User talk:Night w/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

AD/CE

Is there a reason you changed AD to CE in Palestine? I'm sure theres a MOS rule somewhere about this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Going through my contributions page again huh? WP:ERA would be the policy. It's simply a matter of preference. I prefer secular era style, unless it's a Christian topic of course. Nightw 12:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible accusation! Hmmm, not sure it should've been changed, Palestine seems very ADBCy, but no matter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on one's religious affiliation? Palestine is Muslim, isn't it? Nightw 12:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I know it's Muslim! Palestine is interesting though as it is considered a holy area by all three monotheistic religions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for Southern Sudanese independence referendum, 2011

since you added it to FE Modest Genius ^talk 22:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for image

Hey Night, I can certainly make a cropped image of Somalia + Somaliland for you. However, wouldn't it be against policy to upload a photo of a copyrighted map? Maybe it could qualify under WP:FAIRUSE? (I don't know much about wikipedia's image upload policies). TDL (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and point 4 of Wikipedia:NFC#UUI seems to apply to our situation:

Unacceptable use

...

4. A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.

So, provided you indend to discuss the "controversial" aspect of the image in the article it should qualify under fair use. However, fair use images are forbidden from commons (Commons:Commons:Fair_use) so I'd have to upload it to the local wiki. TDL (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was under the impression that any photograph taken of anything could be uploaded into the public domain by the author as his/her "own work". I guess that is not the case. If you can still upload it to Wikipedia, that'd be very helpful. I do intend to use it as an example of the differences in definition of "East Africa", and why Somaliland may or may not be included. So much legal crap. Thanks for doing this! Nightw 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this: [1]. The lamination on the map makes it pretty tough to get a good photo of the map without glare. Especially since I'm just using an old point-and-shoot. The Horn of Africa region looks pretty good, but in the south it gets pretty fuzzy. If you prefer, I could just crop out the HoA, but if you're going to use it in the East Africa article it would be nice to have the whole region. TDL (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need the surrounding areas, which is where the glare is. The only areas that we really need are the countries in dark green on this map. It's not a big deal, (all I really want is Somalia), but yeah I'd agree that it's probably more relevant if we have the whole region. Nightw 10:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up, if you could do me another crop with just the Horn of Africa that'd be a big help as well. We've got similar POV issues on that article also. As long as it's not much trouble... Nightw 10:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I finally got around to uploading the images you asked for: Image:East Africa.png, Image:Horn of Africa.png. I'd suggest taking a look at the fair use rational I provided, and tweak them as needed to reflect how you use the files in the articles. If you use them on any article other than the ones I specified, you'll have to create a new fair use rational for each article. Also, it might be a good idea to add them to your watchlist, since the image police around here tend to delete first and ask questions later! TDL (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! It seems you're still getting some push-back on the issue. I may wade into the debate if I find the time. Real life is busy at the moment. TDL (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Drmbon

Thanks for you input at Naming_conventions. I've added your argument in Talk:Drmbon (just changed google.com.au to google.com) and would appreciate very much if you confirm it there. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Two maps - Palestine

Night w, I hid the map the 2nd time only so that you look at the edit comment where I invited you to finish our discussion about these maps: "night w, I hoped to bring you to the talk page, but you still haven't stated your opinion"

I have said there what I think, you say "we need to discuss it", but don't explain your opinion. Please, do it there. Alinor (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Template footnotes

Do you reckon we should go about getting those removed? Been awhile since that discussion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me clarify. I think that the footnote removal should be extended to the similar templates such as Template:Countries of Asia etc. I've taken the liberty of removing the footnotes from those as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Asia, North America, and Oceania now standardised style. Africa and South America have weird maps, probably should be removed. If you can help me figure out what the hell happened with Europe that'd be useful, because for the life of me I cannot format it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd actually forgotten about this. I've fixed up the Europe template. Thanks for doing the others! Nightw 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of maps, what do you think about adding the orthographic projection maps (example) into the templates? Just on the righthand side, instead of those other weird maps. Too much? Nightw 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including the maps so long as the templates are set to autohide. One remaining problem is the placing of integral territories somehow. Technically, France is in South America, but I wouldn't put France there, and you've done French Guiana. I actually based all the templates of Template:Countries of North America, which had France and the netherlands done as

