Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Flag and Coa of Dili are NOT copyrighted

Seat of Suco Meti Aut with national CoA on the sign

Both coa and flag were designed for the first time in the 1700s (see LAGHANS, Almeida. "Armorial do Ultramar Português". Agência Geral do Ultramar, 2 volumes. 1966. and this http://purl.pt/12333/1/ ). The stamp comemorating the 200 years of the foundation of Dili, in 1969, shows the Coa, with its final reformed version, but bringing in its centre the same design made about 300 years ago. User JPatrick Fisher is just trying to monopolize the whole content of this page, which is not a principle of Wikipedia for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zé da Zilda (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zé da Zilda aka Domaleixo: We talked about this all two years ago, below your post now. A scan from a book is not allowed, flag and CoA is not in used by the city, because there is NO municipality of Dili as administrative division. Anyhow, there is no CoA for Sucos or sth like this. You can see this at the sign of the suco seat of Meti Aut. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese

Anybody have information on how much Portuguese is spoken in the capital? I read somewhere that it is used mostly only in the government but I'm curious how much Portuguese the average person in the capital would know, considering it is the political centre of the country. Mithridates 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timor Leste

See http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/ (Timor Leste used in the English website, also used in some TV news, UN. Some news websites use East Timor, though) Archtransit 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and CoA

correct colonial flag

What is the source of this CoA and flag? I f there is still the colonial flag in use, the red is definetly wrong. In Portuguese vexillology and heraldic, the flag must use the main colours of the CoA. The correct CoA must be argent and green. But anyhow, I never fond a source, which mention, that the colonial flag is still in use. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: No Portuguese municipal CoA shows a slogan in its banner, there is always the citys name and status, just like "Cidade de Dili". --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source confirming the flag without red as colonial flag. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Read the official law that created the blason and flag of Dili - Portaria n.º 19409 - October 1st, 1962. Until there´s a new law from Timor government, these are the official symbols of the city (in Portuguese):

http://pt.legislacao.org/primeira-serie/portaria-n-o-19409-prata-ouro-azul-listel-6778

Also, there is the Timor stamp issued in 1967, about the Second Centenary of the city of Dili, with the right coat of arms on it, in red, with the phrase taken from Camões "Lusíadas".

File:Díli.PNG
Portaria n.º 19409 - October 1st, 1962.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domaleixo (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the flag presented in the museum in Dili does not have a red shield. Wouldn't be the first Portugese flag and CoA-law, which was not followed in real. ;-) To believe, the CoA and flag is still official, because there is not a new law is ridicoulous. If you didn't realize: Timor-Leste is now an independent country. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law is here, and any Heraldry connoisseur know that you must follow it, even if the Museum of Dili has one blason different from the pattern. The city of São Paulo used until 1917 a symbol that had the Portuguese Colonial Coa on it just because there wasn´t any law creating a Coa for the city. That´s the rule.

(talk) 08:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]

There is NO symbol for Dili in use in our days. The Portuguese law is invalid in Timor-Leste. It doesn't matter what heraldry is believing, that colonial symbols are not official anymore. Anyhow, if there was a rule, that CoA are official until there is a new law, the symbols of Indonesian occupation will be correct. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Indonesia did is considered OCCUPATION, and the independence of 2002 is considered a RESTAURATION of the 1975 independence. Timor Constitution says it. Brazil used the Portuguese Civil Code in its domestic law matters until 1918 just because there were no new law to create a new one. And, in 1918, we all agree that Brazil was fully independent. Show us a newer law than that of 1962 dealing with the city symbols, or, you have no case.
--Domaleixo (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]
You will need to establish that there is a post 2002 law/statute etc showing that these are official elements. Otherwise, you're just postulating based on WP:SYN. --Merbabu (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Based on what Law principle?--Domaleixo (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple - show us something that shows that it is currently in use - not something that it was law in 1962. It really isn't hard. --Merbabu (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it´s hard. Countries usually don´t do laws to confirm what is in use and what is not after their independences. They go just replacing things slowly. Like the Civil Code in Brazil. Probably the city of Dili will estabilish a new coat, but, until that, the last law is the valid one, like it or not. --Domaleixo (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil had not a war of 24 years and an occupation by Argentina nine days after independence. The symbols were in further use. Timor-Leste lost everything. Even the national flag had to be re-introduced by the new constitution and it was not for sure, that it would be rather the same like in 1975. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this statement only reinforces my arguments....yes, Timor lost everything, and they had no time yet to replace the old coat of arms. It´s just simple, show a newer law dealing about the subject, and I will shut up. But, you can´t say from nothing that Dili has NO SYMBOLS.--Domaleixo (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]




