This is an archive of past discussions about User:Night w. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Night w. I'm just posting to let you know that List of current sovereign monarchs – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, —WFC— 16:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
To address your concerns, I hid Kirkland and Kahn. I maintained the link to the POV-saturated anti-communism, while re-adding liberalization and democratization. May these changes be acceptable to you? Sincerely, 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Night w, please sign when you post a Talkback template leading anywhere but your user page. I had no idea why I got a talk back to List of Pretenders, and had to look in the history to see it was you. FWIW, my involvement in that article is pretty minimal and I was just trying to see if that template belonged. D O N D E groovilyTalk to me17:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem ... although (*confused*) the reply to the thread you started on the talkpage linked should have been the only thing relevant... But, regardless, ever looked at the template's markup? I did sign it, but the parameter deliberately excludes the username in the result... probably because there isn't really a need to know who posted it... all you need is the link to the thread, where replies to your question are posted. Anyway, thanks for looking into the tag's purpose though, few editors bother to do it. Nightw03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kosovo question
Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Question
I need one advice! :) My comment regarding List of sovereign states criteria is in question. I support Noleander's proposition, but the Survey asks "does Kosovo's arrangement in the list sufficiently comply with Wikipedia's policies neutral point of view". It does not asks under which category? I would agree and say Yes for Noleander's proposition, but i don't know is this survey asks the same question.. I am confused. :)--WhiteWriter speaks16:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Under the category it is at the moment, i.e., the middle one, on par with the Vatican City and separated from other states with heavily-disputed sovereignty like the ROC... Nightw05:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but i still don't understand. I want to participate, but i don't know for what i give my vote. If i say yes, that would be for the present state of the article, or for the proposed one, where Kosovo and Vatican will be blended into other non UN member countries?--WhiteWriter speaks16:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes would mean that the current version is fine. No would mean that Kosovo needs to be moved to another section, or something along those lines. Nightw16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. But am I correct in saying that the content is duplicated? Can I not simply transclude the template in the portal subspace? Nightw07:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can - but as can be see now with this box we can match the colours to the portal colours. This was not done before- was just a copy and past that i just fixed. thanks for bring this to my attention. Ever have any portal questions you may ask me at will :-)Moxy (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the category "Laotian people" be changed to "Lao people"?
Hello, Night. I noticed that you had moved the article Laotian Royal Family to Lao Royal Family and provided the following edit summary: (moved Laotian Royal Family to Lao Royal Family: proper/official name). According to the Lao government, the official nationality of Laos is "Lao", which makes sense since the word "Laotian" is just a term for Lao citizens just like "Briton" is just a term for British citizens. Therefore, I've submitted a proposal to change Category:Laotian people to Category:Lao people so that it is in the same format (<nationality> people) as other similar categories (i.e. Category:British people), so I thought you might be interested in participating in the discussion concerning renaming the category "Laotian people" to "Lao people". The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Laotian people. Thank you. Wikicentral (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I moved it because they are Lao. The analogy to British people is not quite right, since British refers to something derived of Great Britain or the UK; there is no British ethnicity, strictly speaking. The analogy to Kazakhstani v. Kazakh, that choster makes in that discussion, is much better. Yao people are Laotian, but they are not Lao. Nightw16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Night. All opinions are valuable in the discussion and thank you for participating. Concerning Kazakhstani v. Kazakh, that country is actually called "Kazakhstan", so "Kazakhstani" is a suitable term for the nationality. However, Lao PDR is not called "Laotia", so in my opinion "Lao" is the more appropriate term. Thus, I don't think Kazakhstani v. Kazakh is a similar situation. Regardless, ethnicity is apparently a very controversial subject. In addition, since "Lao" is the nationality of the citizens of Laos according to official documents by the government of Laos, Yao people in Laos are also "Lao". Furthermore, according to others, British is also an ethnicity: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2840&context=etd_theses&sei-redir=1#search=%22British%20ethnicity%22 ("The persistence of British ethnicity") and http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/united_kingdom.htm ("Major ethnic groups: British, Irish, West Indian, South Asian"). Have you read through the entire discussion at the CFD page? There was agreement that some dictionaries treat "Lao" and "Laotian" as equivalent terms and some dictionaries treat them differently, meaning not all sources agree on what Lao and Laotian mean. Since using either Lao or Laotian to refer to the state of Laos is controversial, it might be best to use "Laos people" as the category, which is separate from "Lao" and "Laotian" altogether. Here's why:
"Laotian" means Of or pertaining to the country of Laos.
