User talk:Night w/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

America/Americas

Hey, could you assemble some statistics regarding the use of the two terms? Because that's what it comes down to. It should read "The Americas or America" in the first line if there's a very substantial use of "America" out there. This guideline, WP:UE, gives you an idea: "If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 1803 for one variant and 1030 for another), there may well be divided usage." Notice that the ratio is sensible, not some insane requirement that there be equally common use of both; just a very rough approximation.

Cheers. SamEV (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it unusual...

that no one has taken up the case yet? SamEV (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I'm kind of getting tired of the argument. The sources are there, but the editors refuse to comment on them...I'm not quite sure what else to do but wait for a mediator. If nothing comes from that, I'll request mediation formally. Any ideas? I looked into the statistics thing you suggested before, but it proved way too difficult. Night w (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whew! Your first sentence made me think you wanted to give up.

And of course they'll ignore the sources! I'm not surprised. There just isn't as much good will and good faith here to match WP's worthy goal.

I agree that you should give it a little more time before moving to the next step. Just follow the process, and don't worry.

And for curiosity's sake: can you contact a specific mediator and ask them to take the case? (Not that I'm sure that would be a good or bad idea.) SamEV (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if nobody decides to take up the case in the next few weeks, I think contacting an outside editor will be the best option. Night w (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Night w, I am so sorry. But I just had to take a break, as off-WP matters beckoned.

Thank you very much for your work to resolve this dispute. From what I see so far, I like what was decided. I'll go back and read the discussion soon.

Best wishes to you. See you around. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! I'd like to help with the Americas dispute. However, I don't know my way around Wikipedia well enough yet to figure out how to "formally" accept or open the case. I tried to do so a day or two ago, but I see that it's still listed as "Waiting for mediator". If you can help me with the technical part, I'll be happy to try to help!
Regards, -Rompecabezas (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AMERICA

Where did you grew up? and Where do you live now? And what America means over there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridianesco (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm from Sydney, in Australia. I still live there, I suppose, but I haven't really lived there for just over a year now. I've been travelling around Southeast Asia. Where I'm from, if people say "America" they mean the landmass that runs from Ellesmere Island to Cape Horn, but you don't hear it very often--most people either say "North America" or "South America", but if you want to refer to them together, we say "America". Night w (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian ethnicity

I really think the responses that you're getting at Talk:Australia are just excuses. When I initially went looking for ethnicity data the ABS search ended up at the document that I was using. After GenericBob and AKAF started whining about the data I contacted the ABS and they said the document I was using was the correct document. That's not good enough though apparently. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NT, NU and YT

I added a clarification tag to the federal link as I'm not too clear what it was supposed to mean. Federal is a disambiguation page, so I thought about linking to the Government of Canada page but that tends to give the impression that the three are governed by the Feds which isn't right. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks--I just blindly wikilinked (didn't really even think about what it linked to). Sorry. I just removed the wikilinks instead; I think most people know what it's meant to mean; I thought about saying "federated territory" but that's not right, and without the "federal" in there I think the "territory" alludes to it being an external overseas dependency or something. The page on the Northern Territory has the same wording without the wikilink. Do you reckon it's OK to leave it like that? I'm not quite sure how else to clarify it... Thanks. Night w (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

IT should probably be OK like that. I also saw Central government as another possible link but I'm not positive. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

You requested mediation on Americas. Is there still a dispute? Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Geoff! I haven't been keeping an eye on that--simply because the case was filed so long ago and nobody had bothered to take it up until now. So thankyou so much for your help!!! Yes, the dispute is still there. I've said all I wanted to say and felt was required to say in order to make my point, so that's the reason for the lack of recent activity on the discussion page. I'm in and will co-operate in any way you require. Some of the parties involved:

For the change:

• SamEV (talk · contribs)
• Whoffmannm (talk · contribs)
• ScottyMull (talk · contribs)
• Prof.rick (talk · contribs)
• Sinekonata (talk · contribs)

Opposing change:

