User talk:Night w
| This is Night w's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
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)
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. Nightw 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)
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. Nightw 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 [1]. 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 [www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf],
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] 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)