User talk:Sundostund/Archive 5

) 16:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our

) 16:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits to

) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Venezuela

Please see the talk page about the numbers on the List of Presidents of Venezuela, it would appear that no

20:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you please share a source saying Bolivar or Mendoza were ever specifically President of Venezuela? Seems like original research, at least given the online sources in this article (and Bolivar's and the Congress of Angostura's). But you seem to want to keep it. Not a huge problem, but an explanation would be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edits on Prime Minister of Serbia. I fixed the AWB issue but I believe that the font size on the last column is too small to read. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a rant from that talk page. Please let this be a warning, and let me cite the relevant paragraph from

) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuing on

Absolutely, Germany always wanted revenge for their total defeat in 1945, in which Yugoslav Army played a major role (at the moment when the war ended, our Army held under its control portions of southern Austria, its just a sign how far we went in WWII from total defeat to total victory in the end). For sure, Germans never forget that... As for Milosevich, I also agree the breakup of SFRY started with his ascent to power. An IMF man? For sure! He worked in a branch of a Belgrade bank in USA in the mid-1980, so Americans had many opportunities to recruit him as an agent for USA and their interests. I think too Croats were indeed satisfied with the position they had in SFRY according to the 1974 Constitution, so there was no real reason to secede - again, work of Western countries. All of our history in the past 20 years can be summed up in the words: "Divide and rule" - they divided our peoples, and now they rule over our countries, their natural resources etc. As for the EU, I'm not a fan of it at all (especially because its dominated by Germany) and, when its current financial and economic situation is considered, its very doubtful whether the EU will continue to exist in some distant future... We (South Slav peoples) must turn to each other for any kind of future union, as we did in 1918 and in 1945. --Sundostund (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh.. khm. I doubt it was revenge, and no, the Partisans really didn't play a very big role at all in bringing the Nazis down (MacLean said they did, and the Allies thought so for some time after the war, but now historians agree it was all a relatively minor nuisance). Also its never "revenge" in these sort of serious issues, rather it was most likely economic influence and expansion (if anything), or perhaps even the removal of competition (Koncar e.g.). I doubt post-war German leaders hold "grudges" against WWII victors over their Nazi rivals.. even if so, the Partisan stuff would probably be last on their hypothetical "Rache-Liste". These aren't emotional people.

I must disagree on the issue of the EU. Our world works the way it works, and the EU is a logical adaptation to the world as it is today. It would be nice if we could go back to the era of truly-independent nation states, but that's just not the reality anymore. The EU is simply an adaptation to our terrible finance-dominated global situation. If the "powers that be" want something in/from Serbia, you can rest assured they'll take it whether you are or aren't in the EU. They'll "exploit" you either way. In the EU, though, you'll at least be able to have some little say in the whole thing. As for the EU falling apart, rest assured that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes :), probably much longer.

And its best to forget about the third Yugoslavia fantasy. Don't get me wrong, its a nice fantasy (I even made our new flag! :)), but its still a fantasy. The whole thing is really quite sad and hopeless. Maybe we'll agree at some point to have joint representation in the EU or something.. when we're all inevitably forced to join. --

talk

) 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, Germans for sure wanted some kind of revenge on SFRY, Czechoslovakia, USSR and Eastern Europe as a whole for its part in Nazi Germany's defeat. Of course, economic and political dominance was their primary motive, revenge was just a part of whole that thing in the early 1990s... As for the Partisans, their role in the WWII wasn't crucial for the Allies cause, but it sure was quite big. After all, the Partisans fought the Germans in some of the largest battles in Europe west of the Eastern Front (Neretva and Sutjeska), and the anti-Partisan operations which Germans conducted here ensured those Nazi troops can't take part in the fight against the Soviets, etc.

As for the EU, I'm sure it will dissolve much sooner than it may seem to you at this point. They have serious economic and financial problems which can only increase in the future (new Greece, Cyprus etc will pop out somewhere for sure). Also, I quite doubt that European countries are ready to be bullied indefinitely by Germany and her desire for dominance over Europe in every aspect... Trust me, EU will crush down much before than you and me die :) I totally agree that the era of nation states is over, and I predict that member countries of the EU, after its dissolution, will form separate blocks of countries (Western Europe, Central Europe, etc) and will seek ways to form organizations which will be much less centralized than EU administration is today.