Timor-Leste is using Indonesian Ciivl Code in cases there is no Timorese law. Show me an official source, that confirms, that this CoA is still in use in Dili. If there is no one, just drop the CoA everywhere. By the way: IF you are using the undo-function, be aware not to delete further changings than this one, you want to delete. And it is not usual to change discussion posts, like you did in German Wikipedia. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why Timor is using Portuguese after its independence? Why Timorese courts have all its laws proclaimed in Portuguese? If they are using Indonesian Civil codes, according to your arguments, they would need a law to legalize their use, just like the CoA...right? Try to find it, if you can. --Domaleixo (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the UNMIT-websites. If you would work about Timor-Leste for several years like me, you would know that. I could not believe, that you are really thinking, laws can not be dropped, when systems are changing. Or are you believing, Germany used its Nazi-symbols until 1949? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you worked at Timor, but I am using Law and Heraldry principles here. And yes, I affirm to you that, until the moment that a law was created replacing the Nazi flag and Coat, they were STILL VALID. This affirmation is based on a Law principle. Again, explain to me why Brazil used Portuguese laws until 1918.....and, try to find a law that turns legal in Independent Timor the use of Indonesian codes......you won´t find it. You won´t find, simply because countries usually don´t do laws to confirm what is in use and what is not after their independences. They go just replacing things slowly. Again, probably the city of Dili will estabilish a new coat, but, until that, the last law is the valid one. --Domaleixo (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]

Sorry, there is no law, which re-introduced abolished Portuguese symbols in Timor. And after 1945 all Nazis symbols were forbidden, so there was no German CoA until 1949. And you said it: Countries do use established Civil Codes after independence. In Timor-Leste was not the Portuguese Civil Code established in 1999, but the Indonesian. Anyhow: There is NO communal identity like a city of Dili. Administrativly, there is a district of Dili, there are several subdistricts, which are including the island of Atauro and countryside like Metinaro and Dare and the city is divided into Sucos and Aldeias. There will be a change this year, which make municipalities out of the districts, but not until now. Today, there is not even a mayor in Dili, just a district administrator and several chefes de suco and chefes de aldeia. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in what point these statements contradicts what I am bringing to the discussion? Okay, if there is a Law right after 1945 prohibiting the use of Nazi flag and CoA, there you are, you have a Law prohibiting them, so they were not valid after that law. You should act based upon that law. If they didn´t mention what flag or coat to use, so Germany remained without national symbols until a new Law was made. Your point towards Dili would be valid if we find a Law just like in Germany, banning Portuguese-era symbols, or otherwise, a Law that creates new symbols for Dili. Since the Timorese Constitution says the 2002 event is a RESTORATION of the 1975 independence, Indonesian laws banning any Portuguese-era/Independent-era symbol do not apply here. And, why anybody would make laws to restabilish Portuguese-era symbols in Timor, or in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, India? Again, São Paulo city used a Portuguese coat until 1917, without any law regulating it, until a new law creating a new CoA was made.--Domaleixo (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said it: Restoration! There was a restoration of the constitution, but not of the Civil Code. There was no restoration of Portuguese symbols after abolishing any Portuguese administrative laws in 1975. And anyhow: There is no cidade of Dili as an administrative identity, which could use the former CoA anyhow. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Domaleixo and is IP sock are on or have exceeded 3rr. --Merbabu (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ATENTION: When I say RESTORATION, it is the INDEPENDENCE RESTORATION:

TIMOR CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE:

Following the liberation of the Timorese People from colonisation and illegal occupation of the Maubere Motherland by foreign powers, the independence of East Timor, proclaimed on the 28th of November 1975 by Frente Revolucionária do Timor- Leste Independente (FRETILIN), is recognised internationally on the 20th of May 2002.

Article 2 of the same Constitution:

2. The 28th of November 1975 is the Day of Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of East Timor.

If we consider your last arguments, the flag you are insisting to replace mine here is also incorrect, since it carries on its coat the words "CITY OF DILI". And, finally, I brought here the letter of the Law, with all its details. I also mentioned the stamp issued in 1967, that is exactly like this symbol here. What is the source you use to affirm CATEGORICALLY, WITHOUTH ANY DOUBT that Dili has no symbols? What law, article, book, etc. etc. says Dili has no symbols? I cited my sources, but you are erasing the coat and the flag from the infobox BASED ON WHAT SUPPORT? Please, bring your sources here supporting we must leave the infobox without flag and coat of arms. --Domaleixo (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take away all images of flag of Dili, to avoid irritations andI never had the idea to claim, this is the official flag of our days Dili. If you want to enter an image of a flag and a CoA, you have to confirm, that this flag and CoA is still in use. That's the common way on Wikipedia, because it is impossible to confirm, there is sth not. Check: Wikipedia:No original research. But if there is an official flag of Timorese Dili, you should be able to confirm this. But there is no Dili city administration. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find here the official administration levels in Timor-Leste at the moment. There is nothing about municipalities. You can read here about the plans to establish municiplities. The discussion is still on the way. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Don't delete always further changings beside the CoA and flags. There are some people, who are working on other things, than flags and CoA, too. For example a correct syntax. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent, now bring your sources. You have to bring here a newer law than that of 1962. This will prove DEFINITIVELY that Dili has a new coat and flag or no coat and flag at all. Otherwise, by any legal aspects, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL FLAG AND COAT OF ARMS OF DILI UNTIL NOW. It doesn´t matter if people like it or not, if the nowadays authorities don´t use it all. São Paulo city and Rio city had the same experience.--Domaleixo (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way:

