User talk:Night w/Archive 4

Pretender talk page
Please join in the discussion and source your claim of what the right house names are before reversions continue. I already started the discussion before you reverted. Seven Letters 14:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two minutes before. Read WP:EP. I will reply to your thread, but merely starting one does not mean that you have consensus to repeat the reverted edit.  Night w   14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where consensus existed to keep it as it stood where every other territory where agnates held more than one throne rather clearly states they were members of the same house. Being educated on the subject itself and having the source in front of me which calls to succeed the "Saxon princely house" in its entirety (one house, not several), I made the edit only to have it reverted with out a source and explanation. Maybe the initial error was mine in not explaining entirely but "right names" is not a sufficient explanation either. Seven Letters 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the article. You can see my full explanation on the talk page. Please also read them. Please also read WP:BRD, and follow it.  Night w   15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition
please take a second look at the article. It is not just an encyclopedia article, but about a juridical and legal subject, about international law. We have to be very precise. I've cited numerous top legal scholars proving that differentiating between de facto and de jure is very important. Likewise, the article constantly (and correctly) alludes to UN, yet UN's position was not mentioned on those states, and you reverted me on that. Let's improve this article about international law and practices. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that I did use italics on de facto and de jure which is a customary procedure for all Latin and Greek terms, particularly in legal literature. So it should be correct per WP:MOSBOLD. Likewise, my edits full comply with WP:RETAIN, as nothing is out of the ordinary, and simply having the title/term "claims" is incorrect, as I've explained in the talk page of the article. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, becoming a tradition with you) I'm not sure what you're talking about. I de-bolded your excessive bolding and corrected spelling changes. Apart from correcting your claims about Vanuatu, I did not revert anything related to the United Nations.  Night w   06:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * -) Actually, I've corrected my first edit from bold to Italic, so the article you edited already had Italics - here's the diff . Please clarify what do you mean that state/diplomatic recognition cannot be withdrawn? Because in international law, it definitely can be - see for example these eight (8) legal experts, , , , , , , Meanwhile, on Vanuatu - I've included not only two links from a Vanuatu newspaper, but also a lengthy and comprehensive explanation and analysis from the local chapter of the highly-respected Transparency International. I urge you to read it. Please consider guarding the article from persistent reverts by users who really, really, really want Vanuatu to recognize Abkhazia :) --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be because I got the edit conflict I alluded to above. Retain was mentioned because you were changing the spelling of words. As for recognition, no it cannot be withdrawn (and again, that's not what happened in this case, so it's irrelevant anyway). The rest of the stuff that's been reverted by three different editors now needs to be taken to the talk page. Thanks,  Night w   07:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed a couple of words' spelling from "s" to "z" due to prompting of the spellchecker in the edit window. I have no problem with them being in a British English spelling instead of U.S. Please see the above, a recognition can and does get withdrawn. This is the exact term used by legal scholars and by governments worldwide. It doesn't mean that "annuling" is incorrect. The two other editors revert due to wanting to see Vanuatu in the list of nations that recognized Abkhazia, even though a lengthy and most recent source from an independent and authoritative Western organization shows that Vanuatu did withdraw its recognition. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting comments here unless you have something relevant to say. The orange box popping up every time you do is annoying. I don't have the wish to read through your sources until an editorial conflict actually arises out of that issue. Vanuatu didn't "withdraw" anything. The court annulled it. Thanks, and please just post on the article talk page from now on.  Night w   07:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't want to cause any inconvenience to you. It is a "talk page" after all, and it is for talking, sort of speak. Cheers! --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: North Africa map
Thank you for your message. I perfectly understand that the geographic definition is vague if we want to respect borders. I based my change on the cultural aspect though. Thanks again and have a nice day! Tachfin (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Horn of Africa.png
That map of Somaliland I uploaded at your request has been nom'd for deletion. Seems pretty clear to me that it meets policy, but you can see the discussion  if you're interested. TDL (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