As you can see, they both refer to the state of Laos. Therefore, either term may be used. Some people also treat "Lao" and "Laotian" as ethnic terms (i.e. The ethnic groups in Laos are Laotian, Hmong, Mien, etc...) So perhaps Category:Laos people would make a more suitable replacement? Wikicentral (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, yes, they are interchangable as demonyms. Wikipedia has adopted the simplest option in strictly differentiating between Lao and Laotian in order to make things easier for the reader to understand. But choosing "Laos" would be inventing a demonym that doesn't exist. Laotian has already been invented as a alternative by reliable sources. I don't really see your point about it not jiving with the country's name (after all, there is no Frence or Jordania either), but whether or not you like the term, it's the most widely-used alternative demonym for the country... Nightw18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you please show me where Wikipedia has enforced its own distinction for "Lao" and "Laotian"? Because for other readers including myself, whether we use Lao or Laotian, they both refer to either the ethnicity or nationality. Other sources refer to "Laotian" as an ethnic group, rather than "Lao", so it's still not as clear-cut as you may think. For example, this book ["Wisconsin's Past and Present"] shows "Laotian/Tai" as a separate ethnic group from Hmong in Laos. Other sources also use "Laotian" to refer to the people of Issan. Also, I agree that the country's name does not necessarily have to jive with the term for the nationality, however, I just wanted to point out that it's not a coincidence that Kazakhstani jives better with Kazakhstan to illustrate that in my opinion, that example is not the exact same thing as "Lao" vs. "Laotian". Wikicentral (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, since "Lao" and "Laotian" are not unambiguous (some sources treat them the same while others don't), there is a convention on Wikipedia in which the country's name is used rather than the demonym when naming the nationality of a country in categories. Category names mentions that Some states do not possess unambiguous (i.e. Democratic Republic of the Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, users should use the format "Country foo", where Country is the unamended name of the country. Examples of this usage are Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo society, Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina politicians, Category:Republic of the Congo culture, Category:Dominica people, Category:Dominican Republic athletes, Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis businesspeople, and Category:Antigua and Barbuda writers.Wikicentral (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
For making topic templates for countries (of all definitions) around the world that needed them. Your mark will live ever on in the country-template-creation-space. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It seems to me there is a little problem with the orthographic projection of this map. The inset should be enlarged version of the map towards us (in 3D space) but it is not. Similar problem is with this map. The map on the globe should also be shaded to create a proper 3D picture. Overall thank you for having done such a tremendous work with the maps! Gulmammad | talk15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the shading I completely missed that when I did it. So that's fixed, but then I'm not quite sure what you mean about the inset. Could you elaborate? I can turn the shading in the Armenia map to lines if you want, that's no problem. Nightw10:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If we carefully look at the lines that emerge from the smaller map here, we feel as if they are heading towards the respective corners of an enlarged map behind the picture. But if we look at the same lines that emerge from the enlarged map, we would feel as if they are heading towards the respective corners of a smaller map behind it. To fix the problem, the upper line emerging from the upper-right corner of the smaller map should instead be connected to the lower-left corner of the smaller map. I hope this will help. Thank you once again for your precious time that you spent to benefit the whole world. Gulmammad | talk01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think if we avoid lines, it will be cleaner. So I'd prefer like in Armenia map. But unlike Armenia map, the smaller map also should be shaded. Gulmammad | talk00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I really hate to say but there is still a little problem left. In this map to fix the problem, look at the right upper corner of the smaller map. There are two lines emerging from that corner. One is upper, one is lower. Don't touch the lower line or their endings on the bigger map. Just connect the upper line with the lower left corner of the smaller map and it will be done. And then if you shade the whole area, it will look even better. Thank you again for your time. Gulmammad | talk20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops! I guess I wasn't really concentrating. I'll correct it now. I don't really have any idea how to do shading on vector images... You'll need to contact the images lab for that! Nightw14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. 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.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. 