"That's the common way on Wikipedia, because it is impossible to confirm, there is sth not"

I brought the sources about the CoA here. You, until now, no source speciffically about the CoA. We are waiting articles, laws, books, websites, etc. about the coat of arms of something named "Dili" (otherwise this article wouldn´t exist in this actual form). And, by all effects, the CoA of something named "Dili" until now is based on the law I am bringing here. So, at the end of the day, who is trying to prove "THERE IS STH NOT"?--Domaleixo (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat: There is no administrative city of Dili, there is no re-introducing of Portuguese law, there is no flag or CoA of Dili in use. You are believing, that Portuguese laws are still in continous use after 24 years of Indonesian occupation, 3 years of UN-administration and 8 years of independence. You have to confirm, there is a administrative identity, which is using the CoA, just like an official law jornal or sth like that. Your Portuguese law is out-of-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Patrick Fischer (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, prove that it´s outdated. Until now, you can´t bring a newer law to this discussion. If there´s no newer law than that, that´s the one, and, the coat of arms of Dili is this, as strange as it may appear. If there´s no Administrative city of Dili, at least a city, or arrangement of houses that recieves the name of Dili, this entire article should be re-modeled. But you still can´t prove that the 1962 law is outdated. What source you use to say that it is outdated? Just because you don´t see the CoA on official documents or on the website? This is no proof!--Domaleixo (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being ridiculous Domaleixo. No wonder you've been blocked so many times before. All you have to do is prove *current* usage. That doesn't mean a law from 1962. --Merbabu (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - can you even show us a contemporary photo? A document? Anything that's not 50 years old? If not, one can only assume it is not in use. --Merbabu (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domaleixo's source is outdated by dropping Portuguese law by Indonesians. There is no source confirming the restoring to Portuguese Civil Code. An example for use of Indonesian Civil Code in Timor-Leste, you can find here (2007) and here (2005). You can read here: "Following the passage of the DPRs Law 7/1976, Indonesian law became the effective operating law in East Timor at the local level. This remained so despite the lack of recognition of Indonesia’s assertion of sovereignty in the UN. Thus, the Indonesian Civil Code and Penal Code became the operative basic laws for the administration of civil and criminal justice in East Timor. So by 1999, the most immediate legacy was that of the operation of the Indonesian legal system albeit that it collapsed in September 1999." --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The only ridiculous creature here is you. Seems really hard for you to understand that the proof of *current* usage or not of these symbols passes by the existence of a newer law than that of 1962. Until someone find a newer law, this is the valid one. And if you have no other better things in your life than going here and attack another user, I suggest you to reserve your silly comments to yourself. And---BY GOD-- "...one can only assume it is not in use." Talk about original research.
And, who´s talking here about the Civil Code? This is the discussion about the CoA. Bring here A SOURCE ABOUT THE COA, NOT ABOUT THE CIVIL CODE, please, for the 100th time.

--Domaleixo (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to affront Merbabu, Aleixo. We were talking all the time about what law is legal in Timor-Leste. No legal law, no legal CoA. Portuguese law was abolished in Timor in 1976. It is close to Portuguese nationalism, that a colonial law of Estado Novo is still legal, although it is abolished. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese law was abolished in Timor in 1976 = 1976 = Indonesian Occupation = East Timor Constitution Preamble = Indonesian Occupation illegal = 1975 Independence Restored = Portuguese law still abolished? Prove it.--Domaleixo (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it here: "Following the passage of the DPRs Law 7/1976, Indonesian law became the effective operating law in East Timor at the local level. This remained so despite the lack of recognition of Indonesia’s assertion of sovereignty in the UN. Thus, the Indonesian Civil Code and Penal Code became the operative basic laws for the administration of civil and criminal justice in East Timor. So by 1999, the most immediate legacy was that of the operation of the Indonesian legal system albeit that it collapsed in September 1999." --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same case of the Brazil Civil code, that was created only almost 100 years after Brazil´s independence. Until that year of 1918, Brazil used Portugal´s law.....based on what law?? NONE, AT LEAST NONE CREATED IN THE INDEPENDENT PERIOD. They were just using it for convenience, like Timor is doing with Indonesian law´s now. That´s the same case of the Dili CoA. What law from the independent Timor regulates the CoA? PROBABLY NONE, I couldn´t find any. So, the valid one is still the colonial law, until a new law dealing with the subject comes and regulates it. BUT, A SYMBOL FOR DILI EXISTS, AND FOR ALL ASPECTS, THIS IS THE ONE TO BE USED. Until a law in the independent Timor changes it or even confirm it.--Domaleixo (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law of Indonesia abolished all Portuguese law. So, there is no law and no CoA of Dili anymore. It is not existing anymore. There is no need for a law to say, there is no CoA, when the former was abolished. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This info may be of interest to the discussion. Back in 1991, when the flag of Dili was displayed in the Portuguese City Halls as a sign of solidarity, the model used was the one with the red and the Camonian quote. This can be seen here.--Darwinius (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. It seems, like there are really two different versions of the colonial flag. OK, I would accept the red CoA as colonial flag, but still, there is no source mention any CoA of Dili in our days. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. However, back in 1999, Ramos Horta expressed his wish of displaying that flag again in Dili around the turn of the century, this time by a democratically elected mayor of the city (this can be red in the previous link I've posted). In any case, it's only his wish, and it could be nothing more than courtesy, of course. --Darwinius (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe the CoA will be reintroduced, when there is a municipality of Dili again. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