• Deor (talk · contribs)
• WilyD (talk · contribs)
• Lord Cornwallis (talk · contribs)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

Other parties:

• Mark Foskey (talk · contribs)
• Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs)

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I have been busy fighting with the local college. However, summon the troops and lets see if we can clear this sucker up. Geoff Plourde (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is the direction the dispute has gone in, lets follow it. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Prof.rick

Hi, Night w,

I want to help as much as I can! The essence of the problem seems to be in the essential difference between the adjective, "American" (in most English speaking countries, but ONLY English-speaking countries, meaning "Usonian", while as a noun, "America", refers to a continent. (Personally, I despise the songs, "God Bless America", and "America, The Beautiful".)

It has been argued for centuries that the US has no right to call itself "America", and to be technical, despite common usage ONLY AMONGST SOME ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES has the use of the word "American" come to refer exclusively to the people of the United States.

Canadians and Mexicans are not the only objectors! There have been outstanding objections from every continent! "The United States of America" seems to suggest some long-term plan to make ALL Western Hemisphere nations members of this union! I STRONGLY OBJECT!

I have many more beefs about the U.S.! To realize that at least 45% of their population are "creationists" (defying all science) is indeed frightening! To think that they design and possess the most deadly weapons in the world is even more frightening! Put it together: SUPERSTITION plus DEADLY POWER is a most VOLATILE, DANGEROUS, AND DEADLY MIX!

COME ON, UNITED STATIONS! Can't you think of a name for your country and your people without reference to the continent, to which you are just an atom amongst a molecule! AND CAN'T YOU STOP TRYING TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL THIS PLANET???

Please, Night w, tell me HOW I CAN HELP! I AM READY AND ABLE! Prof.rick 08:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Prof.rick 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know why my user-name does not appear as a link! Prof.rick 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Anytime Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks!

Kudos Night w! The work you've done on Federated state article is great progress. As I said on the talk page over at the State (disambig) talk page, "Good on ya, Night w!"' Since I was away from the discussion for a week, I have not had time to carefully consider all the changes, and no doubt the Federated state article will evolve over time as other editors add to it, but I think the general direction is great, and will be much less of a muddle to build on than was the old State (administrative subdivison) moniker. Thanks for being bold. N2e (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks N2e!!! Night w (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you also take a look at Talk:Federal government and leave an opinion? I cleaned up a lot of Talk page vandalism and left a note, but I think I'll wait a few days until some other editors provide support before undertaking fixing all the many wikilinks in the main article that, I think, are pointing at the wrong articles. N2e (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Night w (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Better now. N2e (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Constituent country

Thanks for digging up the Danish refs. kwami (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you're happy with them then so am I. I'm still working on getting a reference from the constitutional Act. Night w (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Outback the koala's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, but It's more like a holding pattern right now... I'm just not the WP:BOLD type to make the changes that need to be made. Could use any help you could spare. Outback the koala (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

States and territories of India

Hi Nightw. I want to ask if you know where I might find some information. The States and territories of India article has no information about the "history and rationale behind the development of the states of India. ... it tells the reader nothing of what they actually are. For example, neither [that] article nor Administrative divisions of India says what the powers are vested in a state and what is reserved to the Union Parliament." That quote is from the talk page there, by another editor (not me); a couple of editors have commented. I am trying to stub out an initial cut on the relative responsibilities and authorities of the states compared to the national government in this section.

Do you know where I might find some online source with this info? Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey N2e! The primary source for this kind of information would be in the Constitution itself, although of course those things are never fun to read, and India happens to have the longest of them all. I certainly haven't read the whole thing, but I can point out the parts that would be relevant. Articles 80-81 outline the basis for representation of each of the states at the Union level. Apart from that, Parts 6, 8 and (especially) 11 would definitely be important to read over for the basics. And there's also the special provisions outlined in Articles 370-371 which would be very important to mention, as some states get more autonomy than others. You can get the full text here.

If you're looking for a basic outline to go by, I came across this, which sources its information. But I don't really have any specific online sources that would go into much detail, unless you want analytical or critical essays on the the federal system in India. I could recommend some good books, but none of them are available for preview on Google or anything.

