User talk:LibStar/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LibStar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there. I happen to agree with you on most of the bilateral relations articles, but please remember that civility is a policy and requirement here, even with regards to blocked editors. Calling the stubs "laughable" and their creator "obsessive" is unnecessary and unconstructive. The discussions will in all likelihood turn out the same way whether or not you stop to insult the article creator, so it may be best for everyone involved if you dropped the personal attacks and concentrated on outlining why the articles themselves should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Implying that the creator's efforts are "laughable" is unnecessary in my view, yes. Consider; what actual use does using that term use? You're making a good enough argument for the most part in these AFDs as to why the article needs to go without the borderline incivility, so why bother including it at all? It'll only end up strengthening your arguments, and improving the atmosphere at AFD for all. A win-win situation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, "random" probably is also unnecessary, although I'd say it's less bad than "laughable". Look, I know occasionally people make heated comments at AFD (I've probably slipped up myself more than once), but you are doing it in every nomination, and it's making the whole process seem more mean spirited and combative than it needs to be. Do you actually have any evidence that the original creator of these articles has OCD? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

I hope I don't need to explain why asserting that somebody has mental illness when you have no actual evidence of that fact is a bad idea. All I ask is that you put in a little bit of extra effort to be a little bit more polite in your discussions, and no more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

I think it's obvious this discussion is going nowhere, so I have created this discussion for further community input. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, I'm Johnny-come-lately since the discussion on the forum is over, but LibStar, I also think you have crossed the line a couple of times. The topic of these articles is already causing enough friction among editors and you don't need to add to it. (And Biruitorul, if you're reading this, I have a thick enough skin--don't think it's only "politically correct" over-sensitive types who react to this.) Sure, the creator of these stubs did us no favors, but cussing at that editor helps no one. Furthermore, you have also made some abrasive comments in response to things said at AfD. If your case for deletion is good enough, just let it ride, OK? Drmies (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you were actively participating on that Talk page, I don't see how that was behind your back. -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for consistently and continuously nominating the cruft de la cruft of bilateral relations articles to AfD. BlueSquadronRaven 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your work on Malta–Ukraine relations . Nice job. Ikip (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A favour - when you nominate articles for deletion at AfD, can you use the edit summary "Nominate for deletion" rather than "Proposing deletion"? When I see it in changelists, I keep thinking you're talking about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, a separate process from AfD. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the typical nonsense article. Under Communism, Romania was far closer to India (which followed a socialist economic model until 1991), and that hasn't really changed in the last 20 years. According to this (rough translation here), the "relationship" is what you'd expect - a few visits (which I'm sure some will seize upon to "prove" they're best friends), a few agreements (including the obligatory double taxation avoidance one), two-way trade of $55 million, Pakistan's economy being $504 billion in size and Romania's, $264 billion. Other than that and a few news briefs like these, there really isn't much there. Full speed ahead with the nomination, I say. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, feel free. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The only countries in the Western Hemisphere with which Romania has had important relations are the US, Cuba and to a lesser extent Canada. The region was too remote before WWII, it was an anti-Communist bastion during the Cold War, and in the last 20 years, Romania has been much more focused on Europe (and the US). Relations with Mexico started in 1935, were cut off in 1941 (Manuel Ávila Camacho being a good friend of the US and not wanting to keep ties to the Axis and its satellites), and started again in 1973 (part of Ceauşescu's independent diplomacy, but he was far more focused on Africa, and I really can't find evidence relations with Mexico meant anything special). I really didn't find much in Romanian except warnings to avoid Mexico because of swine flu. This is a primary source from the Romanian embassy in Mexico. King Carol II spent time there in exile, but he was a private citizen by that point. 2006 trade stood at $47 mil exported & $62 mil imported - in economies of $264 billion (Romania) and $1.5 trillion (Mexico). And those numbers were just $9 mil & $26 mil in 2004. Oh, and there's this - but remember, it's his job to "strengthen relations", or at least pretend he's doing so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and quote me freely if you like. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined. This is a misuse of WP:CSD G10. You appear to be embroiled in an ongoing dispute, and to have escalated it in this dramatic fashion. I suggest you take this to WP:AN/I or dispute resolution. Cheers, 01:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you still think this is not an adequate article? I've proposed it for a DYK. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right - I did some expansion, realized how close it was to the AfD deadline, and posted a notice to the editors who normally vote "keep" on this type of discussion. I tried to make the notice neutral, but the bias was obvious. I apologize. I will post the identical notice to the editors who normally vote "delete". Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think I have now posted all the normal editors who get involved in these discussions. If you see any "contras" I have missed, tell me and I will post them too. Again, you are right, the notice should have been extremely neutral and not limited to the "usual supporters". I am still learning about the way Wikipedia works ... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in reading Australia-South Africa relations, I wondered if there was research about 'South Africa (and the Johannesburg Securities Exchange) as a base for Australian investment in Southern Africa (especially Zimabawe)', or something to that effect. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The two nations have a strong sports relationship viz Mandela Challenge Plate and Category:Tri Nations as well. Would add a line about this myself, but in this case it seems like you are still writing the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are so many articles whose presence on Wikipedia is not needed. Who let User:Groubani get away with creating so many pages? And, who would actually waste all their time doing something like that? It is really beyond me. PMK1 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can speak both languages well. Approach me should you need any translation. As for the articles I will try to do a clean up during my spare time. It is just that there are so many! I really cant see why anyone would waste their time. PMK1 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

this is the same message on PMK1's page:

As I wrote in the current AFD:

• NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks.

I would really appreciate your help gentlemen, lets work together on this. Thanks again for the barnstar Libstar.

Can you please withdraw the AFD nominations? thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not found any specific relationship between Serbia and Thailand except for a few sporting matches. PMK1 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough one. Smallish trade & the usual dull agreements; recent Presidential visit (you know my views on that); some Syrians studied in Romania during Communism, including, most famously today, Omar Hayssam (there are also a few thousand Syrians in Romania today) - so far, so trivial (or covered elsewhere). But Ceauşescu did see himself as a Middle East mediator, and Syria was involved (glimmers here: [1], [2], [3]). Still, I'd much rather have that in a "Middle East diplomacy" section in a revamped Ceauşescu biography, than in a separate article that's bound to be an out-of-context trivia repository otherwise. Make of this what you will.

As for Malta-Romania/Philippines-Romania, I really wasn't sure, since the previous nomination was under the Bosnia-Romania heading. Sorry. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Even though we disagree on the merits of some of these, I appreciate that you bring them up for people to debate, even if it means having to review these one-by-one. The hell of it is, Groubani couldn't have cared less whether there was any merit to any of these; there's somebody who would start 20 forest fires with a pack of Marlboros. Anyway, keep nominating 'em. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. -- I read the "civility reminder" at the top of the page. "Oh, please don't use the word 'laughable' because you might hurt someone's feelings..." What a load of crap! Civil applies to how we address each other, and has nothing to do with what we think about a particular contribution. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)