I truly hope the third Yugoslavia will emerge from all of that (maybe as an block of countries of the South Eastern Europe). Maybe its a fantasy, but I'll believe in that fantasy until my heart beats :) Your new flag is really nice, and it may be adopted one day :) I'm sure Montenegrins would be really happy to have a central place in it :)... I agree things really looks sad and hopeless at this point, but I also know that my hope (and, I'm sure hope of many other people, will never die! --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah :). People like that don't think about "national revenge" and such stuff. Besides, like I said, the Partisans really weren't anything like a big deal for the Nazis. If they wanted revenge, you'd think they'd destroy the Czechs (who kicked millions of them out in 1945). You're over-simplifying the Germans.

They do have serious economic problems, but so does the US - is the US gonna fall apart? What might fall apart is the Euro system, and that only in some countries. Whatever the losses the elites that run the show may have from the crisis, they're universally aware that they'd have more problems if the EU fell apart. Engdahl seems to think that the US is trying to bring down the Euro. Whatever the case may be, if I had to choose I'd pick Germans over Americans - simply because they're closer. We're less of a periphery in their orbit (and we can forget about being truly independent ever again in the near future, united or individually). Either way, I assure you, the "powers-that-be" will never really let the EU fall apart.

Like Mesic said, even if every one of us down here decided passionately to unite - it would not be possible anymore. It would take a tectonic shift in that direction, something like a third word war going precisely one way, or something like that. Its best not to be bitter about it :(. --

talk

) 01:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can agree that we disagree over the Partisans :) I truly believe their role in WWII was important, and that they managed to tie down in the Balkans a large number of German troops which could be dispatched on some other fronts... As for Germans, they are really simple in essence: Their only goal is political and economic domination, they only change means to achieve that goal. I always perceived them as enemies of Slavic peoples, and I always will. If you ask me, all of Europe's problems began when Germans defeated the French in the Franco-Prussian War, and destroyed the Second Empire of Napoleon III. After that, Germans grew stronger and stronger and that eventually lead to the WWI... If someone need to dominate over Europe, its much better to have French in that place than Germans.

As for the EU, I can only say: The future will show who was right, you or me. In my opinion, it will not last into some distant future. For the EU, economic stability equals political stability. Italian and Spanish economies are in great troubles at this point, and if they fell France is next in line. Its totally impossible for the EU to bail out Italy and Spain, not to mention France. If that happens, the EU is doomed... As for the US, they'll fell apart too in the future, but I'm pretty sure the US will outlive the EU. All great empires, states etc of the past fell apart as some point, that will happen with the US too. I have a great interest in history, and I can tell you: Nothing lasts forever. I must say, its very sad to see how today looks the US - country which was founded by Washington and other founding fathers on revolutionary bases, with a vision to be the first country of a new, free and just world. What would they say if they are alive today? Would they be happy to see what is left of their noble vision?