One thing that I'm not sure is mentioned in the constitution is that because it was each individual princely state that acceded to the Union—and in most cases under no terms of accession—the current states as they stand, which were created through reorganisation in 1956, have no legal right to secede from the federation, as is the case in most federal unions.

If I can be of any further help, just let me know. Night w (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Great literature for me to look into. Thanks. If you don't mind, in order to help all/any editors who may wish to improve that article, I will put my comment on the article talk page, and your response as well. After that, I am going to respond more directly to your post with one additional question. Thanks again. N2e (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

i heard something like that too Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Diego Garcia

For the record, Diego Garcia is a British territory leased to the US Navy. The US Navy operates a Naval Support Facility on the island. The US Air Force is a tenant, but is not in operational command of the island. The Royal Navy has three (yes 3) officers on the island; the Brit Rep, the executive officer and the training officer. These three officers represent the UK's interest with respect to the US facility on the island, yet they do not operate anything! Their housing, their food, their store, their haircuts, their everything comes from the US Navy! Stop making un-sourced, uninformed edits of this site! Revmqo (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise... My most recent edits to that page were arbitrary. I reorganised a list of operating agencies into alphabetical order, which is standard, and does not require sources since I provided no additional text to the page. When you reverted, however, you did not remove the Royal Navy from the list as you seem to be suggesting should occur in your arguments. If the Navy is present as overseers then it should be included on the list. Are the Royal Marines present also? Night w (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland Intro

I think there's been enough review at this point of your revision proposal. I urge you to make the switch. Outback the koala (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! We're both a little WP:BOLD now and then! (ie check my contributions - and I saw your edits on the Somaliland main page)Outback the koala (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be a bother, but recall this? I seem to be running into issues with Midday on certain pages around wiki regarding the inclusion. It is turning into edit warring and I would like you're opinion on what I should do. Is there a board I can post at? I really don't want another long discussion because we've already had one and I have not yet run into this situation on wiki. What do you think I should do? Outback the koala (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez, I thought we'd seen the last of Midday. Maybe post a message on the WP:NPOVN, and make it clear that he's going against consensus that was reached at that prior discussion. The administrator can take a look at the debate, and see if it needs any further discussion (altho I can't see them saying that, as all points were made repeatedly on both sides; there's really nothing left to say). Will you let me know if/when you've posted it? Night w (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or better, post at WP:ANI, about the editor and his general conduct. After all, he's got a conflict of interest with the subject, and he'll just persist with what he's doing on other pages, no matter how many other cases where he's forced to concede to consensus. Night w (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot, I'll look into it tomorrow. :) Its dreadfully late where I am.. Outback the koala (talk)

Went to check on it anyway. He filled this; [1]. I'm at a loss. Outback the koala (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should make the report on the WP:ANI board anyway. Night w (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for the result of his report and if it is turned down, then I will simply wait until the next time it comes up. Outback the koala (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: America

Hey there. This, and the preceding discussion, may be of interest to you. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I haven't been able to get online the last couple of days. Night w (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarence Saunders

Hi, I was reading the page on this guy and saw that it was revised a short time ago by you. Could you give me some information please on where you found some of the edits that you made. I am doing a reseach paper on him and still need some questions answered. Or if you would perfer we could chat on yahoo, my nic: pegasus49663 just add me to your buddies list. Thanks --D. Kruger 07:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasus49663 (talk • contribs)

Re: Great minds...