France (Guadeloupe · Martinique)

As opposed to the one used in South America with

French Guiana (France)

I think going with the first one would be good, but not wikilinking the state (eg. France) so only the territories in that continent are wikilinked. Probably should also not wikilink the countries the dependencies belong to. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. Nightw 07:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Template:Africa topic is in the format the countries template probably should be at. Incidentally it's different to Template:African topic, as are the Europe and South America pairs...
How would the map thing you suggested be formatted in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this one. I'll take a crack at the African one shortly. I won't upload maps to the topic templates. Nightw 08:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Before I do the African one, do you have a preference as to whether we keep the regional divisions? Nightw 09:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to you I guess, I can think of arguments both ways. Slightly inconsistent, and maybe debatable, but it's a big place. Get rid of the maps at any rate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally got round to it. (Sorry) Nightw 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you took way too long! (Sarcasm) I've gone on a jaunt through other templates (reverted on Europe, as usual. Sigh). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you tried to remove some autonomies, but got reverted. Whether there was any special reason for these being included I'm not sure. I think most topics for these will be included in the national articles. There is prior consensus at WP:COUNTRIES regarding which entries to include in any list of countries, — which is to match the entries for ISO 3166-1, allowing for exception of course with disputed cases. So if anyone were to challenge the removal of, say, Gagauzia, you could invoke this convention. And I think it'd be a good idea to use that as a general rule, and if editors feel that there is a good reason for any additional item to be exempt, these can be examined case-by-case. Nightw 22:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I figure the EnglandScotlandWalesNI argument would be best finished before a different similar argument was started. Trying to figure out what to do with countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark, I feel they should be grouped with dependencies but it's a tricky constitutional status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That debate will never finish. I couldn't help you on the Netherlands issue ... I guess they're technically covered under the broader "other territories" terminology, as long as territory isn't linked. Nightw

AN/I

FYI...you're name has come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Geoscheme. Or more precisely, a discussion of anonymous "open supporters of Somaliland", which I presume is you, has come up. I REALLY don't want to get into it with this guy, since it seems like a lost cause. But I figured I'd give you the heads up so you can fight the good fight. TDL (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh geez... Thanks for the heads up mate! We could always use your imput though, even if it's just a quick statement. Nightw 04:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've already done that. Thanks, and yes, this particular guy can hold out for pages and pages of talk before he quits, so if you get over it I'll understand! Nightw 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Scoobycentric is back, just in time to make their first contribution in months a revert of Somaliland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Convenient. Nightw 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you explain your objections?

Please see Talk:State_of_Palestine#Night_w_edit_of_14Jan2011. Alinor (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

re:

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

Request for opinion

Hi, You have taken part in a move discussion of Heyvali. Now I would like to come up with a consensus, and would appreciate very much if you weigh con/pro arguments there. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of armed conflicts and attacks

as a common political editor, youre welcome and encourages to express your view on the page.(Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RM poll

Hi Night w, hope all is well. Sense prevailed and the article was moved back/protected to its last stable version. I dunno if custom has changed, but of old only a user seeking a new name is supposed to open an RM request. Our RM will need to be closed or, ignoring that, changed so as not to confused the closer and the 'voters'. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I just saw your message regarding my reinstating vandalism on State of Palestine and didn't realize that I had done such a thing. I haven't edited WP in a long while. This was either an accidental touch-pad slip or somebody else playing on my computer. My apologies. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Nightw 07:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition

Hello Night w,

I spent some time working on the footnotes for the "List of states with limited recognition" article. It may still need a bit of sprucing up for style purposes but all the raw URLs have been converted. Mtminchi08 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

back and forth editing

Night w, please use the Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority and Talk:State of Palestine - many of the sections on both places "wait" for your input.

On both articles you don't agree with some of my changes and I don't agree with some of your changes; if you insist you can revert to a version with NEITHER, not to a version with your changes that I don't agree. Such versions are for Foreign relations - [2] (see my 13:20, 10 February 2011 comment at the talk page there) and for SoP - [3] (Or some version before that - such that doesn't include neither your nor mine changes that the other side doesn't agree with).

