User talk:Wiz9999

My Page

My Talk Page

My Userboxes

My Contributions

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libyan Civil War (disambiguation), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Overthrow and Conflict (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the issue with the "United Kingdom" section at Talk:List of sovereign states is that it was not actually aimed at any change to the "United Kingdom" line.

WP:POINT is when people "try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in [their] view, applying it consistently". The important note you referred me to notes that "[a]s a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"."

Those quotes do not describe the IP's behaviour when they opened the "Czechia" section, or when they participated in it. While we might not agree with the point they were making (and they may have broken other rules like WP:CANVASS), they were merely making a point there, not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it.

But the quotes precisely describe the IP's behaviour when they opened the "United Kingdom" section. They were proposing an edit that they did not want to a separate entry in the list in attempt to illustrate a point about common usage in the list, hoping that we would oppose their edit and hence accept their point about Czechia.

I hope this explains the difference in reaction between these two sections. Kahastok talk 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to see whether you're still in the mood for some template writing over at List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent as concluded at now-closed discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent#Merges needed. I'd give it a go myself, but haven't any experience at writing templates. Klbrain (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still my intention to address this. Unfortunately I have been very busy the last couple of months and wasn't able to spend the time just yet to tackle this. I should hopefully have the time in the next two weeks. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken down the merge templates but added an 'under construction' template to the main page so as to indicate that the merge proposal has a consensus decision. Klbrain (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have corrected the italic and quotation mark changes you made with this edit. (I also corrected other usages of italics and quotation marks in a few document titles.) Please see WP:MOS, in particular MOS:ITAL#Words as words and MOS:QUOTE. The only time we would use both italics and quotation marks would be e.g. foreign words within a quotation. Jeh (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only six rebel groups and polities (along with some factions of those groups) that assert to be independent states that are not listed on the list of states with limited recognition page. They are FLEC which asserts itself to be the Republic of Cabindia, the OPM which asserts itself to be the Republic of West Papua, the ADF which asserts itself to be the military of the Republic of Ambazonia, the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, and ISIS. There is in fact an Ambazonian government in exile that the ADF subordinates itself to. The DPR, LPR, and ISIS each clearly control territory, Ambazonia and the OPM each control rural areas and occasionally occupy towns and villages, the Angolan government suppress information on the Cabinda War to the point where information on FLEC is practically impossible to find. However, each of these six entities each claim to be states and attempt to assert their authority as such in the area they claim with varying degrees of effectiveness. They are clearly not micro-states, since they actively attempt to control their territory through force, but they still claim to be states. As such i think the appropriate place for them to be is the Unrecognized states category, since they each clearly claim to be states but none are recognized as such by any authority.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A claim to statehood is not the same as actual statehood. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are far more groups than just these six. There is the Republic of Logone, the Shan State Army - South, Azawad, the Southern Movement, the Kachin Independence Army, and many more. These are just the ones that I came up with off the top off my head. This is in addition to the rebel groups that do not hold any territory (note these are actual rebels, not micronations), but still make claims of an independent state. e.g. the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the PKK, etc. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not one of those groups has actually declared independence, or in the instance of Azawad continues to claim independence, go and try to find a declaration of independence or document asserting their status as a sovereign state, you won't find one. None of them claim to be independent states, only the six I mentioned actually do. And a claim to statehood is what makes them unrecognized, if the world at large does not recognize them to be states but they actively assert themselves to be that should be a sufficent basis to include them in the category.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is something subject to interpretation in many of these cases. But I do concede that, with the exception of Azawad, none of these have as clearly documented/accepted declarations of independence as the Republic of Cabinda, the Republic of West Papua, the Republic of Ambazonia, the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, and ISIS (incidentally ISIS is soon expected to loose hold of its claimed territory anyway). However, this has not stopped these other groups I listed from claiming independence based on a previous entity's declaration or by some other factor. I am not saying their claims are legitimate, all I am saying is that a line needs to drawn somewhere as to what is considered a "state" and what isn't. If you really feel that all of these should be added to the category, then please do so, I will not stand in the way. However, I disagree with inclusion of Cabinda, West Papua, and Ambazonia due to a lack of clear control and governing structures. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Groups like East Turkestan Islamic Movement do continually assert themselves to be independent, despite never having actually made a declaration as such. They do this based on the notion of a continued occupation of their "already independent" territory as was asserted historically with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania during the Soviet days. Many of these rebel groups do this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reunion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for having redirected me to WT:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. Very appreciated. I read it and still don't get the process though. Can you help? I created a section there to ask for help. Thanks mate.--APG1984 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiz9999 and thanks for helping sorting out the various steps of drafting the RfC. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back just in time to start closing the sections. I do need some help though, since I'm not sure what to do when the answer is not clearly "support" or "oppose", so any advice is welcome! --Argean (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiz9999. I'm a London-based journalist working for The Verge. I'm interested in talking to you about your work updating the article page for the UK's Meaningful Vote. It looks like difficult work and I thought it might be a fun story to talk about. If you're interested could you please email me at james.vincent@theverge.com and I can share more information? Apologies if this is the wrong way to contact you but I am not a regular Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apricity (talk • contribs) 08:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am quite busy at the moment. What is it you would like to know? - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Prespa Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and you were huge help during the crucial stages of this process. I hope you give yourself the proper credit for that. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MJL! My very first Barnstar, cool! I will do my best to be worthy of earning a few more. :) - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] Considering you made your first registered edit in 2006 and restarted regular editing in 2017, I'll say you are way overdue for a barnstar! Glad I could give you your first one, though!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiz9999, I have raised a few issues in regard to the article Dependent territory in its talk page. You are welcome to comment on these issues, hopefully, we could gather a wider view from the community so a consensus could be reached. Xindeho (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Strongest currency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Least-valued currency unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the table (List of states with limited recognition), what's wrong with it? It's just a summary--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not have this discussion here, the talk page of the relevant article is where the approriate discussuin should take place, as per WP:TPYES. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you can answer wherever you want, but you still haven't explained why you removed the table--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I disagree with its inclusion, I do not see it adding any value to the article in question. Please do not split this discussion here on my talk page. Thanks! - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53764943 they have pledged allegiance to IS and are generally considered part of Islamic State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is puzzling. You correctly say "criteria" the plural of "criterion", but then you insist on changing the verb form that is appropriate for a plural noun to one that is appropriate for a singular noun. Where I wrote "The criteria mean that a polity must claim sovereignty", you changed it to say "The criteria means that a polity must claim sovereignty". That makes no sense. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you are correct here, but I am adding the word "that" into the sentence, as you have done in your comment to me here. Wiz9999 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ummmm excuse me, why did you reverse my edit on the asian countries? it was perfectly fine and no one had problem. i tried to write question on talk page nobody answer. please undo your edit. thanks :)Samar al-hejazi (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Red Tag Bastards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing any indication this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG or any applicable SNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with proceeding forward with this deletion. The article was originally created back in 2007 from information taken from the disambiguation page at RTB (during this edit). That disambiguation page has remained the appropriate location for a reference to this term and its existence as a full article on en.wikipedia is not necessary. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Users has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiz9999. Since it is surrounded by two arrows, which indicate the list's direction, I have changed the heading UN member states and General Assembly observer states → UN member states and GA observer states to avoid dividing it into two lines. It seems clearer now, I believe. Do you think it is reasonable? Thank you in advance. Regards, --89.66.254.10 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect ETDA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 30 § ETDA until a consensus is reached. Tevildo (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]