 * Please solve this mystery if you can...
 * On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.
 * See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond
 * Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
 * See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond
 * I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!
 * I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Recognitions
Hi, thanks for your message. I now see your point, perhaps the text could say "exceeds 130" as that's consistent with most of the sources we have now. Apparently the number is changing rapidly. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By sources do you mean Mansour? The PLO itself has given an official figure of 127, and most sources in the article (news articles and political figures) either agree with that figure or echo it. Mansour is a mystery.  Night w   14:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean sources concerning the view of the PLO representative, which is what the snippet in the lead discusses. Of course, whether the view of the PLO rep is the right one to use in the lead is another question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Second poll
No problem, Night, you may call me as much times as needed. I want to participate in this, specially when it is guided so pleasantly. All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:WHS divs.png
Thanks for uploading File:WHS divs.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Second Poll
Hi Night W, Thanks for letting me know about the poll. Munci (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk
See Talk:Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk for answers to your question about the Lacy family. Also, I agree with you on the points made in the ancestry section. Either you or I can fix the table as it is not correct. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) - and it looks terrible with all the clutter of coat of arms. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend
Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TDL (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Question?
Good day, how can You dispute something which is issued as official document by President of Philippines and certified by Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs. Please explain me. Best regardsRDAndrew (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You cited a presidential order that readers cannot see. Do you have a copy of it? Or a quote from it? I'm sure you're familiar with the situation, so could you explain how this new sultan fits in with the other claimants? If he has been recognised by a presidential order then I don't have any problems with including him as the main claimant, but we need to see some hard evidence.  Night w   15:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List of national capitals
As much as I agree with the change, it'd be nice if assertions like that the EU recognises Jerusalem as a future capital come with sources! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was actually expecting it to just be reverted by that Hebrew editor with the userpage thingy so I wasn't all that committed to it. I added some refs. Can't find the Arab League one at the moment. If there are any other statements you think should have one just tag it—won't be offended ;)  Night w   01:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

edit
regarding your edit on State of Palestine, according to whom should official capitals go first? Pass a Method  talk  12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly logical to me, and it also happens to be how we arrange it in other country infoboxes where the official capital differs from the administrative.  Night w   12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestine 194
Thank you for your message. It looks like the article made it to ITN despite the disagreements between you and User:Danlaycock. It also looks like the number of editors involved with the article is growing, which should help moderate personal conflict between the two of you. Let me know if things get worse and I'll see what I can do. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah we're slowly making progress I think. Thanks for taking a look.  Night w   14:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits
Hi Nightw, I've just replied to your comments on my talk page. cm&#610;&#671;ee'&#964;a&#671;&#954;'ma&#953;&#671; 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of countries according to continents in the lists of diplomatic missions
I have logged just today on Novemer 2nd, and I have missed the discussions which appear to have ended and a categorization of countries has been set with the use of the United Nations Geoscheme definition of continents. Sorry for replying so late. My intention was not political and I have found out about the later edit warring of the user in with whom I discussed about the lists of diplomatic missions and edited.

Being transcontinental countries the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and (also Cyprus which geographically lies in Asia) are categorized as either European or Asian or both, and I agree that the categorization leads to confusion and leaves question marks, not to mention controversy. I am aware that these countries (especally Cyprus as an EU member) are categorized as European for sociopolitical reasons, rather than solely on geographic basis. So I will stick to the United Nations Geoscheme definition of continents.

However in the lists of diplomatic missions which have been organized into continents there is the one odd false categorization of the Middle East as a continent, when it is actually a region of Asia, called Southwest Asia (United Nations Geoscheme). Egypt also associated with this region is already correctly placed in Africa in the lists of diplomatic missions. If no objects I will put the Middle East as a subsection Asia, under which it correctly belongs, but will not erase it.

Noraton talk 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks for that. No problems with your Middle East arrangement. None of the others had an issue with those edits either.  Night w   15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