            • This is real ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Now, stop deleting the symbols. You have your proof that these are recently used. YOU HAVE NO SOURCES AT ALL. Do like Darwinius and bring your sources that explain why we should leave the infobox with no symbols.--Domaleixo (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to SHOUT. I brought my sources and I wrote the informations into the article. If you are still adding your images, although they are not confirmed, don't change further informations like you did again. That is vandalism. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • WHAT SOURCES???? You brought here a lot of things, all with no relation at all with the symbols. You are doing Original Research.--Domaleixo (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. I've my eyes aching from going through hundreds of photos of Dili on Flickr, including many commemorations, official buildings, etc. I've seen a lot of flags and CoAs, some of them unknown to me. What was nowhere to be seen, nowhere, was the old CoA of the city. Domaleixo, it is you that have to prove that the thing is still used, the Portuguese laws from the colonial period have no validity there any more.--Darwinius (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Use an Eye drop. What I have to prove is here. Come up yourself with a newer law and nobody will dispute this anymore. I don´t have anything to prove, only people who disagree with these coat of arms. Why nobody can come up with a newer law that disputes the source I gave??? AGAIN, IT´S NO PROOF TO LOOK AT A MILLION PHOTOS AND SAYS YOU DIDN´T SAW THE SYMBOLS THERE.--Domaleixo (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette. That is the third time, I am telling you to be polite. It maybe hurts you, but the time of Portuguese empire is over. There is no use of this Portuguese CoA in Timor anymore, especially not, because there is no city administration, which could use it anyhow. And you deleted again my posting about the administration of Dili, which is not part of discussion. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your "newer law", DomAleixo:

The only sources of law valid in Timor Lorosae since 20 November 2003 are:

  • (a) The Constitution of the Republic;
  • (b) Laws emanated from the National Parliament and from the Government of the

Republic;

  • (c) Subsidiarily, regulations and other legal instruments from UNTAET, as long as these are not repealed, as well as Indonesian legislation under the terms of section 1 of the present law.

Source:[1]

Now it is clear that your pretension that the old Portuguese colonial laws were still valid in Dili was nothing but your own original research, which led you to a false conclusion. I hope that you'll now stop forcing your POV in that edit war, as it has been demonstrated to be false.--Darwinius (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, Darwinius, Darwinius,

Seems we are doing PARTIAL RESEARCH here, aren´t we?? First: This text is from Law 02/2003, which also says:

'Section 1 Authentic interpretation Under the terms of the provision of section 1 of Law No. 2/2002, of 7 August, applicable legislation in East Timor on 19 May 2002 means all Indonesian laws applied and that were in force “de facto” in East Timor, prior to 25 October 1999, as provided by UNTAET Regulation No. 1/1999.'

So, what you wrote above is not APPLICABLE 100 PER CENT. Indonesian laws are also ok. It´s cool to write ONLY what will fit in our arguments, isn´t it?

And, this law you wrote here is a mere regulation of a major source, found in LAW N.02/2002:

"INTERPRETATION OF APPLICABLE LAW ON MAY 19, 2002:

International recognition of independence proclaimed on 28 November 1975 and the consequential hand-over of sovereignty powers call for the approval of a legal instrument aimed at facilitating interpretation of INHERITED LAW since it is the Constitution itself that determines that law previously applied in the country shall remain in force "...until laws and regulations applied in East Timor, for everything not contrary to the Constitution and principles enshrined therein, are amended or repealed"

PS: the caps are mine.

Read all the law here:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ISf-2eJK4loJ:www.eastimorlawjournal.org/East_Timor_National_Parliament_Laws/Law-2002-02.pdf+east+timor+LAW+No.+2/2002&hl=pt-BR&gl=br&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh8EGEFoo2B_6lktkJn_Ky8ax8KzblE2Bi89PhFD5s5TrlbC86q9X1LYY_iw2y7hbjmoyQC0x4YUctK-KCnR1JBahQCqD9Jy1LO_UTuhBTKmuVeFJz4ODKAzZcsR07brGJvFRyg&sig=AHIEtbQ0Q67uNmiC_9_dk1PFFGYE6dlF4w

IN OTHER WORDS, what this law (which is the source for your quotation) says:

What doesn´t hurt the fundamental principles of the republic is still valid, until there is a law regulating it.

If we would follow the logic of JUST THE PART you quoted here, J.Patrick Fischer arguments also are bullshit, because Indonesian laws would be illegal by this.

Now, who´s doing original research here?? Oh, boy, oh boy....