Yes..it's a pet peve of mine as well that it's not the Kingdome articles which are linked to, as they are the truely sovereign units. I think we might just be better off moving the article to List of internationally recognized states so no debates over a country's sovereignty are required! TDL (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

I've added some sections on the talk page that you might find of intertest:

• Political Considerations
• The Declarative Theory

harlan (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Wikipedia almost dissappeared due to BLP issues - when creating stubs about living indonesian monarchs - please add and note project tags and living people identification is necessary - otherwise your little stubs will be deleted by an enthusiastic BLP enforcer :) - cheers SatuSuro 00:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging

Hey Night w,

I totally support merging the year pages into decade pages but before we go ahead with that I was actually going to ask what you thought about doing it under a different layout. I've been working on two mock-up pages:

• User:Orange_Tuesday/List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2000s (complete, I think)
• User:Orange_Tuesday/List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_1990s (only around half finished)

This is basically all the information you gathered together but arranged to resemble the main List of sovereign states. The sovereign states have their own entries, with their dependent territories (etc.) listed next to them. The list is alphabetical, with all de facto and widely-recognized states listed together, so that in decades like the 1990s, countries that are very briefly unrecognized (namely the former Yugoslav and Soviet Republics) don't have duplicate entries. I've also been trying to provide sources for all the dates on the main list and in the process I've cleaned up a fair number of minor errors. I think this format combined with the merging into decades is would make things a lot more accurate and easier to maintain. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime though I have no problem with merging from the 1950's onwards. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Outback the koala's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

For cleaning up after me. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies from myself too, I perhaps also over-reacted to the comment. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No harm done, mate! Night w (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo note

Please, stop removing kosovo note. It is vital for NPOV of related articles. see NPOV noticeboard for more. --Tadija^speaks 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Related" is certainly a matter of doubt in this case. A town in Albania? Probably not "related"... But thanks for a great question. Night w (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Morinë is a settlement in eastern Albania, on the border with (disputed province of Kosovo / Serbia / D+disputed Serbian province of ..) No, instead all of those just Kosovo with note. You see? It is related, as it may be border with Serbia, not Kosovo. :) --Tadija^speaks 15:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's wait for other editors to comment on the noticeboard. Night w (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign states/Sandbox

I moved this page to User:Night w/List of sovereign states. "Sandbox" articles for development should not be in the mainspace (it could go as a talk subpage though). VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Thankyou. Night w (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

United States-Thailand relations

Is there a specific reason for removing the link "United States-Thailand relations" from Outline of Thailand#Foreign relations of Thailand and other United States-foreign relation links from many more articles?
Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm conducting a mass-purge in Country Outlines where these links appear. Links to articles on relations between specific countries is unnecessary in a basic outline unless there's a good reason for it. The main link to "Foreign affairs of X" should be the only link needed. My edits aren't targeting United States foreign relations in particular; those just seem to be the ones that appear in almost every Outline. Night w (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Seems like a good reason. - Takeaway (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Night w (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

East Africa

I am still reviewing the case, since I was forced into a short Wikibreak by my job. Ronk01 talk, 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Night w (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the current discussion? Ronk01 talk, 01:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The thread set up for mediation is at Talk:East Africa. I think there's a typo in the "talk" link in your signature. Night w (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page refers to a noticeboard discussion that has had no activity since I posted my request for opening statements lest month. Ronk01 talk, 05:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I hadn't been back to that noticeboard since I made the request for mediation. The thread had been archived; it appears it was recalled by User:Outback the koala, who then engaged in further discussion with a third-party reviewer, User:Bluerasberry. Because the thread had been archived, I had removed the noticeboard from my watchlist, and I think everyone else involved has done the same. On other MedCab cases I've been involved with, the mediator has contacted the parties involved (listed on the case page). Do you want me to do that? I think also User:Bluerasberry should be contacted as s/he had some great ideas and seemed genuinely determined in seeking a resolution. Night w (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I will notify those involved, I just wanted to ensure that the argument was still there. Ronk01 talk, 08:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of East Africa

A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk, . Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [2], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your opening statement. Ronk01 talk, 04:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry it took a while, I didn't realise it was going to be so long. Night w (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid editing the sections in dispute throughout the course of mediation. Ronk01 talk, 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I promise that this will be the last of my annoying talk page messages for now. Secondly, I would ask all participants to please answer the three questions on the mediation casepage. Thank you. (This message sent as a batch to all participants.) Ronk01 talk, 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I need to be sure that you are all willing to compromise your positions in order to make this mediation work because, as you all know compromise is essential to dispute resolution. Ronk01 talk, 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge over at State (polity)

Hi Night w. Do you have an opinion on the proposed merge at Talk:State_(polity)#Proposed_Merge? Note that other relevant discussion exists on the same Talk page, in a section entitled Same or different article. Thanks, and cheers. N2e (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for the heads up, mate! I've left my reply on the discussion thread. Night w (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for your erudite input to the discussion. N2e (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

re Carlos 4, 5, 7?