More copyright violations
You are aware that paraphrasing is plagiarism aren't you? I'm quite concerned about some of your edits. TDL (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no! :O  Night w   00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't seem to be taking this very seriously. WP:Copyright violations are a WP:BLOCKable offense.  TDL (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Seriousness went out the door the last time you accused me of plagiarism for a 12kb template documentation.  Night w   01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't the documentation that I cared about. You copied the coding which took me and others effort to create.  This seems to be a rather long term pattern of behavior of yours that I'm finding.  TDL (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the scope of this issue is far beyond what I can deal with. I've started a discussion at AN/I about your editing behaviour.  Please feel free to respond here.  TDL (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in CWW that would cover your <100 characters of template markup as being covered under copyright.  Night w   05:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully after reading some of the links that User:Moonriddengirl provided for you below you'll understand otherwise. TDL (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Looks like it's all in your head buddy.  Night w   14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Not?
I don't see an issue because legally speaking these departments are equal in the French context. So why not include it as well since it is not connected to the mainland. Outback the koala (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's an official designation for any department outside metropolitan France. See   Night w   01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about the metro! Very cool, Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Due to the very serious copyright concerns that have been raised about you at ANI, I would like to ask that you 1) temporarily refrain from adding materials to articles, and 2) please explain in the ANI thread in what way those copies are not copyright violations. I've already checked a few of the examples, and the problem seems quite egregious. Because this seems like a prima facie problem, I'm also going to open up a WP:CCI on your edits, which will look (eventually) at the work you've done. Note that I am not actually blocking you at the moment, but another admin might, and, of course, any further copyvios will likely result in a block. I know that this just sounds like bullying/badgering, but I need you to understand how serious copyright violations are. Note, also, that I don't mean to imply that you added these statements in bad faith; the exact line between good paraphrasing and bad paraphrasing is one that most editors cross from time to time, and the important thing here is that we make sure to solve the problem (by removing previous overly-close copies, and ensuring you know how to avoid them in the future). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'll cooperate in any way required of me. I'll add a response as soon as soon as I'm able. I agree that the examples given look quite serious and I'd be hard-pressed to defend some of them. Please note that the history of conflict between this user and I goes back over a year and has taken a somewhat dramatic turn to bullying in the past month. I'd therefore ask you to take what he says with a grain of salt. Opening a CCI sounds good to me, as I'm sure it'll show that the problem is not as "systematic" as the user claims.  Night w   05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns: article A. K. Fazlul Huq
The article A. K. Fazlul Huq has been blanked for copyright concerns and listed at Copyright problems/2011 November 2 following the finding of close paraphrasing from one of its sources. There is more information at the talk page of the article and also at the ANI listing. I share Qwyrxian's concerns that these problems seem egregious. I checked simply one of your articles, at random, and found text matches in the first passage I checked. This suggests that the problem may be widespread, although as I note at ANI your citation of your sources certainly also suggests that you had no intentions of plagiarizing. Sometimes these problems are caused by lack of familiarity with conventions. Under this assumption, I'm offering a bit of explanation, taken from Template:Uw-copyright-new. There are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text".
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.)
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is, of course, Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. If you do confirm that a source if public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution, which includes noting that content is copied as well as citing your source; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.

A CCI (presuming one will be opened at this point) will certainly help bring out any issues that need cleaning, but there are some important things to note about the way they work. To avoid badgering, we have developed the practice of not giving notice when individual problems are found in articles. It is assumed that once a CCI is open, you realize that there have been copyright issues with your work and no longer need an explanation that this is against policy and why. If you are interested in salvaging any articles that are flagged as problems, you will want to watch the CCI page itself. When an article is blanked, it will be noted on that page. Any article that is blanked may be stubbed or deleted after a week if no action is taken (articles that are blanked contain a link to a temporary page where the contents may be rewritten from scratch; if you rewrite an article, you should note that you have done so on the articles talk page to avoid its being inadvertently deleted). In the case of a CCI, it is also possible that content will be removed without that week's delay, although I have not seen articles outright deleted in less than that time period except in a few very exceptional cases. Based on what I've seen, I don't believe this would be the path taken with your CCI. If once investigation begins the problem is found to be very widespread, this will increase the likeliness that content will be removed presumptively, in accordance with Copyright violations.

Because there is a considerable backlog at CCI and because it relies on volunteer efforts, it is difficult to predict how long any CCI will remain active. Yours might be fairly quick, as you have only substantially contributed to a couple of hundred articles, but we can never predict how long it may remain open. We have had some completed within days; some have been open for more than a year.