--Domaleixo (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you could indeed be allowed to have that interpretation, if the National Parliament had not clarified in 2009, following a court suit, that "inherited law" refers to, and only to, Indonesian law:
"the subsidiary law applicable in Timor-Leste is the Indonesian law and “not” Portuguese laws." Source:[2]
Will you still insist that your POV and original research are valid, this time? --Darwinius (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy, you are boring me....

Where is any quotation FROM THE LAW that says Portuguese laws, specifically Portuguese laws aren´t applicable? This article talks only about Indonesian and UNTAET laws. The only place where I see Portuguese laws aren´t applicable in ANY CASE is here, in your text. And also at the commentary of Nomen Nescio; he is just commenting the article.....

Try again, boy. AGAIN, ORIGINAL RESEARCH FROM YOUR SIDE.


--Domaleixo (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]

Use Ctrl + F: "the subsidiary law applicable in Timor-Leste is the Indonesian law and “not” Portuguese laws." Anyhow, it still doesn't matter, there is no administrative city of Dili, which could use the CoA of the city of Dili. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, this article is for what, since there´s no Administrative city of Dili?--Domaleixo (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) [reply]
The article is about the settlement of Dili. If you wouldn't delete the chapter of administration all the time, it would be clear. The district has an own article, but can not be equated with a city of Dili. The sister cities are partners of the District of Dili, for example, although there are further settlements in the district, like Hera, Metinaro or Dare. Timor-Leste is a little bit too complicated for just judging from an outsider opinion in just a day. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat again, as you seem to don't even have checked the source. That article, which appeared in an East Timor newspaper, says:

"the National parliament immediately intervened and made an interpretation of the UNTAET Regulation 1/1999 where it says that: the subsidiary law applicable in Timor-Leste is the Indonesian law and “not” Portuguese laws.".

Definition of UNTAET Regulation 1/1999:

"UNTAET Regulation 1/1999 provides that the laws that applied in East Timor prior to 25 October 1999 shall apply in East Timor in so far as they do not conflict with the standards referred to in Section 2 regarding conformity with human rights standards and section 3 repealing particular Indonesian laws."[3]

So, we start with Indonesian laws, pass to UNTAET, and then to the Independent Government of the country. This is the proccess law was inherited, as shown by documentation. Your allegation that such inheritance includes the Portuguese Law is not written anywhere, and has even been explicitly denied by the National Parliament of East Timor. What do you need more? Please stop forcing your POV in this article, you have presented nothing to support it.--Darwinius (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You didn´t prove a thing until now. Your arguments are laughable, so as J.P,Fischer´s. He learned a lot with this discussion (see his first messages, laughable as your own). And I am still waiting your sources saying where Portuguese law is not applicable in ANY case. WHERE THIS PRECIOUS INFORMATION IS WRITTEN, ASIDE COMMENTS FROM THE AUTHOUR OF THE INTRODUCTION FOR THE ARTICLE??? The Constitution says about a Restoration of the 1975 independence. So, at the pre-occupation period (about a week) all Portuguese laws were abolished? GIVE ME A BREAK. About the symbols itself, you just could prove my point! Merbabu came here, laughing at me, asking about a more recent image of usage of the symbols, and there they were: RAMOS HORTA HOLDING THE FLAG. DURING THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE. Why he would do that??? Can´t you bring any other source about the symbols of Dili here?

The question is: What source Darwinius, J.Patrick Fischer, Merbabu, and any other brought here, that can CONVINCE ANYBODY, that this article must have no symbols displayed on the infobox?

Well, I am able to learn, if someone is showing me some useable sources, but it seems, that you just want to press your image inside, doesn't matter if incorrect in colour or usage. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, when you want to denounce a POV from my side, in the Portuguese Wikipedia, give me the chance to defend myself, warning me of your hidden "denounce". And don´t give them ridiculous data, saying I am providing source from the time of the Empire......that´s the quality of the material you bring here to Wikipedia? --Domaleixo (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.197.129 (talk) [reply]
  • The only thing I had to prove I already proved: That the old Portuguese colonial laws are not in use in East Timor. Please stop forcing your original research/false conclusions in that article. And please, stop screaming and insulting everyone that disagrees with you, your POV will not get stronger by that, quite the opposite, indeed.--Darwinius (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn´t. You can NOT say if the symbols are applicable nowadays or not. They may be valid even today. So, there is not enough SOURCES to remove the symbols from the Infobox. It´s a Law principle and an Heraldry principle, and similar Historical events back up the nowadays validity of the symbols. I scream when I want, and, when discussing things about my behavior on other Wikipedias, just try to be a gentleman once in your life and warn me about your "denounces".--Domaleixo (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:V:"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". According to this project policies, it's you who have to present evidence that support your claims, and you've not done so to this moment, only attempted to scream louder and revert everyone with your preposterous edition summaries. --Darwinius (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not understand:

1-The question is why the symbols must be removed from the infobox;

2-They MAY be still valid. What we have until now, and nobody can find more evidences, is that law of 1962; The last law that deals SPECIFICALLY with the topic is the one to be followed; It doesn´t matter if this law is from the time of Cleopatra. It doesn´t matter if it´s a colonial symbol.