Reverting to those versions will not be the best solution (as they have some imperfections that we both agree that should be corrected) - but we don't have another option if you continue to refuse to discuss at the talk pages. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your hand-picked "stable versions" are from weeks ago. Disagreements on style and content should not warrant reverting to outdated revisions in such time-sensitive topics. Protocol dictates that it be the last stable version. There was plenty of time (almost a week) for you to raise objections you had in either case. Discuss the changes you wish to make on the talk page. If you have an objection with the current version, raise it on the talk page. Nightw 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All subsequent versions are not "stable" - they are back and forth edits between you and me. Your changes that I don't agree with are these changes that are reverted in "my" versions (I adopt these of your changes that I agree with). And the talk page is full of discussions, I even listed most (maybe all) of the not-in-agreement changes one-by-one in some of my comments. Almost a week? You mean that the time I refrained from reverting your changes, because I was waiting for you to comment on the talk page on the numerous still open issues?

the last stable versions are these that I list - I object to your subsequent edits (those of them that aren't adopted in the subsequent versions that I made) and you object to some (or all) of my subsequent edits.

Time sensitivity is irrelevant - the stable version can (and will, if we don't reach consensus) be restored - and time sensitive changes can be implemented over the last stable version without the unrelated your and mine edits. For example - Suriname news can be reflected without re-arranging the "bilateral relations" first two paragraphs and without your newly added Uruguay and OIC notes, etc. Alinor (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1RR

You violated 1RR on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority today.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement

Hello - I am an uninvolved user in the whole Israeli-Palestine editing conflict, but saw your 1RR violation and have made note of it here at the requests for arbitration enforcement page. Just letting you know! Thanks, Arctic Night 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. Nightw 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@User:Arctic Night: I recommend that you take back your appeal. User:Nightw should be forgiven, due to the following 3 reasons:

1. User:Nightw didn't do that on purpose, and was not aware of the 1RR, as they have declared.
2. The edit page of the article being discussed, does not warn editors not aware of the 1RR - which is not a universal rule - i.e. not applied in most of the articles on Wikipedia. Notice that the edit page of other articles (e.g. State of Palestine) in which the 1RR is applied, does warn any editor opening the edit page.
3. The very fact that User:Nightw has never violated a very similar rule, namely the 3RR (which is better-known due to its universality - i.e its applicability in all articles of Wikipedia), proves that User:Nightw does wish to observe Wikipedia rules, including rules relating to legal reverts.

@User:Nightw: Since I'm heavily involved, I wouldn't like to respond on the page where your case is being discussed, however you're allowed to take my recommendation and to point it out on that page, by linking to your talk page (I couldn't notify User:Arctic Night on their talk page, because their talk page is apparently "unavailable", or something, as of 11 of February, 11:45, when I was trying to notify them). Let's hope that the 1RR is not violated again. Good luck.

Eliko (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. As I recommended above, your case was closed with no action against you. The closing admin hopes you "may be willing to compromise", and keeps Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority "on their watch list to be sure the problem does not recur". Let's hope that the 1RR is not violated again, and that no sources nor quotations - supported by the majority - are unilaterally deleted without having tried to compromise. Notice that a compromise can be reached by a lot of ways, none of which is a unilateral deletion of sources/quotations supported by the majority. Good luck. Eliko (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, discussion on the OR noticeboard is yet to achieve a consensus for these edits. I will be reverting your repeated addition of this information once protection expires. Nightw 05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any experiment made by any user - to unilaterally delete sources/quotations supported by the majority - without that user having tried to apply the closing admin's request to "compromise" with the majority beforehand (see ibid.), will be treated by the admins - who are going to keep the article "on their watch list to be sure the problem does not recur" (see ibid.). Let's hope that the 1RR is not violated again, and that no sources nor quotations supported by the majority - are unilaterally deleted without having tried to apply the closing admin's request to "compromise" with the majority beforehand. Eliko (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FSM naming convention