Hi Night w, Carlos/Carlo V is in relation to Parma as according to the family site his father was Carlo/Carlos IV. Regarding the Carlist claim I’m not sure what he will be known as his father is listed as “Carlos Hugo I” so its possible the new duke will be “Carlos Javier I” but I’m not sure. It’s probably best to wait for the Bourbon-Parma website to be updated. [3] - dwc lr (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Talk:Senkaku Islands.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Gman124's talk page.
Message added 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turkish referendum

Just saw your edit to the page (good edits) but could you provide the source for it?Lihaas (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a second. Geeez! Nightw 05:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Election results of Turkish constitutional referendum, 2010

You reverted my updates, stating: not according to the source; your numbers are unreferenced. However, the statement in your edit summary was totally unfounded, since I copied these numbers straight from the source referenced from the infobox:

Government of Turkey, Supreme Election Board (YSK) (12 September 2010). "Official Results – September 12, 2010 Constitutional Referendum" (Website).

In the meantime the numbers on the YSK website have changed again, and will probably keep changing for some time as recounts are still going on.  --Lambiam 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Nightw 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit at Northern Ireland

Please be very careful with edits such as this one. [4] You marked this change (with which I agree, by the way) as minor, but in fact you have changed a compromise that was achieved after an extremely long, heated debate. IMO your version has exactly the same effect as the previous one but is more elegant. But even such a small change can easily restart the entire huge debate between Scottish and Welsh nationalists who insist on calling NI a "country", and (Northern) Irish editors who insist that the only context it is ever called that is when the four constituent countries of the UK are enumerated. These discussions are no fun, and I would hate to have another one so soon. Hans Adler 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Nightw 14:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of List of sovereign states

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to List of sovereign states was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you thinking?

You went to Langkawi, and when you got there, you decided to edit wikipedia? And this during a tropical storm that flooded the mainland? That's either highly commendable or highly deplorable! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol! What was I meant to be doing? It's raining all the time! Nightw 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rain or shine, you're in Langkawi. As long as palm trees aren't being uprooted you may as well be outside. If palm trees were being uprooted and flying at you, and you really really want to edit wikipedia, take photos of them flying towards you. Wikipedia needs more photos of 1) Langkawi 2) Storms in Malaysia 3) Imminent death. That would be a valuable contribution! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha! I'll make it my mission here to try and get that shot for you. Nightw 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's calm down

Night w, instead of going over WP:3RR, why don't we concentrate on implementing at least the table change we agreed? Alinor (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Malagasy constitutional referendum, 2010

--Nicely done, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback Wikiproject

Well, it didnt get alot of support. Some problems were brought up here [5]. But I'd really be up to getting it rolling again if I have at least one other person to support the idea. Interested in the idea? Outback the koala (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we adopt Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countries; it doesn't seem to be active anymore, so we could just change the title. There looks like there's a lot of crap in there aswell, so we'd have to give it a clean out. Nightw 05:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at AnomieBOT's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See this for why the bot malfunctioned. Courcelles 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Tongan general election, 2010

--Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about leadership changes in micro-states on WP:ITNC

As mentioned in the discussion thread for the Tonga article I'm sorry for continuing to beat a dead horse over the inclusion of micro-states. I was attempting to compare the Tonga event to the one in India above, but I didn't go about it in the best possible way. In future I'll raise any issues relating to this on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