3-There are many examples throughout history: New York city, Jakarta, São Paulo city, Rio de Janeiro city, and many other cities used their colonial symbols until a new law dealing with the subject was created. Some even maintained their colonial symbols, like New York and Rio. That´s a heraldry principle.

4-What we can do is to put a tag or something saying "MAYBE STILL IN USE". If there is no newer law dealing with the symbols of Dili, YES THEY ARE VALID NOWADAYS, as strange as it can be.

5-If they belong to the colonial times, why we have a photo of 1991 with Ramos Horta holding the flag of an occupied territory, that is struggling with invasion and doesn´t want to be a colony again?--Domaleixo (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Domaleixo said: "They MAY be still valid" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.
  • Domaleixo said: "The last law that deals SPECIFICALLY with the topic is the one to be followed" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.
  • Domaleixo said: "That´s a heraldry principle" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.
  • Domaleixo said: "If there is no newer law dealing with the symbols of Dili, YES THEY ARE VALID NOWADAYS, as strange as it can be." -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

Now, for number 5: That they belong to colonial times there is no doubt, as shown by the 1962 Portuguese decree you never cease to repeat. Back in 1991 East Timor was de jure still a Portuguese colony under Indonesian occupation, and the resistance leaders and diplomats abroad followed that line in order to ensure a better path towards independence. The solidarity movement which took great lengths in Portugal was part sincere human solidarity, part old imperialist delusions, as was extensively reported in the Portuguese press at the time, most notably after the Lusitania affair. It's only natural that such movement used some of the old colonial symbols to express itself, and the Timorense leaders themselves promised some concessions to the old Imperial power, either for courtesy or for pure political gains, and Ramos Horta saying about his wish to see the old colonial flag and CoA of Dili floating again in the city certainly belongs to that set. In any case, it's Ramos Horta wishes, and nothing more than that.--Darwinius (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Domaleixo said: "They MAY be still valid" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:[[4]]. This is the newest law available. I am just follow it. Can you find a newer one?


  • Domaleixo said: "The last law that deals SPECIFICALLY with the topic is the one to be followed" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:Universal principle of International Law. Any Law student, of any country will tell you that.


  • Domaleixo said: "That´s a heraldry principle" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:Look examples of New York city, São Paulo city, Rio de Janeiro city, Jakarta. I have Bibliography for all their coats of arms.

  • Domaleixo said: "If there is no newer law dealing with the symbols of Dili, YES THEY ARE VALID NOWADAYS, as strange as it can be.

RESPONSE:Universal principle of International Law. Any Law student, of any country will tell you that.

  • Darwinius, on number 5: Your own interpretation of facts. It´s on Wikipedia guide for POV an example just like that thing you wrote.



I'd say don't continue to engage in the conversation. Domaleixo is flogging a dead horse. Lot at the discussion above - he's just repeating the same faulty logic over and over. He needs to cease editing here and seek dispute resolution. --Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure disruption

This has gone on long enough. I'm seeking administrator advice. Domaleixo might think he is subject to different rules, but it can't continue like this. Four people have now shown their opposition, yet, he feels he alone has the right to do what he wants.

I note this user has previous form and it's about time he got blocked properly. "Emersen" again. Why is he allowed to get away with this?. I've requested administrator action. --Merbabu (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seem, that there is a need for a global blocking. In every Wikipedia, Domaleixo/Emerson is trying to press his image inside. By the way: There is nowhere a Portuguese municipal flag with a brownish crown. Crowns of CoA on flags are shown as yellow. There is still a new image for showing the former CoA of Dili, if needed. For using this or the brownish CoA in the Infobox, there is no evidence. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was "called in" to this discussion, so i'd like to make a few comments, if I may:
  • The flag with the motto seems wrong, most (all?) municipal or city flags have the name of the city under it.
  • All portuguese ex colonies adopted the legal systems of portugal at the time of their independence
  • Municipal flags are in general little use and even less known in portugal.
  • The crown should be the same as any other portuguse city as it signifies precisely it's status as such, simpler crowns are used for town and village.
  • Dili was never the first place on the portuguese empire to see the sun, that would have been Macau
  • Finally, i'm sure there are better ways of using everyone's energy than this petty tit-for-tat over a probably disused flag.