As for the third Yugoslavia, a tectonic shift (maybe WWIII) is precisely what I'm talking about when I say reunification will occur one day. It will not happen in present circumstances for sure! Who in the world could imagine in 1908, 10 years before the end of WWI, that unification of South Slavic peoples will happen? In 1908, all South Slavic territories west of Drina were under Austro-Hungarian rule (Bosnia was just annexed), Serbia and Montenegro didn't even had common border and Macedonia, Kosovo and some other territories were still under Ottoman rule. By 1918, all of that fall apart and unification happened. We just need to continue to believe, and to be ready to act when time comes :) --Sundostund (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I like your admiration for the revolutionary Founding fathers. what about the Indians, it must have looked different to them - and have you ever heard of slavery? you call that a 'new, free and just world' - don't expect me to take your world view analyses seriously will you. Sayerslle (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have a great admiration for a bunch of people with enough courage and vision to take on the greatest superpower of the 18th century, managed to defeat it and create a new country on revolutionary bases! Indians? They unfortunately stood on the way of American natural expansion to the Western part of North America, and payed a price for it. Slavery? The founding fathers (some of whom were slave owners themselves) were divided and unable to resolve that issue when they drafted the Constitution, so left it for future generations (led by Lincoln) to do it. I also have a great sadness for present-day America which doesn't respect wishes of its founding fathers at all (non-interventionism, above all)... I didn't asked you at any point to take my world view analyses seriously, nor I care about your opinion. And, if your parents didn't told you this, I guess I must do it: Its very rude to jump in uninvited in a conversation between other people. It demonstrate a lack of good upbringing, but that's not your fault. --Sundostund (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So they took on the greatest supeerpower and then they became the greatest superpower and thats just tough luck on the native american INdians and the slaves - the mere shifting of power is not a new and free and just world. i'll have the manners to leave this discussion now and if you dont like lucubrations from me , imagine how i felt when i received your unwelcome lecture and strictures teaching me all about the failings of liberal democracy and explaining why you love Russia and China so much. boring. Good day, sir Sayerslle (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying - They took on the greatest supeerpower and then they became the greatest superpower! Future generations of Americans betrayed their founding fathers' visions, ideals and beliefs and turned their country into what the British Empire was at the time when the Revolutionary War began! Today, America does to the world precise the same things which the British did in the 18th century. Again, approval of my words - The mere shifting of power is not a new and free and just world. Exactly! America was supposed to be a cornerstone of a new, free and just world, instead it turned into another great empire which will collapse for sure at some point, in the same way as other empires of the past collapsed. As for the Indians, they tried to stop American expansion to the West, and they were wiped out. Do you really believe America could limit herself to the area east of the Appalachians? Of course not! As for the slavery, it was a cancer in the heart of America which only Lincoln (in my opinion, one of the greatest people of all time) could cure, and he did! He did what the founding fathers were unable to do - abolished slavery. That's why American Civil War is sometimes called "the last battle of the American Revolution"... I'm really glad to hear you'll leave this discussion. I bet anyone else would remove your ramblings from his talk page, but I left it and responded to you. Everything what I said to you about my political positions (and I firmly believe in all of them) wasn't on your talk page, if you remember. You came on my talk page totally uninvited, jumped in a conversation between me and DIREKTOR and started with your ramblings. Stupid. Goodbye, Sir. --Sundostund (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing against the Partisans, to be sure, but I did do some pretty extensive research into the War over here, and, unfortunately for our egos, Tomasevich and other authors explain in great detail how the impact of the struggle in these parts has been exaggerated beyond proportion in early WWII historiography - and beyond the bounds of reality by our own propaganda. Remember that we here fought amongst ourselves in great part. Only the Neretva/Sutjeska operations are of any significance, and that not so great as usually imagined.

Whether the Germans are the "enemies of Slavic peoples", well, that really isn't necessarily true. They always had really good relations with Czechs, Slovenes, Bulgarians, and yes - us traitor Croats :). Its true that their goal is to economically subjugate us, but that can really be said of anyone. From the Americans to the British, Italians, over to the Russians, even

one might say. We really have no choice now but to be in someone's orbit, and we'd still have no choice even if Yugoslavia were recreated. And the Germans are the closest, and the French are manifestly inferior to Germans in an economic sense - they're not really candidates and have not been for 200 years. Our brief experience of true independence existed only in the cracks between the two great superpowers, and its highly unlikely such a specific scenario will unfold again somehow.

And while we are certainly Slavs in a cultural and linguistic sense, genetically we are an impossible mix of all sorts of races and peoples, and we really don't have all that much in common with other non-Yugoslav Slavic groups (get this, e.g.). I'm not saying we're Goths as such (tko drukcije kaze, klevece i laze! :)), but there's certainly some of that in the stew as well. Montenegrins in particular are a very special group in anthropological terms.

