User talk:Night w: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:39, 24 September 2011

This is Night w's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

It is now 16:34 on Tuesday, 28 May 2024. English Wikipedia currently has 6,828,491 articles.

User:Japinderum

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 Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Nightw 14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Nightw 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 06:36, 24 September 2011 edit Jurisdr1975 (talk \| contribs) 77 edits →‎List of states with limited recognition: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:39, 24 September 2011 edit undo Jurisdr1975 (talk \| contribs) 77 edits →‎List of states with limited recognition Next edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	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. --[[User:Jurisdr1975\|Jurisdr1975]] ([[User talk:Jurisdr1975\|talk]]) 06:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)		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. --[[User:Jurisdr1975\|Jurisdr1975]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jurisdr1975\|Jurisdr1975]] ([[User talk:Jurisdr1975\|talk]]) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)