Galf (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galf: Your sentence 1 is irrelevant, since that coat of arms is documented and confirmed by law, and even by photo, as shown above; Sentence 2 is unsourced original research, as far as I know; Sentence 3 is blatantly false: In many municipalities its use is quite extensive, J. Patrick has already shown the use of the CoA of Lisbon, which can be found everywhere in the city, from sewage covers to logos in publicity banners. The same is true for Funchal, the city where I am from. Sentence 4: The crown should be depicted in or, as defined in heraldic rules. In practice it's the same that you've said. Sentence 5 is irrelevant, since that motto was assigned by decree. Finally, sentence 6: Agreed.--Darwinius (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was wondering about the motto instead of the city name, too, but the photo above proves this version, mentioned in the linked law.
  2. The adoption of Portuguese law happend 35 years ago. Meanwhile happend a lot of things. ;-)
  3. Right, municipal flags are little known, but the COAs are and there isn't even a municipality of Dili, which could use the CoA or flag.
  4. All capitals of colonies had a golden crown with five towers on their CoA, just like Lisbon. Compare to Macao, Laurenco Marques,... .
  5. Dili (125° 34' E) is further east than Macao (113°33' E).
  6. Last statement is right, but sometimes there is a need to beware the truth. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just pitch in one final time, for the sake of peace.
  • I'm entitled to original research, this is the talk page :) also, this is just an opinion and evrione makes mistakes.
  • My whole point is on the pettiness of this. both J. Patrick Fischer and Domaleixo seem to have contributed usefully to wikipedia elsewhere, so can I please ask both of you to be civil around this article or leave it alone? I have seen way too many articles flagged and locked because of nearly irrelevant issues. My suggestion is: label the flag with the dates when it was used '62-'75 and leave it on the gallery and move on. I noticed that the education section could do with some improvement....Did you know that the portuguese government sent teachers to Timor after 1999? Galf (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm entitled to original research, this is the talk page :)" - Absolutely ;). I believe that Brazil also had a significant role in the rebuilding, I've seen a lot of photos in Flickr about Brazil projects going on in Dili, even a thematic week was organized.--Darwinius (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are even more Brazilian than Portuguese teachers as far as I can notice it from Europe. But Portugal has a lot of policemen in East Timor. ;-) I think the flag with the date 1962 - 1975 is totally acceptabel. It is still there in the gallery. If the chapter "History" is enlarged, it would be possible to add the flag there at a more prominent place. If someone with better English acknowledge want to do this: There are a lot of English sources about the history linked in German wikipedia articles just like this. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brownish crown
    Brownish crown
  • "Golden" crown
    "Golden" crown
  • To compare: Flag of Lisbon
    To compare: Flag of Lisbon

Some links to photos of Lisbon flag, which has the same golden crown: [5] [6] [7] [8] --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. Patrick, I believe that the correct heraldic term for the crown colour is or, usually depicted in yellow (though I've seen darker shades as well). Your changes to the original image made this clearer, though personally I would prefer of they were a little closer to the picture on the right. But that's an insignificant detail, of course.--Darwinius (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In German we use "Gold" as heraldic term for yellow, that was not exactly in English. A better image for the colonial flag would be welcome, of course. But we have the same problem with the German national flag (Black-Red-Gold). Generally, the flags have a dark yellow as gold, but there are always some, who use brownish yellow for flag pictures. ^^° --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have corrected you, then. In Portuguese it's ouro, used both for the heraldic colour and the metal. :)--Darwinius (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It´s amazing how some people carry on their delirium....J.Patrick Fischer is now the guardian of the blasons of East Timor. The first image, "CITY OF DILI", he affirmed to the four winds that this was the correct flag....now, he takes the image I put here, and bright the crown, and begin to spread it on all Wikipedias as his own authorship.....laughable. He doesn´t even know from where this image comes from....

Merbabu, by its own turn, is the guardian of all Timorese history. Only him has the truth about all things Timorese, and don´t dare to confront him...you will be doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Come on..... Really, what´s the problem of an official symbol of the city still be the colonial one? Is there any rule that colonized nations may not use anything from colonial times?


Coat of arms of Sabará - the same since colonial times
CoA of São Paulo city until 1917
Coat of arms of Itamaracá - the Dutch created it in 1639, during their brief occupation of Northeastern Brazil, and, it´s still in use.


All you THREE (and not four, Merbabu, you don´t even know how to count anymore?) can´t you just assume that the problem here has just to do with this symbol being from the colonial times? Where in the world there´s a rule that immediately after independence, all countries can´t use the colonial symbols? Why J.Patrick Fischer is so obssessed with the Timorese symbols? There´s also here symbols for Bissau and São Tomé. Why only the Timorese symbol is obsolete? The others are not? This is just a big lack of knowledge of International Institutions, Heraldry, Law, and.....History.--Domaleixo (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four - cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Domaleixo said: "They MAY be still valid" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:[[9]]. This is the newest law available. I am just following it. Can you find a newer one?


  • Domaleixo said: "The last law that deals SPECIFICALLY with the topic is the one to be followed" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:Universal principle of International Law. Any Law student, of any country will tell you that.


  • Domaleixo said: "That´s a heraldry principle" -> Your claim, burden of proof is on you.

RESPONSE:Look examples of New York city, São Paulo city, Rio de Janeiro city, Jakarta. I have Bibliography for all their coats of arms.


  • Domaleixo said: "If there is no newer law dealing with the symbols of Dili, YES THEY ARE VALID NOWADAYS, as strange as it can be.

RESPONSE:Universal principle of International Law. Any Law student, of any country will tell you that.