The EU, whether we like it or not, is a more efficient economic model than to have these tiny nation states be independent - which is besides which quite impossible. The fellas that run this continent know that, and they themselves will never dissolve the EU. The EU's central problem is that it incorporates less developed and more developed countries on an equal basis. And all that might happen is that the more developed will "rain it in" and create a more imperial EU - but they will never give up their economic power and influence. None of the "less-developed" have any sort of means to resist that. For all the manifest faults, though - we'd better "get with the program" as soon as possible: even being on the periphery of the system is incomparably better than being outside it (from an economic perspective of course).

In my view you're probably correct that US has "strayed from the path of its founding fathers", and it arguably morphed into an imperial entity controlled by its high finance. However, if you think for a moment that its going to fall apart somehow in the foreseeable future, I'm sorry - but you're living in a fantasy world. Its metamorphosis has only made the US overall stronger, more centralized and monolithic - less likely to fall apart. That is not to say its people will not suffer increased poverty, that is the trend, but that of itself is certainly no indicator of weakness or impending collapse. Rationalizing everything from a poetic standpoint sounds and feels good ("the poor will rise up!" etc.), but reality is rarely in accordance with such notions. The US is not getting weaker - its becoming stronger and stronger, that is the current trend.

When i say "World War III", I refer to some highly-improbable, post-apocalyptic, beyond-foreseeable-future-type scenario. In spite of the terrible state the world is in, I think its still not in anywhere near as bad a situation as can be improved by thermonuclear warheads :). Nuclear weapons prevent war,

) 08:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I understood your points of view. As for the future (of our region, the EU, the USA and the whole world) I can only say - we'll see what the future brings. I'm certainly not a prophet (nor, as an atheist, I believe in such things), so I can't predict the future, I can only have my hopes, believes and desires about it. As for the past, I have my opinion about it, and I try to make some kind of picture of our future by looking into the past. As they say, history (can) repeat itself... The present is really bleak for all freedom-loving peoples of the world, both individually and collectively, so we can only hope it will change for the better sometime in the future. I really hope Americans will return to their founding fathers' legacy at some point, remembering all those heroes who died for the true values of America in the Revolutionary War and in the Civil War, and that Germany will be brought down again (as already happened in WWI and WWII). Freedom was really present in Europe only when Germany was divided and weak. I guess a Slav nationalist and a Bonapartist speak from me now :)... As for you, I must say its a real joy for me to find someone from our region who supports the reunification of Yugoslavia as you do!

P.S. I hope you like some changes which I made at List of heads of state of Yugoslavia and Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. --Sundostund (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see

) 17:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why?

It is very strange that you deleted my edits in the article of

) 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically

) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rahul Bott (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What about Guillermo Brown? Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you move

12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of heads of state of Mexico, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Executive and Felix Diaz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't reinsert uncited content into the above article. There is also the problem of POV and undue weight (Indira Gandhi's five-year-long second term had fewer words than Vajpayee's 13-day stint, for example).—indopug (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that you reverted

) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves related to Tanzania

Your moves listed below were disruptive as they were grammatically incorrect and not required by either policy or the Manual of Style:

• List of presidents of Tanganyika
• List of prime ministers of Tanganyika
• List of sultans of Zanzibar

AfricaTanz (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that assessment, and so does

WP:BRD. Reverting page moves that occurred without discussion is not disruptive. On the issue, compare for example Category:Lists of prime ministers. Almost every single list in that category is titled something like "List of Prime Ministers of X". Huon (talk

) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion, as always, is noted. But I await the reply of the owner of this talk page.