Hello! Sorry, I've been without internet access for a few weeks. Would you recommend that I try and get the flagtemplate for "Micronesia" deleted? Where would I do this? Rennell435 (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great job

Congratulations on the Monarch list. That took a long time. On to the next project then, keep it up. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw it then! Cheers mate! Nightw 14:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I saw that your online and I know your interested in the I/P conflict, so could you please help me write the article for the resolution vetoing, I've started it here. Passionless -Talk 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think this needs a separate article, since the resolution never got through. All the ITN people are looking for is an update to an article with the right background information. Israeli settlement and Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations should be fine. Nightw 09:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see from your talk page that you've been bitten by AE. Bummer. I can do the update, and get it on ITN if there's a consensus for it, but I'm afraid I won't have time to help you with a separate article. Sorry! Nightw 09:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think they changed my punishment to only banned from a certain article for 3months and I can't revert so much. Anyways, I'm already pretty close to writing a start article, and to paste it in full into either article you suggested would look akward. I was hoping there was an article about US vetoing resolutions on Israel that I could have written a new section for, but it doesn't exist, so, I'll just continue writing for now. Thanks anyways, Passionless -Talk 09:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

UNGEGN

As I posted on the Sovereign state talkpage, links dead. I was wondering if you had the original version on your computer, and if so whether any states on the List of Sovereign states deviate from it, as reading back it seemed it was agreed some special cases could be argued, and I'm unsure if any were implemented. In addition, check the Belarus entry, it has "Bielarus' – Respublika Bielaruś", and I'm surprised that the markings on the s is different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is, if you're wondering, because I'm trying to source native names on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. I recently went through and sourced pretty much everything from scratch, just the native names of the countries (I mean states) and the capitals left to source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didn't see that. I've updated the url. Nightw 11:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you find these documents? I've been struggling to find a list of capitals with native names in English, but so far have only managed to find such a list in Polish and Turkish :/ Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know of any official documents, but the German version of Geonames has a pretty impressive database that might be able to help. It lists the capital cities in each of the country pages, plus the native form and its romanisation. Not very helpful if you need a single list though. Otherwise, you could just try googling through http://unstats.un.org Nightw 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just did them one by one from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ in the end. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR

The fact that you, Passionless and several other users work as a team does not exempt you from the 1RR rule, which you cited to me on my talk page. The fact that you can revert in turn and bypass the rule that you yourself value so much doesn't make your version better than mine. I explained my edits to the "Syrian Bride" article in details. You didn't even bother to read my explanations, let alone comment on them. The fact that your edits are aimed at erasing Israel's name etc. makes me think that it is not information that you try to share but political views disguised as information. I hope I am wrong. Am I? Sirwal (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked as a meatpuppet, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't respond. Nightw 11:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

NickCT (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add "statistics" section to List of states with limited recognition

It has been proposed that a "statistics" section is added to List of states with limited recognition. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Statistics RFC. Alinor (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why

Why oh why did I ever let you convince me to upload that damn map of Somaliland? It seems like I'm never going to live it down. TDL (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again? If you don't mind I'd like to take this to ANI. He'll likely just get a warning, but at least it might encourage him to stop. Nightw 05:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestine relations.png

Hello. I intend not change other parts of the map, just wanted to add to Uruguay. Honestly I have little idea of ​​how to edit maps, so I apologize if I modified some. Regards. MauriManya (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I, but the author of the map has made controversial changes to them that you keep reinstating by simply reverting. I've contacted another editor to remake the edit manually. Nightw 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. MauriManya (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Looks like there's no admins bold enough to take action right now. That's fine, but if you intend to start an RfC/U as recommended be sure to let me know. I'd be more than happy to support the complaint with diffs and a statement. If it proves unsuccessful in solving anything, it can be used as a basis for pursuing further action. Regards, Swarm ^X 22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately RfC/U takes a fair bit more work than I have time for at this moment in time. If it was a collaborative effort, however, I may be able to create a subpage as a draft, which would allow you and others to contribute whatever you think might be needed. I have a fair bit of history that I could drag up also, but I'm unsure how far back to go...? Nightw 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an empty template at User:Night w/Rfcuser. I'll work on it a bit later. I'm definitely committed to conducting an organised review of his behaviour. Nightw 03:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. It seems like his behavior has gone on for quite some time and will continue to do so, so there's no rush. I wasn't involved in the dispute so I can't certify it, but I'll definitely be able to evidence a history of the behavior with an "outside view" and diffs. I'll start putting it together it in my userspace; take your time by all means and let me know when it's prepared. Regards, Swarm ^X 04:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nightw 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly dig up some diffs if you go forward with this. I agree that a formal process would probably be helpful to shine a spotlight on the long term issues here. Depending on how narrowly you define the "dispute" I may or may not be able to "certify" it. TDL (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Premature archiving

