AZAZET

Welcome!

Hello, AZAZET, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Meno25 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to International recognition of South Sudan. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Swapping the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs source for a Russian newspaper in reference to a decision of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.--Avala (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be so but I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to find out why we can't use it. If it is true however, be patient, in a few hours the official websites will publish it too.--Avala (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And please use the talk page of the article before making edits like everyone else does on controversial issues.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK which part in use the talk page you did not understand so you decided to blindly revert the article? You are already in the violation of the 3RR as your edits are completely unconstructive, they are the same, while I keep on trying to find a modality to include Estonia in the article somewhere, whether it's the intro or the table or not at all, and while editors are involved in the discussion on the talk page, the only thing you can do is barge in and revert tirelessly. Please stop.--Avala (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The link you seem to miss - Talk:International recognition of South Sudan --Avala (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It again a policy of double standards, as with Kosovo and South Ossetia! It is precisely written that Estonia recognized independence of Southern Sudan. Give also other sources we will reconsider. For example:

S. Korea, South Sudan establish diplomatic ties// SEOUL, July 10 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's foreign ministry said Sunday it has established diplomatic relations with South Sudan, expressing congratulations for the formal independence of the world's newest state.

The diplomatic accord was signed in South Sudan between South Korean Cabinet minister Lee Jae-oh and Deng Alor Kuol, the African nation's foreign minister on Saturday, the ministry said in a statement.

South Korea too yet means didn't recognize Southern Sudan. Same nonsense! AZAZET (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

LIthuania and NTC

On what grounds you changed place of Lithuania on recognition list???Boniek1988 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article does not say on the recognition of the Council of this country.

Quote: "The Vice-Viceminister also underlined that while supporting the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people, Lithuania is considering the National Council as the political interlocutor during this interim period."

AZAZET (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: This resource doesn't inform on the Council recognition Lithuania the unique legitimate authority of Libya.

AZAZET (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the Talk page instead of edit-warring, since the other editors' interpretation is that the Vice-Minister said - as reported by the Foreign Ministry website, which is about as reliable a source as it gets - that Lithuania considers the NTC as the sole interlocutor of Libya. Unless the government explicitly states otherwise, that qualifies as recognition per the example of Australia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Vice-minister said that "Lithuania is considering the National Council as the political interlocutor during this interim period". She did not say: "We recognize the Council as unique legitimate authority in Libya." What is there to discuss if the source is not talking about what you need? AZAZET (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1st: Lithuania just like: Australia, Latvia, Japan countries. And everybody considers them as countries that recognized the NTC. 2nd: About source it is government site. It's not reliable? 3rd:Considering=recognising. And they rejected Gaddafi government. From 20 July they treated NTC as a government of Libya. I study history history of diplomacy and I disagree with your statement, even if you think it is right. And you didn't convinced me to change my state. Boniek1988 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, AZAZET, stop removing Lithuania from the list or I'm going to take it to the administrators' noticeboard. I'd like if you could join us at Talk:Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council to defend your position, but until there's no one disagreeing with your view on that page, you need to refrain from changing Lithuania's status. It's about WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not making this up as some arbitrary rule - it's Wikipedia policy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean reliability? The idea is that the source does not report on the recognition of NTC as unique legitimate authority in Libya. He reported on the recognition of Council as the interlocutor in the negotiations from July 20. These are different concepts. Why are you talking about Australia, Latvia and Japan? These countries have specifically stated on the recognition of the Council as unique legitimate power in Libya. You will not find on a specified government website about recognition of the NTC as unique legitimate authority. Because official Vilnius has not yet recognized the NTC that authority. If I was your teacher, then you would be a bad student. Try to find a decent source, boy! Personally, I am yet to find a source, although I would like to see Lithuania in the list of states recognizing NTC. AZAZET (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The source says Lithuania considers the NTC to be "the political interlocutor" - not just in negotiations, but in the government's stance. The government hosted two NTC representatives to make that announcement. Per the precedent of other countries, unless the government explicitly says its statement isn't recognition, we consider that recognition - as does Reuters, I might note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lithuania like other EU countries has rejected Gaddafi government, this ensured us about the recognition. Instead who could be other interlocutor? Camels? Rats? Sand? And you probably didn't read that we add all countries that recognised NTC in any form. This may not be de iure recognition of NTC by Lithuania, but NTC is treated as de facto recognised by the Lithuanian government. So they are treated as another diplomatic. Polish goverment for example treats NTC as a legitimate government [1] from 11 MAy even if it didn't used any of this words. Boniek1988 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • So you need to put Lithuania on the list is actually recognized in the bottom of the table. The main body of the table, only those who formally recognized. Poland has recognized the legitimate authority of the Board. But Poland does not recognize Jamahiriya party negotiation process. And Lithuania has continued to recognize the Jamahiriya, but refers to it negatively. Be careful. Once Lithuania officially acknowledged its return to the main part of the table. Now the table contains an explicit misinformation.AZAZET (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering a Lithuanian government website reported that it recognized the NTC, you're going to have to provide a source explicitly saying it still recognizes Gaddafi's government. Lithuania isn't, to my knowledge, involved in negotiations between the NTC and Gaddafi - and it never has been - but that doesn't mean it can't recognize the NTC, which it has done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • "Lithuania is considering the National Council as the political interlocutor during this interim period."

The given message doesn't mean that Lithuania has refused to recognize government of Jamahiriya. I think that the used message is not that all of us wait. Besides, in Vilnius even embassy of Jamahiriya continues to operate. Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, Azerbaijan - the countries which were a part of the USSR earlier, have officially declared that recognized NTC as the unique legitimate authority in Libya. All EU countries (except Sweden and Lithuania) have particularly declared recognition NTC the unique legitimate authority in Libya. Many other countries (for example, Gambia, Maldives, New Zealand, Colombia) have particularly declared recognition NTC the unique legitimate authority in Libya.

As soon as Vilnius (like Stockholm) will particularly inform that the Lithuanian authorities recognized NTC as the unique legitimate authority in Libya then we and will place Lithuania (like Sweden) in the top part of the table.

For now it should stand in the bottom part of the table together with China, Brazil, Sweden and Switzerland.

AZAZET (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the announcement by the Government of Latvia: "Political Director Razāns expressed support to democratic reforms in the countries of Northern African region and announced that Latvia recognises the Transitional National Council of Libya as the political interlocutor representing the Libyan people during this interim period."

You see difference from Lithuania?AZAZET (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)