WP:BRD does not authorize disruptive reverts. Grammatically incorrect is grammatically incorrect, regardless of what other articles do. I invite you to cite a Wikipedia policy that specifically says "List of Prime Ministers of X" is correct notwithstanding the grammatically correct "List of prime ministers of X". Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk

) 22:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:JOBTITLES: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When the correct formal title is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king" That's the case with the Prime Ministers of Tanzania. Huon (talk

) 23:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So says you. But that's merely your opinion/interpretation. I am looking forward to what the owner of this talk page has to say. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I can only say: I totally agree with Huon's stance. Especially with this - On the issue, compare for example

Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles of people. As its obvious, the changes you are making are not consistent with other article titles on WP. --Sundostund (talk

) 11:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at that third bullet. It says to use the formula of John Doe was the Proper Noun. Let's see here. Hmmmm. The article titles in question are not of that format. There is no specific person being referred to in those titles. Hmmmm. Problem. Well ... damn ... let's just ignore that elephant in the room and pretend the bullet applies anyway. Yeah. That makes perfect sense. Apply a policy that doesn't really apply to the situation at hand. Does that about sum up your reasoning? Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As you know (or should know),

WP:BRD says nothing about how and when to capitalize words in a Wikipedia article title. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk

) 13:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Which exact provision in the Manual of Style guideline recommends that "prime minister" or "president" be capitalized in an article title? AfricaTanz (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Its just your opinion. Of course, I strongly disagree with it. Your changes are both against Manual of Style and non-consistent with other article titles on WP. Just look how many articles are titled "List of Presidents" and "List of Prime Ministers". I assume someone would change all of them to correct form by now if they are grammatically incorrect... In the future, please refer all your questions about

Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles of people at relevant places, not on my talk page. --Sundostund (talk

) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am asking the questions here because your actions are the ones at issue. Surely you have specific and easily quotable Wikipedia guidelines and policies to back up your disruptive (IMO) page moves. Or maybe you don't.... Maybe you changed these article titles only because you saw that some other articles were titled similarly and assumed that they must be right because "someone would change all of them to correct form by now if they are grammatically incorrect" (your words). Is that what happened? Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, all you are saying is your point of view. Your stances aren't supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style nor countless other article titles. I'm sure you'd by now tell a user to stop his "long-term harassment" on your talk page, so... --Sundostund (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Tanzanian government entitles its ministries "Co-operative" and "Co-operation", on what basis did you move these articles? AfricaTanz (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See Alifazal's comment at User talk:AfricaTanz. Huon (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this your alternative account, Huon? I would like to know why the owner of this talk page made those moves. What Alifazal said is irrelevant. The title of an article about a government ministry should be the same as what the government says it is. Very simple concept. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not my alternative account; I had watchlisted the page because I left a note for Sundostund above. We really should discuss the article titles at the article talk pages, not here. I only replied to this thread because Alifazal had already provided evidence of what the government says; that seemed relevant. Huon (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You can obviously say whatever you want here, subject to Wikipedia policy and the patience of the owner of this talk page, but I wish you would allow the owner to respond because his/her actions are the ones in question. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz, this is my account, I assure you. If you doubt that, you are free to file an SPI request. As for the way Tanzanian government entitles its ministries, I can only repeat Alifazal's comment from your talk page -

MAFC uses Cooperative as seen here (look at the copyright notice at the bottom of the page) + a presentation courtesy of the Food and Agriculture Organization. I think it speaks enough for itself. Also, I totally agree with Huon - Discuss any future article moves at the article talk pages, don't unilaterally move them. As for my patience, it is pretty much great, but certainly has its limits. If this is your talk page, I bet you'd tell a user by now that he's "not welcome here anymore because of long-term harassment", but I'm a good guy so I won't do that :) --Sundostund (talk