See User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Archiving needs consensus, and Alinor has objected. Please restore the material you removed on 31 March from Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority until the other editors are OK with the archiving. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Manual archiving was required in this case, since he had left DoNotArchiveUntil tags on virtually every thread. It seemed like the thread had reached an end, but if there's more to come, he's free to revert any archiving I do. I've made the reverts though. Nightw 11:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the concern is about all discussions that you archived recently - both manually and trough removal of the 'do not archive' tags. Alinor (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Uruguay

Sorry for the delay, forgot about it, was going to ad it now but saw that it was already added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs! Thanks anyway. Nightw 10:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Thai floods

Hi. You said you are being affected by the floods. Are you in Thailand right now? If so, it would be helpful to find local news sources, and help improve the article by adding information there. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid my mere presence in southern Thailand won't make me much better equipped than anyone else, since I can't understand much Thai (only nít nòy). Foreign language newspapers here are few and far between. I can decipher Thai script, but it takes me about 5 minutes per word. Online media reports are where I go to get my news when I'm abroad anyway. I do apologise for not being any help, but my time is very limited on the web these days (I've only got electricity between 6pm and 6am). Nightw 11:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy as an informal mediator

Hello Night w. Please see my suggestion at User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Svg inset

Since you're now the lord of svg's and have the ability to create File:Azerbaijan (orthographic projection).svg, I was wondering if you could add a similar inset to File:Georgia (orthographic projection).svg from File:Europe Location Georgia uncontrolled highlighted.svg. If you could, that would be great, and hopefully the issue with rendering the green won't be there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe... as you can plainly see from my vain attempt, I'm definitely not the lord of svg's! I tried to use a plain png image for the inset, but it just looks fuzzy and the inset's scale is way too small (i.e., the image is of too wide of an area). I'll have another crack at it, then I'd say leave it to the experts. The Azerbaijani one I created was just a copy of Armenia's. Nightw 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see we cracked at it at the same time. How are you making yours? I'm opening the inset map and blanket deleting all nodes outside a specified area, before importing it to the world map. Takes ages. No wonder hardly any maps get made at the graphics lab. I thickened the lines on mine, hopefully allowing better viewing in the infobox. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version over yours as a test. The quality is sound this time, but you might prefer the thicker lines...? I just cropped the inset by drawing a square (F4, no fill) around the area I wanted, and then went Object → Clip → Set. Then I cut the selection and pasted it into the other file. I don't know how to deal with nodes so I don't touch them. How come the inset doesn't appear in my version when viewing the file's web address? Nightw 10:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway that was really just to see if I could do it. Your earlier version with the thicker lines probably makes it easier to see. Nightw 10:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Try clearing your cache if you can't see it, I couldn't see the inset in yours until I cleared mine. I'll try create a balance between line thickness later, as well as making boxes match etc. Later. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Matched the boxes up. Nightw 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just got reverted to the original... And I deleted the file from my harddrive. Nightw 08:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought this would happen. Best for you not to get involved I suppose. I'll do what they suggest, and upload another file I guess, with a note in the description of that file. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cheers! Good luck. Nightw 08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Georgia (orthographic projection with inset).svg, and updated both the template of all those maps as well as adding it as an alternate map to the original map (and vice versa). I just noticed that part of the USA isn't coloured, but c'est la vie I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That was an effort. Nice work though! Nightw 09:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambig pages

Hi, I noticed you have recently created a series of similar pages such as Sport in Somalia, Religion in Somalia, etc., and tagged them as disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page is only used when there are distinct topics that could be referred to by the same title. Taking a broad title and dividing it up into narrower topics is not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with creating a list of subtopics that are part of a broader topic, but that list is not a disambiguation page. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So they're lists then? I see, sorry for the hassle. I created the pages mostly for navbox links. Nightw 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadful??

