent topic or a sub-topic of Denmark#Politics. Rennell435 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues can be quite fascinating. I'll take your advice make a post on the Denmark Wikiproject asking for their thoughts and an explanation of the situation, it's entirely possible I've missed something extremely important that justifies the current article setup. A clear community consensus either way would be very helpful, and even if it isn't merged perhaps a MOS for wikilinks will emerge. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good! I'll put in my thoughts there once some have replied. Rennell435 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confused - please help! map request

Hi!

I know you have worked with world maps before, and I want to make one. I am so confused and helpless in this part of wikipedia. I have been editing Muammar Gaddafi, and I want to put up a map of nations he's visited, warred with, tried to merge with. I have a list of nations, sourced, ready-to-go, but i don't know how to make the map. If you can help, I'm offering you a barnstar for your hard work. Again, please send me a message to my talk page and I'll send you the list of countries. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Screwball23 talk 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry i'm afraid I must disappoint! The only maps I ever created were co-ordinates maps like the one at the top ---which you can see someone actually did for me. Better to try someone else, although you probably have by now anyway! If not, good luck! Rennell435 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations

Hi, you asked me to let you know when I relaunched the proposal to rename the bilateral relations articles to remove the spaces round the dashes. Well, I've raised the issue at the MOS talk page, so you might like to add your thoughts there.--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. Sorry for being late to the party. Rennell435 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]