If you have any questions about copyright or CCIs, please let me know. I'm happy to try to more fully explain our practices and procedure. I'll try to watchlist your page for a time, but since I have less time to volunteer now than I once did, it might be a good idea for you to leave me a talkback if you reply, particularly if you do so after a few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Most of the errors given seem fairly clear and I probably did make them without really thinking about the policies. If I need any clarification on something in the future, I'll ask you. I'll also help out with the CCI wherever I can. I don't contribute prose to many articles (mostly edit lists), so I'm not expecting it to be very widespread.  Night w   19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor note: Moonriddengirl got the wrong article name above; I'm 99% certain she meant Al-Nurayn Mosque, given that that was the one she listed on the Copyright problems page, and I don't think you've edited the other article listed above. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed. I've never edited the one listed here.  Night w   12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Masada Remembered
Can I ask what is going on with this user? This looks unusual... Calabe1992 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Opened a vandal report right above yours.  Night w   20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's what I thought. I found it odd that a new user was undoing edits with rollback messages, which sparked my interest. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Gotta hand it to Elockid. He's fast.  Night w   20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely a very dodgy user. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Referring to whom? Calabe1992 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Masada Remembered. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * =P  Night w   20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of current Indian pretenders for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of current Indian pretenders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of current Indian pretenders until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This bot has proved exceedingly useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * =P  Night w   09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Indian titles
Many thanks for your note on my talk page. I am in the wrong place to look up sources, but you could try emailing christopher.buyers [at] virgin.net who is the author of the royalark.net page you found.

Some WP users seem to me to have a political agenda to trivialize the native states, even to the point of making them out to be a kind of fiction, British colonies or provinces in all but name. For them, the Indian Empire was already a "unitary state", so that after 1947 the extinction of the states was inevitable, if not a kind of tidying up. There are even some WP articles on individual states which describe the post 1947 period (after assimilation into India) as "Independence" and the pre-1947 period as "colonialism". For such users, Operation Polo was merely the Indian Union excercising its perfect right to treat the native states as already part of the new India, whether their rulers agreed to accede or not. Clearly, from the point of view of India-wide political parties (and, no doubt, democracy itself) the extinction of most of the states was very desirable (except that some states might eventually have had a more democratic future by retaining some autonomy), but it is no longer essential to democracy to play games with what happened. Unfortunately, the distortion of the history of the political integration of India has been going on at the highest level for so long that even some academic specialists have a clouded view. That makes it easy for the misrepresentations to be embedded in the fabric of Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'll certainly contact Buyers and see what sources he might be able to provide. The presence of those few sources directly stating that titles were not abolished certainly proves that this is not clear cut and therefore we certainly shouldn't be presenting it as such. Still, titles in pretence (and most of them are certainly still claiming them) is a valid subject and I'd like to see the articles look somewhat like those on European individuals. I'll keep you updated.  Night w   14:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Titles in pretense are surely to do with thrones rather than mere titles? If India suppressed the rulers' states but not their titles, then the inheritor of a princely title has it now (regardless of whether it is actually used) and does not need to pretend to it. Such a person is only a pretender if he claims the restitution of the state the title is based on, together with some of the sovereign power, privileges, rights and duties which went with the title. No doubt some of the former rulers and the heirs of others do claim just that, but in my view only those who do should be included in a list of Indian pretenders. Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well by most definitions, so long as you're the apparent heir by the relevant laws of succession, you are a pretender whether or not you yourself make the claim. But many seem to feel otherwise, so when I recreate the article I probably won't use "pretender" in the title. Yes, titles in pretence are purely to do with the thrones, but as of 1971 they are no longer recognised as the successors to those thrones (point a in the amendment) so they would need to pretend to it. I guess what's left is titles without any substance, as there's no legal connection to the thrones anymore.  Night w   16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most definitions of "pretender" do not come to the same thing as "heir": Chambers, for instance, begins to define "pretender" with "a claimant, especially to a throne". I broadly agree with "titles without any substance", if "substance" means power or position, although a historic title always has some substance, in that it changes the holder and people's perception of him or her, even without the possessions which might go with it. Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding navboxes listed on CENT
What is there about the discussion that relates to either policies, guidelines or matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was to do with accessibility problems being introduced by changes to Navbox, but Edokter has worked his magic and fixed them.  Night w   05:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Flatlist wrapping issue.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flatlist wrapping issue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

List of current sovereign monarchs
First off, thank you for bringing the potential concerns to the directors' attention. I greatly appreciate that you took this action for your own list, and I'm sure the other directors feel the same way. After the list was pulled from its upcoming TFL date, I went to check for close paraphrasing myself, to the extent that I could. I didn't find much that was concerning on that front, but I came away with some reliable source concerns that I think should be looked at before the list is rescheduled. The comments are at Talk:List of current sovereign monarchs.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I'll check it now. Shouldn't take too long.  Night w   05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Night w, I have to explain to you about this accident because my contribution was reverted by you. First of all, we would like to know about the following three points. First point is that ususal japanese know Japaese Emperor not have fimly name. Second point is that Jananise article 皇室(family name item in Imperial House of Japan article) mentioned it and have some reference. Third point is that I hate foreign language link.