You said in your edit summary "...dreadful debate we had on the african topic template". Hardly! The fun never stopped on that template talk. I am still dealing with this btw on completely retarded and unrelated pages now; see [4] for example. Outback the koala (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh! Thanks for this. Just so you know, I'm slowly drafting an rfcuser in order to draw attention to his general editing style and behavioural issues. If you have any diffs you'd like to contribute, you're more than welcome. If you'd rather stay away, I don't blame you. Nightw 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be painful for sure, but I would like to participate even if it is in a more passive manner - I do want to keep it at an armslength. Outback the koala (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN: Palestinian National Authority

-- tariqabjotu 04:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

mediation case

Hello, Night w. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of Sovereign States

If you didn't know already, I have complete good faith in your actions, so I hope this is taken as just a friendly and neutral observation. What I have been taking from the conversation in the mediation (and what I assume others have been taking) is that there is a consensus, however rough, for the general idea of 3i2. You (and I suppose Alinor) seem at least to me to disagree not only to the general idea of 3i2, but also disagree that there is a rough consensus. Now if the numerical majority see consensus, and they see that the same users who oppose what they see as consensus disagree there is consensus, they will most likely assume that the users oppose consensus because it opposes their viewpoints. Thus you come off as simply stubborn and unwilling to make a compromise.

However, as I have read on Ludwigs talkpage, this is not true, and you have compromised. The problem I think is that it just doesn't seem that way. Now Alinor has clearly and multiple times expressed his misgivings about 3i2, but although you say you've stated your misgivings I personally haven't really picked up on the specifics. Moving forward, I would suggest that you take 3i2 as a baseline and then concisely bullet point your objections, the reasons for, and the solution you prefer. Hopefully then we will know what they are, and will be able to systematically deal with them.

Now this is all just my personal impression, and I could be way off. In summary you seem to be simply disagreeing. Hopefully if we start fresh, from a new baseline, we can move further again. Of course, you should not do this if you're still enjoying Myanmar (or Burma, as wikipedia tells me it is called). Yours, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BRICS

I write to you because of your administrative close here in mid-April. Please consider closing a poll on the same talk page -- see Talk:BRICS#Poll: Use of {{flagicon}} in tables. Consensus opinion rejecting the use of flagicoms in the infobox and in tables on this page seems plain; and the reasons which inform this decision are clearly expressed.

Hopefully, the results of this poll will help avert further disputes about this very narrow topic in the context of BRICS. --Tenmei (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Map

Hello, because of a new map format in wikipedia, the maps of countries should display territories that it does not have control over. (look at Georgia, Serbia, and Moldova for examples). This same change should be made to Azerbaijan, and I was wondering if you could revise the map of Azerbaijan you made to include the Karabakh region (in light green preferably). Thanks. MosMusy (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my internet access is patchy at the moment. Might be able to get it done in the next few days. Otherwise, contact Chip; he knows what he's doing better than I do. Night w2 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Federated state (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federated state (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federated state (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rennell435 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

China names in Tai peoples

Hi Night w, I noticed that you've reverted my edits in Tai peoples in accordance with WP:NC-TW. I really don't understand what went wrong since my edits in that article had nothing to do with Republic of China or Taiwan. You've modified virtually every [[People's Republic of China|China]] to either [[China]] or [[People's Republic of China]] in that article. [[China]] is an article focusing on the Chinese culture. When talking about regions with significant Tai populations what we should list is [[People's Republic of China|China]], not [[China]]. Because they are meant to be the current political entities not the general Chinese culture. Also, it is not always reasonable to replace [[People's Republic of China|China]] with [[People's Republic of China]]. For example, we can say China Basketball Association, we can also call the same organisation the Basketball Association of the People's Republic of China but not People's Republic of China Basketball Association. I think I've already explained quite clearly in my talk page about issues relating to China names. 2sc945 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This subject has nothing to do with Taiwan. But when you're writing about something in China, in order to keep objectivity, it is necessary to leave it to the reader to decide whether "China" = People's Republic of China or Republic of China. Using simply "China" in a geographical sense is fine, but anytime you link that word to People's Republic of China you are, in fact, deciding for the reader what "China" is. Night w2 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reframing proposals - Palestine/ international policy etc

