FROM GROßE KAISER: In response to your message, much of the Confederate page seems to be written from a very northern bias point of view. I disagree with much of the page and its obvious others do to. You say you will block me for "engaging in a slow-motion edit war" but it takes more thank one person to have a war therefore if you block me you must also block yourself and everyone else who supposedly participated in the war. I understand what your saying but it isn't your page either. You shouldn't block anyone because they disagree with you. I am simply wanting this page to have no pro northern or pro southern leanings. People's views on the American Civil War should be left out of this article. It should be for informative purposes only. Thank you --Große Kaiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Große Kaiser (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
---Reason to use "United Statian"---
As a Brazilian, I'm just as American as people from the USA and the other citizens of our continent. More specifically, I'm a Latin American, and further a South American.
If e.g. we wanted to talk about Irish people but refered to them generically as European we would be at once imprecise and unfair to the other Europeans. If that's still hard to relate to, imagine a whole continent going through a revolution and changing it's name to "United Countries of the Earth" and refering to themselves as "Earthlings" and to the rest of us, the people from the other continents, as European, Asian, American, African, etc. That's kinda like how we non-US Americans feel when that type of language is used.
America is a continent, not a country. To reduce a whole continent to just one country is a racist practice from our languages that should be dropped. In Spanish (estadounidense or estadunidense), Portuguese (estadunidense), French and many more languages we have terms for American and United Statian. Which are used in every-day speech.
Also I have read this term several times in many places and the first one was Wikipedia. That's why I think it is worth mentioning in an article. The purpouse of an encyclopedia is to spread culture and make this a smarter world.
I'm telling you I haven't invented it, I read it on Wikipedia for first time. And then I googled it and found it on many more places, like Wictionary. It's worth mentioning. Are you blind, racist or what??
About Ikaruga revert
About the revert of bullet hell, just for clarification the term best is written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_%27em_up in paragraph Bullet hell and niche appeal
- I'm sorry, but I wrote at EAR after waiting for 10 days. --Синкретик (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2015
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument
- Traffic report: Resurrection week
- Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
Thanks you very much for all your tireless contributions to making the territorial evolution of the U.S. a great article. I have more information that I have compiled from sources, including a list of the 247 bancos that were transferred under the 1905 treaty; some of them even have geographic coordinates based on whatever datum they used in 1910. You are right about the lack of commission minutes from the 1910-12 period. (When I first started researching this, almost all of the minutes from the 1920s were not linked on the IBWC website. Shortly after I emailed to point that out, they added those links.) For those 31 bancos in 1910-12, I have not found any dates other than the statement of those years. While I retrieved most of the information that I have from reading the minutes of the IBWC and by downloading material (including free digitized books of the era), there is also a good reference book called "Restless River, International Law and the Behavior of the Rio Grande". by Jerry E. Mueller. 1975. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX, that explains the history. Pages 64, 66, 74 and 87 contain a table of figures and some illustrative drawings. Some land cuts are not detailed in the list of areas that I posted on the Talk page. For example, the drawing on p. 87 of Mueller's book shows approx. 25 cuts that were transferred under the 1933 rectification treaty. In addition there were about 7 cuts that were transferred during the river straightening at Presidio (US) and Ojinaga (Mexico) following the 1970 treaty. I'll provide some more of the details that I have found on the Talk page within a few days. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2015
- Featured content: Au-delà des Alpes, la chienlit de Saint-Bernard. Sous les pavés, les trimes d'argent ! Mes enfants, suivez-moi !
- Traffic report: Furious domination
Henrikh Mkhitaryan - Personal Life
Dear Golbez, While i acknowledge your mild sympathy to N/K and i really appreciate your honesty However, i'm trying to argue within the points that Wikipedia has made. Referring to N/K Vs Artsakh issue, same thing happened with article about Ararat vs Agri dagi where its clearly used Ararat since that is commonly used term. Same applies here even armenian media uses Nagorno Karabagh. The second point i believe is important to stress is that Nagoro Karabagh is NOT a recognized territory even by Armenia so by mentioning it status shows the Neutrality of this point since not mentioning might show biased point or make the reader believe it is recognized territory. Agulani (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2015
- In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
- Featured content: Vanguard on guard
- Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes
- Gallery: The bitter end