New Cal

I know it is a department - I'm really not sure if it is an overseas department. I know it is not part of the EU with other parts of France like French Guiana is, but it does elect deputies directly to the lower house and is considered an integral part of France rather than a territory. I'll look into this more. Outback the koala (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't think it's an integral part, especially considering it is set for an independence referendum. BBC calls it an overseas territory... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm good links. The Territorial collectivity page really helped me understand the situation better. Outback the koala (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, should we move this discussion to the actual page? Nightw 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll see you on the talk. Outback the koala (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:New_Caledonia#Situation_of_NC_within_France Outback the koala (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Palestine and the Asian Group of UN

No original research was made, because every part of the article is given a clear source! Here are five sources, from the most recent one, to the oldest one: 1. The Current official list of UN Regional Groups, as appearing at UN website. 2. UN-AIDS source of January 2010. 3. UN-HABITAT source of 2007. 4. UNCTAD source of 2002. 5. WHO source of May 2000.

Here are the detailed sources, from the most recent one, to the oldest one:

1. The current official list of UN Regional Groups, does not appear at WHO website, nor at UNCTAD website, nor at UN-HABITAT website, nor at UN-AIDS website, but rather appears at UN website, and it does not include Palestine nor PLO, as a member of any Regional Group. Whoever claims that Palestine belongs currently to the Asian Group of UN, makes an original research.

2. UN-AIDS (in The Governance Handbook, January 2010), pp. 28-29, clasiffies all countries according to their "United Nations Regional Groups", and neither Palestine nor PLO are mentioned in the Asian states, nor in any other Regional Group. Further, the notes at the bottom of p. 29, go as follows:

"The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to member states, the Holy See is non-member state, that has observer status in the UN. By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates".

3. UN-HABITAT (in UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settelments, 2007), pp. 329-330, clasiffies all countries according to their "United Nations Regional Groups", and neither Palestine nor PLO are mentioned in the Asian states, nor in any other Regional Group. Further, the very title "United Nations Regional Groups" (on p. 329), sends the reader to footnote no. 2, which goes (on p. 335) as follows:

"All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups...The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which has observer status in the United Nations. By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included, interalia, the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the right to vote or to put forward candidates".

4. The Palestine Liberation Organization was mentioned as a "member" of the Asian Group, in an UNCTAD document of 2002.

5. WHO (in a document of May 2000) is:

"Recalling further that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia".

The word "recalling" does not mean that Palestine is a member, but rather means that WHO recommended (in May 2000) that Palestine should be a member. Whoever claims that WHO claims that Palestine is a member, makes an original research.

Eliko (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding on Talk:United Nations Regional Groups. Nightw 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Night w,

Your response given on the talk page of the article: United Nations Regional Groups, contains two issues. The businesslike issue, about the relationship between Palestine and the Asian Group of UN, has received my response on that talk page, see ibid.

Here, I'll refer to the second issue, i.e. the personal comments:

• You've written: ”Eliko, you are engaging in an edit war”.

Who is engaging in an edit war? Me or you? I can't be engaging in an edit war, because my recent edit (of 30 December) you're referring to, hadn't repeated any previous version: On the contrary, the recent edit I'd made (on 30 December) - had improved all previous versions - according to your constructive comments, so you can't blame me of any edit war. However, you are heavily engaging in an edit war, because you keep repeating the same previous disputed version, without even trying to improve the article according to my constructive comments!

• You've written: ”Please desist”.

I didn't tell you: “please desist”, so please don't tell me: “please desist”.

• You've written: ”Please...present your arguments here on the talk page”.

I had presented my arguments on your talk page, but if you want them to be presented on the talk page of the article, then I really don't mind, but next time, you must avoid personal attacks (e.g. wordings like: “disruptive” edits, revert “vandalism”, etc., lest I use them later as a boomerang response), and also avoid any personal comments (e.g. please “desist”), to which I will never refer on the talk pages of articles, but rather on personal talk pages only. The talk page of the article is for businesslike discussions “to the point”, rather than for discussions “to the person”.

• You've written: ”Further attempts at disruptive editing will be noted at the WP:ANI”.