anyway, you may not read japanese, but you feel the article have some reference. Do you need more explain ?--Forestfarmer (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am indeed unable to read Japanese, so I don't know what to look for on that page. Could you please post the reference in Japanese here. I'll read through it as best as I can through an online translator and then I'll go hunting for some English references saying the same. The reference already in the article explains the issue and says that "Yamato" is the name commonly applied in English. We can add that there is no official name, but we'll need a reference for it.  Night w   14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confused. "Yamato" is commonly applied in English: Thus yamato is not offical, and last sentence of 氏・姓・名字 item in Japanese article 皇室 have reference No.3 "吉田孝 『日本の誕生』 岩波書店<岩波新書>、1997、ISBN 40043051". (I do not have enough trans-language wikipedia copyright rules. but I think citation may be OK )citation "～大王＝天皇が姓を持たず「姓」制度を超越し続けたことにつながったとしている[3]. ". I think mechanical translation is difficult because the high scholar of history develops a theory in the problem of the Emperor's family name.

anyway, I translate it,"daiō = tennō do not have sei and had transcending sei system."

explain of technical term

"daiō"大王 (ヤマト王権) is old name of tennō. It is the king when it says simply.

"tennō"天皇 is the Emperor when it says simply.

"daiō = tennō" is japanese Emperor when Japan conscious of a foreign country (China).may be A.D.6~7.

”sei” is family name when it says simply.

"sei system" in old japan, Japanese Emperor had given "sei" his allegiant.

--Forestfarmer (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the book is by Takashi Yoshida and it's called The birth of Japan, is that correct? He appears to be fairly well-known so I'll look around for an English translation. Meanwhile, I've added back a summarised version of what you wrote with some other references. Does this look okay?  Night w   18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank your writing. It is better and enough in English Wikipedia. but usual japanese feel that it is unscientific when they read. It is disrespectful to write the Japanese Emperor's family name to be Yamato because family name is gift for a allegiant. a Japanese who is me recommend to write "N/A(yamato)". but i hate to force japanese style.


 * regards--Forestfarmer (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well N/A would be incorrect, as he definitely belongs to a dynasty—whether that dynasty has a name or not is another matter. I've changed it to a dash. Check and see if this is better.  Night w   00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Al-Nurayn Mosque
I did an initial run through of the new version, and it definitely seems better. I asked for a second editor, more familiar with CCI, to take another look before I move it back to mainspace. However, I actually think it could be even better with a thorough re-write, which would involve cutting the information in about half. See, right now, it seems like you're trying to get every single detail covered in the news articles into the WP article. But the WP article should really be a broader summary of the mosque itself, not just a recounting of the news stories. I removed a few details I thought were excessive, but more could probably be done.

One thing that you could do that would help: the second reference is now a dead link; could you find the original article and update it? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. At least on the internet, there's actually not all that much information available on the mosque itself. The article should probably just be merged into Qusra (where I see someone else has already pretty much duplicated the mosque article). I'll fix the deadlink and try to cut some of the excess, but would you agree that merging and redirecting is probably best?  Night w   07:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...that's an interesting question. If the mosque were a person, I'd say that it falls under WP:BLP1E, and thus shouldn't have an independent article. Probably the best thing to do is wait until the new version is checked by someone else, then do a merge discussion.  That way if there are any active editors on Qusra, they could comment, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for all your help with this. It's very much appreciated.  Night w   09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No consesus to remove Explanation section - International recognition of the State of Palestine
There was no consensus. The item was already being discussed. You offered no compromise and your points were not addressed before your removal of information. Please either self revert or offer a compromise thx ... talknic (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the talk page shortly.  Night w   12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of recognizing the independence of the State of Palestine from the Gambia
Why November 18th? in AS date not specified, it is said that the November 19, recognized the following, and Gambia among them!!!--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