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're totally right. We never got to it at all - since it was supposed to be part 2 of the mediation that broke down in part 1. Let me know if discussion restarts? Outback the koala (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know adding a TfD template to an article doesn't automatically list it for deletion... I've been nominating templates for deletion for almost a year now. I use Twinkle, so the nomination must not have gone through completely. It would be helpful if you would mention the template that this error occurred on. Please leave a {{talkback}} on my page if you reply here. Thanks, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Awww damn... I had a whole paragraph typed out to explain that one, and now it's gone. Damn Twinkle. Plus, my English is not at its best now (I've been talking nothing but Spanish for 2 months). I think I'll put this one off til I can actually think straight. Thanks for letting me know!! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you open a discussion on the Talk page if you want to pursue the change you want to make per WP:BRD. As it is, it's quite clear from the sources that the unqualified statement that "Denmark has three constituent countries" is incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It should really be you doing that since you're the one making the change. But judging from your recent interactions with other editors I doubt that's going to happen, so I'll step up. Nightw00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Also, it's not a recent change, it's 4 months old. Onus is on you to gain consensus for change. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Antártida
Tu reversión es un error, Brasil nunca ha realizado reclamación alguna en la Antártida. Todo el asunto de la zona de interés es un hoax. La fuente The international politics of Antarctica no es visible entre las páginas 114 y 341, por lo que no puedo ver qué dice. De cualquier manera, aunque haya un libro que pudiera decir tal cosa, si Brasil reclamara parte de la Antártida habría muchas fuentes que lo dirían fundadas en leyes, decretos, declaraciones formales o lo que sea, y nada de eso hay, ninguna mención de este hoax que se encuentre en la red menciona el origen de tal cosa, solo repiten lo que leen en sitios irresponsables que los toman de otros (incluyendo a Wikipedia en inglés que actúan con la misma irresponsabilidad en esto). ¿No te parece raro que en la wiki en portugués no haya suficientes datos sobre esta supuesta reclamación?, al contrario lo que hay es su negación. Te pido que no vuelvas a revertir y que hagas una búsqueda de información al respecto, con lo que te convencerás que no hay ninguna reclamación ni zona de interés brasileña en la Antártida, y menos aún en una región en donde Brasil jamás ha tenido interés alguno. El origen de este hoax es la es:teoría de la defrontación, que no tiene ninguna aceptación oficial en Brasil. Saludos.--Nerêo (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Abrí la edición, ya que se revirtió con anterioridad por otro usuario. La práctica habitual en enwiki es discutir después de que alguien se ha revertido su edición. Que debería haber hecho, en lugar de repetirlo. Aunque, después de examinar el referencia atribuido a la afirmación de que disputa, he sacado la información de la base de que es una afirmación sin fuentes contencioso. Perdone por favor, mi español no es bueno. Nightw19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, my English is poor. The Interest Zone is a hoax. Theare aren´t references in Brazilian laws. Regards.--Nerêo (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I made the NKR change based on the balance I found on google searches. Armenian sources seem to drop the "the", but others have them. The current articles have been named in a slapshod fashion anyway, some Nagorno-Karabakh some Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Similar problem to Palestine in terms of the navigation templates I suppose. I created redirects to both National anthem of Palestine and National anthem of the State of Palestine the other day, I suppose I'll end up doing something similar with Nagorno-Karabakh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course not, mate! Most of it's copied from your work anyway. What is the draft for? Are you splitting the article aswell? Nightw21:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Not yet, just some the others participants of the project participants staged a war of edits and the article placed under special control because of connectedness with the theme of the Arab-Israeli conflict
Found an interesting source of not recognizing the State of Palestine, Liberia and Cameroon on June 29-30, 2011 (on pages 77-78) (you can come in handy)[1]--analitic114 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Haha that sounds familiar! ;) Thanks for the info. It looks very helpful. I'll let you know when I've read through it all. Nightw23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
re-Read the article, apparently reprinting with Bahraini news agency with not a good translation. You're right, ready to recognize. I seem a little hasty.--analitic114 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad then. It struck me as uncivil but if he felt it was the best thing to do, then I guess it's ok. Sorry for that Nightw. --Langus (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of this [6]. I'm not exactly sure of whether it's ok, a copyedit needed or what. Its really wordy... Let me know, Im willing to work it. Thanks Outback the koala (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just took a look and reduced some of the minor additions. Haven't touched the definition section but it does look wordy and it's a lot of unsourced changes, so any revisions you make will be justified. From comparing it with what was there before, though, I'd say it counts as an improvement. Just do a thorough copyedit and stick a {{Refimprove-section}} tag on it. Nightw13:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was just removed by Blue Haired Lawyer. That user is more knowledgable on the subject than I am, so I think it was the right move. Nightw20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