Your comment is a severe personal comment/attack, which both of us should avoid. Have I ever said anything similar to: “Further attempts at disruptive editing will be noted at the WP:ANI”? Have I ever said anything similar to: “revert vandalism” (See your edit summary on Template:Palestine foreign relations on 30 December at 01:35)? No, because I didn't want to be engaging in a war of threats or of personal attacks, although I could do that - in a very painful way (as I have already done to some editors, who tried to test me by personal comments on talk pages of articles, but were eventually forced to leave Wikipedia). I recommend to discuss our issue friendly, by assuming good faith, as I've been trying do do so far (that's why I didn't delete the whole section about Palestine's “membership” - from the article United Nations Regional Groups, although I dispute this section). If you think I'm wrong, try to explain your position by businesslike arguments to the point, and I promise to listen to you, just as I hope you listen to me: You may convince me, or I'll convince you, or both of us will get convinced by each other, and this can be achieved by assuming good faith only. Anyways, if neither of us gets convinced, then there are other legitimate ways to resolve the dispute, i.e. by referring to the Mediation Cabal, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Now, let's perform an experiment, by ending my response in a friendly way:

Have a nice day, Night w; All the best, good luck, take care.

Eliko (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Night w,

Unfortunately, your new response given on the talk page of the article: United Nations Regional Groups, contains again personal attacks. Your other comments, have received my response on that talk page, see ibid.

Here, I'll refer to the personal comments:

• You've written: ”Please desist”.

I didn't tell you: “please desist”, so please don't tell me: “please desist”.

• You've written: ”stop pretending that you're not being deliberately disruptive”.

This is a severe personal attack. Had I ever told you anything similar to : “stop pretending that you're not being deliberately disruptive”? I think that the whole section about Palestine's “membership” is disruptive, but I hadn't delete the whole section, but rather had tried to improve it by adding other sources. I also explained why my sources are relevant, as you can realize by deeply reading my previous response (00:26, December 5) on the talk page of the article, but unfortunately you ignored all of the arguments I presented in my previous response (00:26, December 5), and you didn't even try to refer to them, nor did you try to improve the article according to my constructive comments, but rather you reverted to a version which was not stable at all, and was changed ten hours after it was presented. In such a case, where you just claim that I'm “being deliberately disruptive”, but without your trying to refer to the arguments I presented in my previous response (00:26, December 5) on the talk page of the article, you shouldn't revert anything, unless you have already referred to the arguments I presented in my previous response (00:26, December 5) on the talk page of the article. Furthermore, even if you agree to refer to those arguments I presented in my previous response (00:26, December 5) on the talk page of the article, you still won't be allowed to delete just the sources you consider to be “disruptive” – without deleting the whole section, because I consider it to be disruptive as well; You'll only be allowed to revert to the most accepted version, i.e. to the most stable version, i.e. the version of November 19 - presented four days before Alinor added the section about Palestine.

As for your other new comments, see the talk page of the article.

Eliko (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've become offended by anything I've said, I don't mean to seem disaffected, but that's your problem. If you've perceived me to be unfair in anyway, you're free to bring my name up on the WP:AN. Nightw 09:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to do business with an editor, who not only edits against the majority (i.e. against Alinor's version, which is identical to my last version reverted by you), but who also viloates the 3 revert rule. Eliko (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, bye. Have a lovely evening! Nightw 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I want to get help by you in some problem.An article name Punjab International Public School has some deletion tags on it give some suggestions to solve that problems.I will be thankful to you.RAFHAN SHAUKAT (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I am saying thank you for this help.--RAFHAN SHAUKAT (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Help Improvement

Can you tell me that how can I be a good Wikipedian?
How can I improve my Rank in the world of Wikipedians?
and
When I will be able to check articles created by other Wikipedians? Please give me some tips and help me I hope you will.....--RAFHAN SHAUKAT (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "comment" on the ITN recurring items talk page

Your dismissive mocking of a reasonable suggestion on the ITN recurring items talk page is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. An apology to the user is in order, and please refrain from such comments in the future. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---