+ This there are and Lebanon--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it from the fact that this article, published the day before (the 18th) by the same agency (Associated Press), has the same list but missing two names: Gambia and East Germany. We show East Germany as recognising on the 18th, so I presumed that this country and Gambia had both given recognition later that day. Of course, the lists given in the newspapers are not complete, so this is probably not solid enough. Maybe it's best to change it... They're probably not good enough as sources in any case, which is why I'm not going to put much weight on the presence of Lebanon.  Night w   14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine gained independence from the Gambia? I must have missed a lot. Hans Adler 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Night w   15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Serbia
Would you like to explain the nature of this edit? Particularly the insulting edit summary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit is a revert, and that's the automated summary generated by the associated MediaWiki software.  Night w   17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the nature of the action, that wasn't what I was asking. Undo and Rollback are designed to be used when reverting vandalism. When an editor feels the need to cancel the contributions of someone who clearly isn't vandalising, the procedure is to explain the purpose of the revert in the summary and this is what I am more interested in. If you explain your edit to me (why you reverted) then I shall tell you why I restored the piece. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was initially intending to revert for technical reasons, as the edit messed up the infobox display to an obvious degree. On the history page, I also noticed that you had already been reverted by another editor; given that there were no comments and one of you had made three reverts within a 15-hour period I assumed an edit conflict was taking place, and restored the section to the original version (which was formatted properly). In retrospect, the change made subtracts the area of Kosovo and Metohija, which is less than ideal from a neutral perspective. The original figure is the one given by the United Nations. Given the status of Kosovo, however, it would be best to have a footnote on that figure giving the area of Serbia without Kosovo.  Night w   18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, Night w, not to worry, thanks for explaining. There was no edit war taking place though a birds eye view of events does make it absurd to believe. I was not even sure whether my edit was correct or incorrect, I had originally been cancelling contributions by one editor who had made unconstructive edits that had gone unnoticed previously but time had passed and as you rightly say, I may have been messing the infobox. Of course, when another editor reverts me without explaining (Buttons), I just couldn't immediately assume good faith so my reaction was to restore my edits - believing them to have originally been good - and ignoring the edit summary. Not a problem now, everything falls into place. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and apologies for assuming! ;)  Night w   18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Anti-abortion violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"you have a history of edit warring on this page- please stop; this has been the version since the page's creation"
I hope you have some idea of how foolish you're going to appear when I revert again and link to the page as it was upon its creation, when it linked to Western Sahara and mentioned nothing of Morocco, and then link to the first time an image was included, one not of Morocco. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Filibustering at WP:NPOVN
Hi, I was actually searching for wikipedia's policy on this and the users The Last Angry Man and JCAla seem to exactly fit into this WP:FILIBUSTERS. Both of them and another editor who later joined, Darkness Shines, are not hearing at all and just reverting me if I edit on the article to make me cross 3RR without any of them doing so, so I've stopped so as not to editwar. I even called an RFC on the talk page and have replied sufficiently here (and tired of replying to the same questions finally); actually unknowingly resorting to all the remedies for WP:FILIBUSTERS but this doesn't seem to go away. Even during the RFC and NPOVN discussion they removed one of the tags (factual accuracy) and gave me a two days deadline on the talk page or to remove the POV tag as well and 'finish' the dispute. I've previously reported The Last Angry Man for personal attacks for his remarks at archiving discussion on the same article talkpage for which he got a last warning. I think they are way out of line now. Since you are an uninvolved neutral editor at WP:NPOVN it would be more proper for you to file at WP:ANI about this (probably mentioning the content from above). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would respectfully ask Nightw to remain fair and neutral on this issue. If TopGun continues this disruptive behaviour and spreads his personal allegations without basis to different talk pages instead of staying on-topic, I will contact an administrator who is familiar with these kind of disputes concerning Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Be sure to read the policy on WP:CANVASSING before calling people 'who are familiar' with the topic. And lets not take the debate to Nightw's talk page. He is a neutral editor (regardless of his comments on topic) and since he commented on the topic, it was right for me to make this request and he can think for himself. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * TopGun, as my participation here has been restricted to the noticeboard, I have not seen any instances of that sort of behaviour. It would be impossible for me to comment on behaviour which I have not witnessed myself, and it would be inappropriate for me to go looking for it. If you feel that kind of editing is occurring, I would encourage you to bring it to the attention of the community yourself. Regards,  Night w   13:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was in reference to the noticeboard replies. Anyway, I do agree with you as far as the closure is concerned and looking forward to it. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