SPI Case
I could add a lot but it would violate WP:OUTING, since to link the IP to Alex I have to reveal a great deal of his personal information that fell into my possession (largely it has to be said because of his own carelessness. User:HelloAnnyong is aware of it but may not have linked it back to this case. I've left a note on his talk page. Wee Curry Monstertalk16:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've figured that one out after searching his username on Google. Many thanks for following it up. Nightw20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what they're waiting for... More evidence? A confession? Nobody has said anything. Anyway, thanks for updating it. Nightw04:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The policy is WP:V. Those sources are outdated. Reliable sources on this in English are hard to come by. See Heinz Schön, Mythos Neu-Schwabenland. Für Hitler am Südpol, Bonus, Selent 2004, p. 106, ISBN3-935962-05-3. Germany never made a territorial claim to New Swabia, part of Queen Maude Land, which was claimed by Norway on 14 January 1939. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Myth of New Swabia"? That sounds like a fringe source. Can you provide a relevant quote from it? According to Monmonier, the claim appeared on Nazi maps, which, if that is the case, makes it pretty official. There's certainly no justification for removing it from the template. Nightw05:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
As you contributed to Morocco and Western Sahara related articles, I think you might be interested in this discussion. Your input would be appreciated.
Looks like our friend Nelson was indeed a sockpuppet, but not of Tobias - instead someone named Redking7! Apparently Nelson disclosed his IP for some reason, which is in the range of this Redking person, who had edited many of the same articles. I knew something was going on there; people in their very first month on Wikipedia don't behave like that. I'll always wonder why they were defending Tobias so passionately - maybe Redking is Tobias with a proxy, maybe Redking is indeed another individual. Regardless, everything is cleared up. --JaGatalk20:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi N - 99 & I have been working away at this so I must confess I am now a bit lost as to what is completed. Could we please re-group and assess what still needs to be done?Granitethighs02:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please note that Taivo did not make a single revert as you stated in your edit summary. He reverted a reliably sourced and justified section two times so I thought it fit to leave him a warning about 3rr before he continues. This warning is by no means disruptive as you wrote but rather Taivo's unexplained removal was clearly disruptive. You might want to check a user's edits more thoroughly before you remove warnings from his talk page. Regards, De728631 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Lord Howe
I think 99 and I have covered all the points in the review now - but we need feedback from yourself so that we can tidy up any loose ends. Thanks for your encouragement to raise the standard of the article.Granitethighs00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Revert on China lede
I think you may be mistaken about your correction of my edit on the lead of China. The lead now reads that both countries have the official name of "China". This is simply not the case. The official name of one is "People's Republic of China" and the other one's official name is "Republic of China". You can see that both contain "China" but neither is officially named simply "China". The PRC calls itself China as that is its common name but the ROC does not. I don't think that last bit is worth getting into in the lead, the point is about the official names right. So I believe my version is accurate and yours is not. Do a google search if you don't believe me, try "Taiwan, officially known as China" and see if anything comes up, now try "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China". Do you see why I made the change now? - Metal lunchbox(talk)04:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
That's because your first "search suggestion" doesn't make sense. Taiwan isn't officially known as the Republic of China; Taiwan is officially known as Taiwan, it's a province. Most states have official shortform names, and neither of these is an exception. Check the Civil Code of the ROC. Nightw04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You know what I mean when I say Taiwan, because I'm using it the same way everyone else does including the President of the Republic of China. As for the short name, I accept that. I think its an unimportant technicality and it makes the language of the lead more confusing than it needs to be, but I'm not going to argue with you, or edit war. I'm sure it will sort out in the end. - Metal lunchbox(talk)07:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused... So when you asked me to try searching for "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China", you were really asking me to search for "Republic of China, officially known as the Republic of China" ...? You weren't talking about common usage, you were asking me to search a specific phrase...yes? Nightw07:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The Civil Code of 1929, on which all laws in the ROC are based. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on it. You could try Wikisource. Nightw07:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I checked that out but didn't see anything about "China" being the official short name of the ROC. maybe you could help me out. - Metal lunchbox(talk)07:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You could ask for clarification from some of the Chinese editors, but from what I know there is no law defining the official name of the state, and therefore there isn't a law on the official abbreviation of that name. It's just how it's written in the legislature. For example, you can see here that it's simply "China". Nightw07:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The official name of the ROC isn't "China". And apart from sometimes by the vatican the ROC is never referred to as "China" - whereas the PRC is referred to as China all the time as can be seen from the China talk page.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
What document states that the official name of the ROC isn't "China"? What's your source for claiming the ROC is never referred to as "China" outside the Vatican? I'm not responding to unsourced dribble... Nightw09:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the ROC is ever referred to as "China" officially beyond the Vatican? I looked through the civil code and it is always called the "Republic of China" there - and the ROC passports say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" on them (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
? Then you didn't look through it properly. I'll give you an example quote, from Art. 13 of the enforcement act: "If the foreign legal person has set up its office in China, the provisions ... of the preceding article shall be mutatis mutandis applied." (Original "外國法人在中國設事務所者，準用民法總則第三十條、第三十一條、第四十五條、第四十六條、第四十八條、第五十九條、第六十一條及前條之規定。"). There are scores of other pieces of legislation I could cite. Nightw10:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
found some additional sources, but while in ru-wiki upgrade I can not, due to mistrust of one of the participants to Palestinian sources and based on their information do not want to go to war edits--analitic114 (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate, likewise. The credit stays with you and 99of9, given the time and effort you both invested. Thanks for sticking with it! Nightw16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh goodie. ;) Thanks for letting me know, though I don't see much point in engaging there until an administrator comes and gives an opinion. Nightw07:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think your recent disagreements are probably demanding much more of your time than they're worth. But I'm the same. I usually have to force myself to concede that it makes very little difference to me. Nightw18:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughts
link. Now as you know I originally removed the tag you inserted, but then self-reverted an hour later. Do you feel victimized in any way? I believe we have collaborated effectively at the flotilla raid and I know you and I have a lot of ideas for the article. I could be vacations for an entire year. just a thought. WikifanBe nice23:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nightw - I'm a bit puzzled why the article is still classed as B on the top line when it carries a GA symbol to the right. Do you know how this system works? Granitethighs12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On the main article page my computer lists the article itself as "B-class. A good article nominee etc." (but thanks for fixing the banners).Granitethighs22:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Maybe I don't have that gadget. Try clearing your cache. See if that helps? Otherwise, from what I can see, it's in all the right categories. I'll check GAN for any more items that need fixing. Nightw07:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Found another link where Turkmenistan is recognized in the list. (only when an indication of why the French Guyana and not Libya and Liberia)--analitic114 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you were conducting a poll using preference voting and I just thought I'd point you to this online tool which you can use to evaluate the results- openstv.org. I hope this is helpful. - Metal lunchbox(talk)23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Since you edited this article and communicated with Chipmunkdavis before, would you mind looking at this [20] and weight in? I've presented all the sources and rationale in a concise and short format, easy to read. Won't take much of your time. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding User:Japinderum, ARBPIA notices aren't given pre-emptively. The three edits in question were made at (roughly) 24-hour intervals, so I don't think there's been a 1RR violation.
I'll inform Japinderum of the 1RR restriction, without the formal ARBPIA notice. If Japinderum's behavior warrants it, please let me (or another administrator) know and proper notice will be given. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Night w. I'm just posting to let you know that List of current sovereign monarchs – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, —WFC— 16:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Nightw 22:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