) 11:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure about that? "The Approved Organisation Structure Of The Ministry Of East African Co-Operation" Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm absolutely sure about that. Their website is titled Cooperation, not Co-operation. --Sundostund (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider your stance. Did you consider the following before making your quick and ill advised page move reversions? (1) "The Approved Organisation Structure Of The Ministry Of East African Co-Operation". (2) The Tanzanian National Assembly (i.e., the Parliament) uses "AGRICULTURE, FOOD SECURITY AND CO-OPERATIVES" in its list of ministries. (3) The Tanzanian National Assembly uses "EAST AFRICAN CO-OPERATION" in its list of ministries. (4) The East African Community uses "Ministry of East African Co-operation" in its list of member contacts. (5) The Tanzanian Embassy in the United Kingdom uses "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation", "Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives", and "Ministry of East African Co-operation". (6) The Tanzanian Ministry of Finance uses "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation", "Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives", and "Ministry of East African Co-operation". (7) The Tanzanian government's official list of all ministries uses "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation", "Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives", and "Ministry of East African Co-operation". (8) The Tanzania National Website uses "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation". (9) The Tanzania Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation refers to itself in exactly that way. (10) In a written statement to the United Nations by Tanzania's ambassador, she referred to her agency as the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation". Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Again, their website is titled Cooperation, not Co-operation. Again, refer your questions at the relevant place, not here. --Sundostund (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The only logical conclusion is that you did not consider any of these issues. You reverted page moves simply because you did not like them. That was a very troubling thing to do under these circumstances. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about logic? Look at the title of the website, and take a logical conclusion from it. --Sundostund (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume for purposes of argument that a ministry's website is the sole determinant of the title of a Wikipedia article about that ministry. (This is your position.) How do you explain your page move reversion given that the Tanzania Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation refers to itself in exactly that way on its own website. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You should sent them a email and ask for clarifications. I know that the Tanzania Ministry of East African Cooperation refers to itself in exactly that way on its own website. --Sundostund (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote Alifazal again - Both Co-operative and Co-operation articles on Wikipedia have a redirect page to Cooperative and Cooperation respectively; in case you didn't notice. --Sundostund (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that alleged fact is true, what difference does it make? You're are saying that a redirect is a perfect excuse to have an inaccurate article title? AfricaTanz (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, its just your opinion. "Alleged fact" is true, as you can see. --Sundostund (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, what difference does it make? You're saying that a redirect is a perfect excuse to have an inaccurate article title? AfricaTanz (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It does make a difference. Someone redirected it exactly because Cooperation is correct, not Co-operation. Again, refer this question at relevant place, not here. --Sundostund (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's being discussed here because your actions are the ones at issue here. A redirect is completely irrelevant. A redirect does not prove that one article title is correct versus an alternative article title. It proves absolutely nothing. It's absurd to say otherwise. AfricaTanz (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, your attempts to force your point of view on other people is absurd. --Sundostund (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AfricaTanz (talk

) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring relating to President of Zanzibar

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AfricaTanz (talk

) 22:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop reverting my undo of your changes to the Knesset speakers article. Per

WP:BRD, you are expected to discuss the changes (as I asked both times when undoing your changes), not continuously revert to your preferred version. Thanks, Number 57

16:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Minster lists

What do you think you are doing? I've explained that there is an agreed format for these lists. Please stop changing them. This is extremely poor form during a discussion about the future format of these lists. Perhaps you could be a bit more constructive in the discussion and answer the questions about what colours and pictures actually add. Thanks, Number 57 13:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to versions which are graphically better, and which have additional information. Graphics de facto don't exist on your versions. After all, users can see that for themselves. And, what 'agreement' you are talking about anyway? --Sundostund (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not "better" - they are more difficult to read. We do not need "graphics" to make a list. The agreement was between myself and Ynhockey (talk · contribs), which you can see here and here. Note comments such as "I completely agree about the color scheme which is arbitrary and it's good that it was removed." Number 57 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They are better, and not "difficult to read". We need graphics to make lists visually better and more appealing to readers. As for 'agreement', obviously I 100% disagree with it. You and Ynhockey certainly don't own WP and can't do what you wish. This issue needs opinion of more users that just two persons. --Sundostund (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not need graphics to make lists "more visually appealing" - people come here for information, not fancy graphics. As for the point about ownership and doing what you wish, this applies to you too. Here there is an agreement to do things in a certain way - you disagree and we are discussing, but you do not get to undo all the work already done. Number 57 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, we do need need graphics to make lists visually better and more appealing to readers. They are important part of table formatting, not just plain text. --Sundostund (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started the RfC and included the reasons that I think you are giving for favouring your option. Please correct what I've written if I'm wrong. Cheers, Number 57 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of Knesset speakers.
Message added 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StevenJ81 (talk)