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

Edit Warring

Since you have violated WP:3RR at List of sovereign states in the face of a clear, stated consensus against you, I am reporting you for edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for it mate. I can count just fine. Nightw 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[5]. --Taivo (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want to go down this road Night? While I obviously disagree with you on this issue, you've clearly made many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I'd suggest seriously considering Ludwig's personal advice. It would be a shame if you found yourself with editing restrictions over this. Everyone has been on the wrong end of a consensus, and it never feels good. But continuing to push your point when the consensus has clearly gone the other way is only going to end badly for you. TDL (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. And why on earth would I stop? I enjoy the debates. Nightw 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TBack

Bard गीता 00:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo

The atmosphere on the List of Sovereign States talkpage is becoming a bit too polarised and poisoned for my liking, so I hope you don't mind if I post here. It was a good idea to get a clarification from Ludwigs, which I'd be happy to do if you feel yourself doing it would be too pointy. Anyway, considering I've worked on the List of European countries division, and you're using it to show a greater consensus, I thought I'd chuck ideas around here. During mediation, other users stated that they would be happy to create a fourth section, separating Vatican City from Kosovo, if that would be acceptable. Although Kosovo is a young upstart disputed state, it has somehow managed to quickly surpass the older states in terms of international participation and recognition. There is a difference, and that is why I was fine with moving it to a third section if the single list was implemented. Otherwise we need a new way to sort the lists, because currently they are organised by international participation. Simplest would be 1) UN members, 2) Non-UN members in the international system with no sovereignty disputes, 3) Non-UN members in the international system with sovereignty disputes, 4) Those outside the system. I can however foresee Taiwan (I mean, Chinese,Taipei) possibly getting awkward now or in the future though. Perhaps it should move up with Kosovo. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A variation of this may be acceptable, but I can only speak for myself. I don't know if the others will accept it. Ladril (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple section divider between Vatican City and Kosovo would suffice, I should think, and be acceptable to me. --Taivo (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A sectional divider between Vatican and Kosovo in the 3i2-criteria-column is required for this column to have consistency between its sections and its cell content results. But this doesn't solve the problem of separating Kosovo from Taiwan and Palestine.

Chipmunkdavis, the problem with this is that the 3i2 supporters try to cramp everything in a single column and to synthesize a 'universal criteria' - they make a mix of UN membership, UN observership, and partially of Vienna (without admitting/mentioning Vienna and without explaining why Vienna organizations membership is utilized). This is unnecessary with the 'single sortable list' table format - we can have separate columns for UN membership, Vienna membership and other criteria - there is no need to try (unsuccessfully) to mix all of these into a single one. Alinor (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Chip. This sounds like a good idea. Let's see what kind of an opinion the RfC draws (on whether Kosovo presents an issue), and then we can discuss ideas about how best to resolve it after that. Nightw 04:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably we are all still letting fresh users discuss on the RfC, but from what I gather Noleander's division between UN members and countries with UN designations and others would be quite suitable. I assume that'd result in the UN members and Vatican City (declared an Observer) in the first section, and the rest in the second. Palestine seems like a potential issue in that situation, but I'm sure a rationale about it could be reached. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Noleander's proposal is to just have members in the first section, as this puts Vatican in the bottom. I think most participants, as well as myself, appear to prefer simplification in the form of fewer sections. Perhaps your solution above, but merging sections 1 into 2 and 3 into 4 would satisfy this. I'm foreseeing problems with Palestine for different reasons... There's no point in speculating about it now, but if they get a resolution from the UN recognising their state in September, I'm wondering what we do with that. [6][7] Nightw 16:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)