List of current sovereign monarchs
I'll see if I can review the changes later today. Running a little busy at the moment. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries.  Night w   17:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to let you know here, but I went back to the talk page and added a couple comments from my spot-checks. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

prioritising internationally recognised boundaries
Could you help with this map? See Talk:Jerusalem for more details. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harry Houdini
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harry Houdini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Undo the previous move
A move request has been submited here. 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested at Flag of Western Sahara
Hello - Your comment is requested over at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara; there is an RfC underway there to help decide what the article contents should be. If you can take some time to share your opinion on the matter, it would be very much appreciated. --Tachfin (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being around sooner. I gave a response.  Night w   04:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

List of current sovereign monarchs
I already noted that on WP:TFLPREP, and the original comment I added has now been removed by TRM; basically that means everything has been resolved. If you want me to say that on the list's talk page, let me know and I'll add a note there. I don't feel comfortable jumping it in the prep queue because we do generally try to keep lists in the order they get put on TFLPREP. It's not even that necessary because we aren't just picking the ones at the top of the list; we consider all of the pages at prep. Your list can still be selected even if it's low on the page. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't
Please don't remove my comments. I've voluntarily agreed not to edit your CCI further, but that doesn't excuse your WP:EDITWARRING to delete my prior comments. WP:TALKO clearly states that such actions are not appropriate. Please self revert. Also, you seem to be confused by the difference between WP:CIVILty and WP:NPA. See here for a list of what constitutes a personal attack. Given all the history that has been presented, it would be ridiculous for you to claim that questioning your knowledge of copyright policy has a "lack evidence". However, if you are so offended by personal attacks, you might consider redacting your comment calling my life "pathetic" TDL (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly need a manual to tell you what a personal attack is? That list obviously isn't exaustive, and it says so for those who think it might be. I'm not exactly sure why you're spending your time on this. The matter is resolved, I've left your marks showing you checked off the articles you did, which is all that the page is for. Let it go. It's time you did something productive.  Night w   06:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And when I say "matter" I mean the borderline case of copyright infringement. Qwyrxian agreed that half a sentence was not a copyvio, as apparently did the editor who checked it off as clean. This is why I don't think you're capable of handling a CCI.  Night w   06:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need a manual, but apparently you do. Questioning another editors understanding of copyright violations, when said editor has clearly demonstrated to the community a lack of such comprehension and an inability to WP:HEAR others trying to explain it them, is certainly not a personal attack.  And this should be obvious, but the fact that a user missed one plagiarized sentence doesn't mean that they thought it was "clean".
 * I as well can't understand why you're spending so much time on this. I agreed not to contribute further to your CCI.  Why must you continue the drama by editing my comments?  Stop it and the matter will be resolved.  TDL (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He might have missed that second of only two sentences to check, yes, though he could just as easily come to the same conclusion that Qwyrxian and I came to: that half a sentence (seven or eight words) is not a copyvio. I note that you've asked me to revert a comment about you I made on Qwyrxian's page. I don't know why I should remove something you took as a personal attack when you refuse to do me the same courtesy, but I've done it.  Night w   03:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Probably wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't notified me.  Night w   05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are eligible for a block for edits such as this one, which is not stale because it is less than 12 hours ago. In my opinion you may be able to avoid sanctions if you will respond at AN3 and agree to stop removing or annotating anyone else's comments from the CCI. You should not mark any problems as fixed yourself. You would still be free to add your own comments in the relevant section. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which edit are you referring to in that diff? I'll stop removing any of Danlaycock (TDL)'s comments, although I maintain it was a personal attack. I haven't marked anything as fixed. The notes I put beside each item is to help the volunteers (it's a method I took from other CCI pages).  Night w   03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Palestine/SOP
Hello again, Nightw. Recently I have been working on coutnry pages and remembered that you previously requested a move of State of Palestine to Palestine. Do you think consensus might have changed on this given the recent developments in the UN? I can see that you might be busy, so no hurry to reply! :) Rennell435 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me. I opposed that move, and would probably oppose it again. It's just not the primary topic for the name at the moment. I doubt you'll find consensus has changed, but you're free to find out!  Night w   05:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaah yes I see now this was a different one to the one you proposed. Hmm maybe you're right that consensus won't change. Thanks for your reply! Rennell435 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
This is a final warning regarding your edits to Contributor copyright investigations/Night w. You were edit warring. The edits you describe as personal attacks, are not personal attacks, and a reminder that if you have issues with a possible personal attack, that editing is not the way to go, but there are other options. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)