  • Darwinius, on number 5: Your own interpretation of FACTS. See Wikipedia about POV and then go back here and see what you´ve written--Domaleixo (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Maybe it is time for you to realize, how Commons and Wikipedia are working. It is clear noted, that "my" image is made out of"yours". But do not forget: It is 100% legal to edit images at Commons. If I would like, I could load up simply a new version of "your" image, but I do not believe, that you would accept this. I will make an offer: You are recolouring "your" image, load it up as a new version and you can keep it evrerywhere as colonial flag of Dili. I don't care whose name is noted as uploader.
  2. Yes, you made several images with the same suspicious informations and the uncorrect colouring, but I do not care about others outside of Timor, because I am not interested a lot on your other buisness. My field of activity is mainly Timor-Leste. Here I have informations and acknowledge, that's why I care for this here. If you are believing, that makes me an "the guardian of the blasons of East Timor", I don't care.
  3. I said before, I saw a colonial Dili flag with the white CoA in a museum in Dili. That's why I wanted to have a source for the existence of the red CoA, which Darwin gave. That's why I accept "your" image, too! That does not mean there is not another, maybe older CoA of Dili. I don't care, if this is not mentioned on Wikipedia, until there is a exact source, explaining the case.
  4. You are showing some colonial CoA of other cities from other countries, wih another history and you really want to use them as argument, that Dili has still his old CoA? You are really blame US of Original Research???
  5. It is really shabby, that you are using an IP for editing this article and articles in other wikipedias after you wear warn to stop reverting. Haven't you been blocked several times because of socket puppets?
  6. There are Darwin, Merebau, me and as third neutral opinion, Galf, who have the opinion, the image can be kept with the note 1962-1975. You are standing alone with your opinion.
  7. You don't take care to make a good article. When you are re-editing, you are always deleting further changes, which has nothing to do with this case and leaving unclean edits just like now again. At least THIS should be at your attention.
  8. You do not care about Wikiquette. You are offending everyone, who has another opinion and you are still using big letters. I am really wondering, if you ever took time to learn how to work constructive with other people.

--J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You already proved you don´t understand a thing about Law and Heraldry. So, why you insist in editing a field where you know nothing???? The image I uploaded here at Wikipedia doesn´t have a "brown" colour (another of your opinions that are emerging here as a pattern for this article). The color of "MY" image is golden, but, since the book is from late 60s, the scan darkened it. It´s just old darkened gold. Even that one you missed. OF COURSE COATS FROM OTHER PLACES COUNTS. They all are based on laws. Coats of arms ALWAYS DEPEND ON LAWS. There must be a law to install a coat of arms, there must be a law to remove a coat of arms. That´s a SIMPLE THING THAT YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND,DESPITE I EXPLAINED IT A THOUSAND TIMES. You read what you want, and pay atention to what you want. The first sarcastic comments didn´t came from me, and I am being labeled here as uncivil. AGAIN, BIASED VIEW ON YOUR SIDE. Another proof that the symbols of Dili must remain on the infobox is online -- The historical for the symbol of Santiago, Chile. You don´t understand a thing about heraldry, law and history. So as Merbabu and Darwin, who come here and add their sources based on their BELIEFS. Please, read it, and STOP SAYING I AM DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH:

http://urbatorium.blogspot.com/2008/07/el-escudo-de-armas-de-la-ciudad-de.html

--Domaleixo (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.228.212 (talk) [reply]

Sorry to say, but you are not really believing, you know about law, although you don't even understand to work inside the rules of Wikipedia? And the thing about the colour isn't heraldry stuff or does anybody talking about the CoA-image? That is vexillology-stuff and I am not a beginner in this things. The colour of the flag-image is not correct. Looking to the images, you loaded up, it shouldn't be a problem for you to edit your image. Or did you simply scan all your images? By the way: A Chilean blog is not a source for Timorese law. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... Did you say, you SCANED the image from a book from the sixties? That is copyright violation! --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you are really RIDICULOUS.....(laughing so much).....public symbols need no copyright! I created this image myself from a 1966 book. Anyway, if I had scanned it entirely, it´s a PUBLIC SYMBOL, MORON!--Domaleixo (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.192.159 (talk) [reply]
You didn't scan? Why did you say: "The color of "MY" image is golden, but, since the book is from late 60s, the scan darkened it."? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dili. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dili. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

កសិករ

ខ្ញុំចង់ប្រែវាវិញ Chhen Ratana (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. It should remain in English here. MB 04:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is just a comment but considering Dili is East Timor's capital, it would probably be a good idea to mention this in all of the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article was expanded by 5x (more than that, actually) and meets all requirements. Hooks are cited and interesting. ALT0, ALT1/ALT1b and ALT3 are the most interesting of the bunch so I'm approving those four. I proposed ALT1b to take into account Narutolovehinata5's comment. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Land Area of Dili

Small point, perhaps, but the size of Dili is listed as improbably large. It's listed as 18,636 square miles, when the total land area of East Timor is listed as 5,794 square miles. I'm guessing the land area of Dili was typed in by someone that uses commas instead of periods to denote the decimal place, and the land area of Dili is 18.636 square miles, when using periods to denote the decimal place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameal (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this was pulling directly from Wikidata which was pulled from DBPedia. I've replaced it. CMD (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dili